No repeat of Libya

Saturday's double veto by Russia and China on the issue of issue of the condemnation of Syrian crackdown on the unrest is being debated fiercely across news-rooms and social networking sites. The  Western press, especially those with roots on both the sides of the Atlantic, have resorted to scathing attack and denouncement of the action. Even a cursory look at the conduct of these media organisations and think tanks on previous occasions reflects the hypocrisy and inherent malaise. But of course, that has been conveniently forgotten.

So what is the reason behind this double veto? Why has China and Russia, who so readily agreed to the Libyan censure, have stood steadfastly in the case of Syria? Let's take China first. Chinese officials, on the condition of anonymity, confirm that their coming on board on Libya has led to massive erosion of their goodwill in Africa and Latin America. There is a common belief in Chinese officialdom that the decision on Libya was a mistake and that they were hoodwinked. It now dawns upon them that Syria would go the same way if they come on board on this too.

There are other reasons as well. China understands that Syria is but a red-herring. The real target remains Iran. With Assad gone, it will be comparatively easier for the west to take out Iran and Hezbollah, to please Israel. And if it comes to that, China's economic and political interest will be harmed. Iran, as any security analyst worth his salt will tell you, will be far tougher a nut to crack than either Iraq or Taliban. Any sustained battle will mean severe loss in oil transportation through the Persian Gulf, something that China fears and hence won't approve.

The problem with Russia is manifold. Unlike China, Russia had reasonable doubt on the Libyan mission from the start itself. However, it was a grave political miscalculation on the part of President Medvedev to come on board for the action. Prime Minister Putin was very clear and categorical in his assessment of such action, but was technically not in a position to influence the decision beyond a point. Sadly, President Medvedev had other intentions too. He was willing to continue for the second term and wanted to present himself as liberal and a supporter of western designs as opposed to Putin. Naturally, Libya became victim of Medvedev's aspirations.

The scenario has changed now. Putin has an election to win. And he has no desire to play lamb to the West. Naturally, issues like national interest has taken priority. Syria has been an old ally of Russia and helps it in many ways, including offering it ports and harbours that Russia needs desperately. Also, any NATO adventure in Syria would mean that it will be at the doorsteps of Russia again. Russian cannot afford their presence so close on so many sides. That is why it does not want a repeat of Libya.

It would be interesting to see how both these countries stick to their grounds in coming months. There has been a clear involvement of armed-gangs and intelligence officers from some of Syria's neighbouring countries. The western media has been rather one-sided in their reporting. But that, considering the hypocrisy to which the Western media has resorted to, is rather not surprising. Take for example Saturday. The entire western press took the words of a dissident NGO as revelation when it said that the Syrian army killed 200 civilians in Homs. As the news unfolded, it is now obvious that casualty was close to 50, something that the NGO later had to admit. It is also clear that the majority of those who were killed were either defectors from the Syrian army or the army personnel themselves. Naturally, Russia and China have their intelligence apparatus in place to know this. Thus, the veto is not surprising.