“Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent temporary advantage” - Thucydides, The History Of The Peloponnesian War, 5th Century B.C.
 |
| Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of the Russian Federation at the United Nations Security Council. |
by Kudakwashe Kanhutu
The
Western mainstream media has been working hard to portray Russia’s involvement
in the Syria conflict, on the invitation of the legitimate government there, as
an act of misplaced geopolitical ambitions which has prolonged the conflict and
suffering. The Western media and government officials are peddling the idea
that Russia is on the wrong side of history and international law. I cannot say
much about who is on the right and wrong side of history, as that is a subjective
determination. In Libya, the intervention in 2011 was claimed by the same
sources to be on the right side of history – a
narrative which is belied by the facts of Libya today. We can, however, say something
definitive about Russia’s intervention in Syria vis-à-vis International Law.
The
closest the international society of states has to a Constitution (a repository
of public international law), is the United Nations Charter, and the highest
enforcement body of the United Nations is the Security Council (UNSC). Chapter
VII of the United Nations Charter is where the Security Council’s powers and
functions are described. The UNSC sits in deliberation over breaches of
international law and passes binding United Nations Security Council
Resolutions (UNSCR). Any one of the five Permanent Members can block the
passing of a Resolution by resorting to its Veto power. The Veto is a mechanism
which allows a Permanent Security Council to block the passing of a United
Nations Security Council Resolution. Once the Veto has been deployed, no
actions that undermine that Veto should be taken by the other Members of the
international community. A Permanent Security Council Member thus has three
options available to it when deliberating a Resolution: Vote for, Abstain, or
Veto. The United States tends to Veto all Resolutions demanding that Israel
should observe rules of common decency in its occupation of Palestine. Once the
United States vetoes a Resolution on Israel, the matter is closed.
I
have characterised Russia’s intervention in Syria as enforcing its United
Nations Security Council (UNSC) Veto. I am thus talking about something that is
only happening because, in pursuit of its perceived exceptionalism, the United
States and its allies have chosen to deliberately circumvent Russia’s Veto of
the UNSC Resolution on Syria. Syria, too, cannot be discussed in isolation from
Libya and the UNSC Vote authorising use of force there. The Russian Federation
abstained from the
UNSC Resolution establishing a No-Fly Zone over Libya, the United States
then overstepped the limits of the Resolution and effected Regime Change in
Libya. The result is that Libya is now in a
state of anarchy. Russia,
having given the United States the proverbial enough rope in Libya, rightly,
vetoed the Resolution
proposing protection of civilians in Syria. Experience had shown that
protection of civilians is only a cover for the United States’ geopolitical
manoeuvres. Having failed to get the Resolution, the United States decided to
still give arms to the rebels and terrorists fighting the Syrian Arab Army, in direct
contravention of the rules of Security Council Veto.
Russia’s
intervention in Syria should then be viewed in the light of these facts. Russia
and Iran are the only countries that are in Syria legally. Turkey, the United
States, United Kingdom, France and Jordan are in Syria illegally. Use of force
without a United Nations Security Council Resolution is illegal, as is being in
a country without the invitation of the legitimate government of that country.
Russia is in Syria on the request of the Syrian Arab Republic government, and
Russia’s actions have so far prevented regime change there, as would have been the case had the UNSC Resolution on Syria passed. The Veto, therefore, has been
enforced.
 |
| Alexander Prokhorenko, the Russian Spetsnaz Operative who called an airstrike on himself to avoid being taken prisoner by ISIS in Syria. |
No comments:
Post a Comment