Russian Involvement in Syria: Enforcing Its United Nations Security Council Veto.

“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.

The True Condition of Air Safety In The Decade 2011 - 2021

EI - ETJ. The MetroJet Airbus A321 - 200 Aircraft that crashed over the Sinai Desert while operating as Flight 7K9268. Picture Credit: Al Arabiya English.

All governments are essentially cut from the same cloth. If the governments of Egypt and Russia can help it, they will pass off the recent MetroJet plane crash in the Sinai Desert as having been caused by a technical fault rather than by an act of terrorism. Egypt's concern will be its image and tourism industry, while Russia will not want ISIS to claim to have the capability of striking back at Russia at a time and place of its choosing. 

The French, British, German and Emirati governments are not taking any chances and have announced a ban on their flag carriers flying over the Sinai. There is an element of the Russia vs the West in the announcement of this precaution, but that element is not relevant to the subject of this post: the true condition of the air safety environment in this decade.

ISIS has claimed to have downed Flight 7K9268 using surface to air missiles but, this is not credible as ISIS does not have the missile systems to strike at aircraft at cruising altitudes. The danger to aircraft landing and taking off from North Africa is, however, very real as 20 000 Man Portable Air Defence Systems  (MANPADS) were looted during NATO's toppling of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011. So, the full stock of the fallout from that NATO misadventure is yet to be taken.

What is credible, at this stage, is that a bomb may have been placed on the Sharm el-Sheikh to St Petersburg flight before take off. I worked on the airside for the airline for a considerable time and know for a fact that the one thing that protects passengers is not so much the security screening equipment, but the people who man those systems. If a greater section of the population is disaffected, as all those who supported the Muslim Brotherhood are, you install the best security equipment in vain as there are ways to bypass it. Further danger will come when non state actors get access to air  defence systems more sophisticated than MANPADS.

The true condition of air safety, therefore, is that it is unravelling. What has largely caused this to happen is United States military adventurism and disregard for the cornerstone of international order that is non-intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. United States actions have started, and will continue to create ungoverned spaces where non state actors will have missile systems capable of bringing down aircraft at previously unassailable heights. Of course, the transatlantic routes, the European airspaces and Asian airspaces will still be safe - for now.

The Most Potent Global Security Threat Of The Twenty First Century

The unthinkable is the logical conclusion of all the great powers' strategic manoeuvring. Picture Credit: Wonderful Engineering.  

The greatest global security threat of the 21st century is the United States of America's fear of losing its status as the world hegemony. From this fear precipitates actions - in the name of "strategic manoeuvring" - that have destabilized, to name only the latest places: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Ukraine represents exactly the kind of overreach, on the United States' part, that may result in the unthinkable.

This is the top tier of global security threats, all other threats should be viewed through this prism. It is also not necessarily that America is evil, Thucydides writing in the 5th Century already showed that all pre-eminent powers will behave this way. The only difference now is that a war fought to maintain such a hegemony will be the last war.