Today, Britain and France are tabling a Security Council resolution condemning the violence in Syria. While the French Foreign Minister has predicted in public that Russia will veto this draft, the British PM has claimed the moral high ground:
British Prime Minister David Cameron said the draft resolution before the Security Council focused on “condemning the repression and demanding accountability and humanitarian action”.
“If anyone votes against that resolution, or tries to veto it, that should be on their conscience,” he added.
There’s something inherently appealing about Cameron’s moral position. Having worked on power politics and human rights at the UN for some time, I suspect that the Franco-British drive will be thwarted. But, with the Syrian crisis escalating, it’s just possible that Russia and China could back down. Even if they don’t, highlighting their intransigence may boost the Western powers’ claim to be the Arabs’ best friends.
Nonetheless, I also worry about framing Security Council debates as matters of conscience. I have an article in the new edition of Pragati, an Indian policy review, arguing that this year’s UN debates over Libya were insufficiently realistic:
All the members of the Security Council, Western and non-Western alike, have had to face the reality that they did not have viable diplomatic strategies for the “long haul” in Libya. NATO’s members, including the United States, have looked increasingly nervous about sustaining the air campaign (let alone any sort of ground operation).
India and the other BRICS, meanwhile, have called repeatedly for a negotiated settlement in spite all evidence that Colonel Gaddafi is pathologically untrustworthy. There is nothing wrong with looking for a peaceful solution, and ultimately a pretty ugly deal may be required in Libya, but India and the other BRICS have not been able to point to mechanism for achieving this goal. South Africa did try to play an active part—President Jacob Zuma even went to Tripoli—but came up with a plan the rebels couldn’t accept.
There is something unreal about the postures of both sides in this debate. The United States, France and Britain unleashed the NATO air campaign insisting that it was not about regime change. Yet it was always clear that regime change was almost certainly the only way to end this war in a way that the West could accept. Conversely, the BRICS have been stout defenders of a diplomatic solution when it is clear that—without a significant change in the balance of forces—the conditions for a lasting deal do not exist.
Whatever one thinks about interventionism – in Libya or in general – pursuing non-viable options through the UN is not a good idea. It makes not only the Security Council but also the big powers look foolish. Whether your morals and political philosophy incline you towards interventionism or restraint, you should want your arguments to have basic strategic credibility. As I argued in a piece for World Politics Review earlier this year, a number of African countries have recently defied the Security Council by forcing it to withdraw peacekeepers. That’s hurt the Council. Let’s hope that Libya and Syria don’t exacerbate the damage too badly.
