Interests and principles: what next for Syria?

The Russian Foreign Minster has described as “hysterical” Western reaction to his country’s veto of the weekend Security Council Resolution on Syria. Is he right? Certainly, US Ambassador Susan Rice’s use of the word “disgusting” to describe the Russian position was unusually undiplomatic.

Western leaders are framing the issue in moral terms: Syrian attacks on civilians and opposition fighters in Homs and other cities are, to their way of thinking, plain wrong. That’s true, but Syria is complicated. Assad’s government is dictatorial, but has protected minorities such as Christians and his own Allawite sect. Many Syrians fear that change would not bring in a more democratic or less brutal regime.

That makes it much harder to figure out the moral imperative of what to do. Arm the rebels? That will inevitably lead to an escalation, and more bloodshed. It would also put weapons in the hands of a fractured and fractious group of oppositionists, some secular, some sectarian, some possibly jihadi. A no-fly zone, like the one imposed in Libya, would have a limited impact as most assaults are on the ground, not from the air.

What about a safe haven on the Turkish border? Not a bad idea, but hard to police – one attack from Syria and the Turkish military would be drawn into war with its neighbour. Is that a good idea? The moral position becomes complex when you analyse where it leads.

The Russian position is based on interests. Syria is its last significant ally in the Middle East. It buys Russian weapons and allows Russian navy personnel to use Tartus, a Cold war naval base. The Russians say broader principles are at work – they’re angry that Western powers stretched the meaning of the UN Security Council Resolution on Libya, which they never intended should lead to military intervention.

According to them, the UNSC should never take sides in a civil war, or call for the ouster of a government. (Interestingly, that didn’t stop them from calling for the ouster of President Mikheil Saakashvili, the democratically elected President of Georgia, back in 2008 when the two countries were at war. It was the Americans who said at that time such a call was “completely unacceptable” and “crossed the line”. Which goes to show how interests tend to trump principles on these occasions.)

The conflict has major regional implications: the basic tension in the region is between Sunni, Arab Saudi Arabia and Shi’a, Persian Iran. Syria is a pivot. Iran backs Assad, partly because he is from the Shi’a Allawite sect. Saudi Arabia supports the rebels, who are primarily Sunni. This is rapidly turning this into an old Cold War-style proxy war, with the West backing Saudi Arabia and Russia supporting Iran.

So where next? Western nations are talking of a “Friends of Syria” group, which could authorise action outside of the framework of the UN, much as NATO acted in Kosovo. The legal cover could be provided by the Arab League, which has moved against Assad, at the urging of Qatar and Saudi. Expect sanctions and further diplomatic isolation for Assad. But all military options run the risk of making the situation worse. No-one, it seems, is going to save the people of Syria, cowering in their houses from bombs and tank shells.