COMMENTARY | According to CNN, the United Nations Security Council has failed to pass a condemnation of the Syrian government's violent crackdown on protesters after Russia and China, two of the five permanent members of the Council, vetoed efforts at passing the official condemnation. The West is outraged, especially since Moscow's refusal to play ball is allegedly centered on its lucrative arms sales to Syria and its oppressive regime.
Of course, even if the resolution condemning Syria and its controversial leader Bashar al-Hassad had passed, what good would it do? Clearing the way for economic sanctions will do little to stop violence. Economic sanctions did little to curb the brutality of Saddam Hussein or stop the progression of Iran's nuclear ambitions. All they do is transfer economic hardship to the working citizens of the nation while the wealthy and powerful continue to get what they want through international black markets. Saddam Hussein sons continued to live large in Iraq even after a dozen years of post-Gulf War sanctions.
The United Nations, the successor organization to the defunct League of Nations, was created as a way to organize international diplomacy and pursuits of peace and justice. Created with honorable and noble ideals, it has quickly fallen to harsh reality and human nature. People don't want to play fair and they certainly hold grudges. Russia and China are exceptional foot-draggers on the U.N. Security Council, often refusing to go along with the United States, Britain, and France.
And it may be more than petty politics and longstanding grudges that keep powerful U.N. members from working together -- money is a tremendous influence. Russia, cash-strapped and likely still bitter over its loss of status since the crumbling of the Soviet Union, makes lots of money selling weapons and technology to loathsome regimes.
Unlike wealthier nations like the U.S. and Britain, it can hardly afford to choose its customers. China, similarly, in its drive to improve its economy and feed 1.3 billion people, can ill-afford to close lucrative doors with corrupt regimes. It may be unreasonable for the three U.N. Security Council members with the highest standards of living to expect the other two to turn away paying client states.
Does this need for cash, especially after a global recession, mean that diplomacy is dead? Is it unfair for the wealthy to stand on principle and expect the less-wealthy to do the same?
1 comment