China and Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council draft resolution on Syria on Feb. 4. At present, Syria is not only the eye of the storm in the Middle East, but also a focus of interest for great powers that seek to set the template for resolving the crisis of a sovereign state.
Arab League increasingly tough on Syria
The Arab League is becoming increasingly tough on Syria. On Feb. 4, the Arab Parliament, a committee of parliamentarians from Arab League states, called on Arab countries to expel Syria’s ambassadors over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s continued crackdown on protests despite growing international pressure.
On the same day, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency denied Western accusations that Syrian security forces had bombarded the country’s third largest city, Homs, and caused heavy casualties. The news agency cited a government official as saying that this was a “sinister bid” of armed terrorist groups and the opposition Syrian National Council to “negatively affect the ongoing UN Security Council discussions about Syria.”
The United States insists that Assad must step down
The United States has recently made its stance even clearer that Assad must step down. In fact, it had been persuading and pressuring other countries to vote in favor of the draft resolution before the Security Council vote.
Hillary Clinton went to the headquarters of the United Nations in New York personally in the end of January and insisted that the only peaceful solution for the Syria Crisis should be President Bashar al-Assad’s quit. She said that Syria is not Libya and the plan proposed by the League of Arab States has showed the road for the political transition of Syria. She expressed that she knows some member countries are worrying about that the UN Security Council may treat Syria as Libya, but it is a wrong comparison, and Syria’s special condition needs a special solution.
Game playing between super powers is intensifying and the confrontation between the United States and Russia has formed
Before the Middle East turbulence starting at the end of 2010, internal contradictions of the Middle East and the fierce game playing of the region between super powers were covered by the Middle East Peace Process. But, as old political powers of the Middle East and North Africa were falling down, the national, religious and cultural conflicts have all surfaced once again. When the Middle East turbulence pushed by external forces has targeted Syria and Iran, the game playing between super powers has also intensified.
For the United States, the “democratic trend” of the Middle East, of which it has gradually obtained the dominant status, has reached the most critical moment. The political powers falling down in 2011 were all its allies in the past, but countries like Syria and Iran, which the United States hates very much, benefited from the chaos.
Therefore, now it is the time to divert the “trend” to these two countries. In the United States’ opinion, the two cities of the Damascus and Teheran are the last fortresses of the Middle East that confront it. The United States has formed the “strictest alliance” to punish the two countries, and Iran is even facing a “possible military strike” from Israel.
Syria and Iran are Russia’s few allies in the Middle East. Russia positioned its only military base outside the Commonwealth of Independent States at Tartous Port in Syria. At present, Russia has to show a hardball against the West since its influence in the Middle East may encounter the worst crowing out. What’s more, Syria and Iran are Russia’s major trading partners, especially in field of arms trade.
As it were, the turmoil in the Middle East can be referred a game by and between big powers around the principles to answer internal crisis of a sovereign nation. Nowadays, “humanitarian crisis” has become another excuse for the United States and Europe and other Western countries to intervene in other sovereign countries’ internal affairs.
According to China and Russia, it is a question of principle with regard to the way of dealing with future international relations, and it will only lead to a more chaotic situation and result in more “humanitarian disasters” if any power attempts to have a regime changed through strong external intervention.
