Syrians caught in web of diplomacy

IF you are like most people you are wondering why there has been so little international intervention in Syria, especially when compared with Libya. If you are paying close attention to the Arab world, you will be asking why, of all the international groups, has the Arab League been the only one to carry the baton of human rights when it comes to Syria.

The answer is because that's the way things get done - or in many cases things do not get done - in the land of world affairs and diplomacy.

The one international organisation with the most teeth and the most power to make an impact is the UN Security Council. It is through the Security Council that international action was taken against Libya. Without the Security Council's seal of approval there is virtually no way to aggressively unite the powers of the world to take action.

The fact that the Arab League first censured Syria, then expelled it from their member nations and then sent monitors to Syria is a precedent-setting occurrence. Never in the history of the Arab League have they ever taken action against a member state by doing anything harsher than issuing proclamations. Ironically now, after the monitors toured the country, more people are being killed.

The Security Council was constructed so that it would provide the strength to intervene in international crises with strong member states supporting and paying the bulk of the cost for the actions that needed to be taken.

The Security Council is made up of 15 states - five permanent and 10 rotating members from various geographic groups.

In order for action to be taken, the requirement is more than nine votes in favour. But there is a major caveat. At any time one of the permanent members can veto a decision and the plan will be stopped in its tracks - as happened yesterday when Russia and China vetoed the West's resolution to condemn Syria for its crackdown on the protests.

The five permanent members of the Security Council are the wealthy US, China, Russia, Britain and France.

We, as Westerners, naturally look at the UN with a Western point of view. We do not take the time or make the effort to try to understand the point of view of the Security Council's non-Western permanent members. If we did, we would understand that, just as a US or British or French veto protects Western interests, so too does a Chinese or Russian veto protect non-Western interests.

In order to succeed in taking any actions against Syria - or, rather, on behalf of the beleaguered, innocent, people of Syria - the West-leaning members of the Security Council must convince China and Russia of the efficacy of the plan and bring them on board. Easier said than done.

For years the US has used its veto in the Security Council to protect Israel. The US will continue to do so regardless of who the next president is. That is the nature of international affairs and everyone knows it: it's not a secret.

In that same way, China and Russia are deeply protective of Syria, Russia even more so than China. They are protective in a way that will not permit any international forces or sanction any international action against Syria.

This was not the case with Libya. When it came to Libya, China and Russia abstained in the Security Council vote on the no-fly zone over Libya. They have since said they regret that decision and that they should have vetoed the plan. That simply and emphatically explains why neither Russia nor China will ever come round to the Western way of seeing things when it comes to Syria.

Russia has invested major sums of money in infrastructure in Syria. The Russians have built a naval base in Tarsus that allows for the ability to operate from and observe the entire Middle East. That base alone costs more than $US3 billion ($2.8bn). It is Russia's eyes and ears in the Middle East, providing them with direct intelligence and no need to depend on the frailties inherent in human intelligence reports.

In addition, Russia just agreed to sell Syria 36 brand new YAK-130 fighter jets in exchange for about $US500 million. This deal is more significant than either the dollar amount or the impact on Syria's military capabilities. Its significance lies in the way in which it demonstrates, loudly and clearly, that Russia believes in the future of the Assad regime. And the Assad regime knows it.

To further prove the point, Russia decided to reposition its only aircraft carrier group and place it in Syria.

That's how the game of international diplomacy is played out. The big boys, the Security Council, are each protecting their own turf.

That leaves the Arab League to be the conscience of the Arab world and the voice of the people. I hope the irony of it all is not lost as world history is recorded.

Micah Halpern is a social and political commentator. His latest book is Thugs: How History's Most Notorious Despots Transformed the World through Terror, Tyranny, and Mass Murder