This may or may not be ominous, but in Saudi Arabia there were some isolated riots in the oil-rich coast city of Qatif, according to Al Jazeera. Details are limited. The Saudis are blaming the riots on foreign instigators; it is likely that they have Iran in mind. The article I’ve linked is frustrating in that it is ambiguous, seemingly hinting that we may be dealing with a powder keg, and equally likely that we are dealing with nothing. Certainly, among all of the states in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the most likely candidate for the United States to aggressively support the government in quelling protests that cause instability and order.
Al Jazeera is also reporting on the Chinese and Russian veto of a UN resolution that sought to condemn Syria and create minor actions against the Assad regime.
“The United States is outraged that this council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security,” Susan Rice, the US ambassador, said, condemning countries that “would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime”.
For months, Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa – the BRICS countries – have criticised the US and European council members for allegedly allowing NATO to overstep its Security Council mandate to protect civilians in Libya.
Personally, I’m inclined to agree with the position taken by China and Russia on this one. The likelihood of this resolution peacefully resolving conflict in Syria while still allowing the Assad regime to keep power is low. Rather, its intention is to lay groundwork for eventual regime change. I suppose that in my own view I am hypocritical, as I would like to see regime change in Syria, but do not believe the West should be the catalyst. Yet without the West as catalyst, Assad’s regime would have to be incredibly inept to not eliminate the present challenge to its regime. If we intend on interfering with Syrian sovereignty to the degree of achieving regime change, there had better be an explanation of how such action is a national security imperative than what was offered regarding Libya. Do you all agree? Consider also Ambassador Rice’s point, that the veto prevents the international community from preventing human rights violations in Syria. Do you believe that a UN resolution could have been the critical factor in stopping human rights violations as Syria carries out a campaign to quiet activists?
Filed under: Daily Updates | Tagged: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria | 2 Comments »