When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.


Why Russia Won't Back Down On The Standoff In Syria

Analysis: Longstanding diplomatic and business ties with Damascus, and memories of the West's about-face on Libya are among the key reasons Russia won't give in on a UN resolution on Syria. But from Moscow, there's also Vladimir

Russian President Medvedev introducing Bashar al-Assad to Foreign Minister Lavrov in Damascus in May 2010 (www.kremlin.ru)
Russian President Medvedev introducing Bashar al-Assad to Foreign Minister Lavrov in Damascus in May 2010 (www.kremlin.ru)
Maksim Yusin

MOSCOW - Even before Morocco officially proposed a UN Security Council resolution condemning the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, it was clear that Russia, which has veto power in the Security Council, would stand in the way.

Moscow had already expressed its disagreement with language in the resolution that places the blame for recent violence squarely on al-Assad's shoulders, and calls for his removal from power. Moscow is also worried that if the resolution against Syria, a major Russian ally, is adopted by the Security Council, the West will see it as a green light for international forces to intervene, just as happened last year in Libya. Russia had compromised with the West on Libya by agreeing to abstain from the vote on Libya, but it was not happy about the NATO bombing that followed.

Things are likely to be different with Syria. The Kremlin is not about to give in to pressure from the West, particularly in light of upcoming presidential elections.

The West pulled out the heavy hitters for Tuesday's Security Council meeting. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and British Foreign Minister William Hague all converged in New York. The Arab League's General Secretary Nabil El-Araby represented the Arab point of view. But Moscow made its point clearly by not sending someone of the same level to take part in the discussions: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov continued his tour of Asia and Oceania uninterrupted, rather than veering off to New York.

"The Security Council must act so as to make it clear to the Syrian regime that the international community considers its acts a threat to peace and security," Clinton said the day before the proposal was officially introduced. Washington did not hide its annoyance that Clinton was not able to reach Lavrov and to discuss the upcoming vote with him.

According to State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, Clinton's "phone was ringing constantly," for discussions with colleagues from various different countries, but the Russian Foreign Secretary remained unreachable. "The Secretary, frankly, has been trying to get Foreign Minister Lavrov on the phone for about 24 hours," Nuland said, noting that Clinton had no trouble speaking with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, Lavrov was informed of Clinton's wish to speak with him, but the timing conflicted with his meetings with Australian officials. "Russian diplomats do not cancel previously scheduled meetings," Lavrov explained, adding that he was ready to speak with Secretary of State Clinton "at the slightest opportunity."

Regardless, the chances that the two diplomats can find common ground on the Syrian problem is essentially zero. From Australia, Lavrov commented on the Syrian opposition's refusal to negotiate with the al-Assad government, talks that Russia had offered to organize. "If the opposition refuses to sit at the same negotiating table with the regime, then what are the alternatives? To bomb them? We have already been there, and the Security Council will not ever give its blessing to a bombing campaign - I guarantee it."

Six reasons for "No"

Foreign politicians and diplomats are asking themselves why Russia agreed not to block the Libya resolution last year, but now is ready to go head-to-head with the West in defense of Bashar al-Assad. But experts reached in Russia gave Kommersant at least six concrete reasons why Russia is not likely to give in.

1. Syria is one of Russia's most important allies in the Arab world. If Moscow abandons Damascus in this critical moment, then the message it will be sending to allies around the world is that one cannot rely on the Kremlin.

2. Damascus is one of Moscow's most important trading partners, particularly in military technology. The military contracts that were signed in the past years were worth about $4 billion. In 2010 alone, Syria acquired about $700 million worth of Russian arms. Moscow recently approved the sale of 36 military planes to Damascus - for a sum of $550 million. The total Russian investment in the Syrian economy is around $20 million. One of the largest projects is a gas processing plant managed by a Russian company. Moscow is not convinced that the opposition in Syria would continue this partnership if it comes into power.

3. Russia's only military base located outside of the former Soviet Union is in the Syrian port city of Tartus. The opposition in Syria has given no indication of whether or not they would allow Moscow to keep the base if they are successful in overthrowing Assad.

4. Russia is wary of the uncompromising Syrian opposition. Its leaders are oriented towards the Persian Gulf monarchs, towards Turkey and towards the West, but not in the least towards Moscow. In addition, among Bashar al Assad's opponents, Islamists have a relatively strong position, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. If they come to power in Syria, which is home to a relatively large number of Christians and Shiites, there is a real risk that the country will be splintered based on religion.

5. The Russian leadership clearly doesn't believe the West's promises that the resolution on Syria is not a steps towards a military intervention. Moscow thinks that the U.S. and European Union are being sly, and Moscow has not forgotten the Libyan precedent: NATO bombing of Muammar Gaddafi's forces began just days after the UN Libya resolution was adopted in March.

6. As important as international relations are, Russian internal politics also plays a major role in this affair. A month before the presidential elections, Vladimir Putin does not want to appear weak to either voters or his opponents, either by giving in to the West's demands or by betraying a traditional ally. Russians are still distressed about Moscow's abstention from the vote on the Libya resolution, which facilitated Gaddafi's overthrown. And the Kremlin truly does not want Assad to follow in Gaddafi's footsteps... at least not before the elections on March 4.

Read the original article in Russian.

Photo - www.kremlin.ru

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


To Tackle Hunger, Brazil Needs To Tackle Racism First

The fight against hunger should be a top priority in Brazil — provided it's addressed as a whole. And to do that, the country needs to face its structural racism issues, an issue newly-reelected President Lula da Silva vowed to tackle.

Photo of a man carrying food packages as residents of a favela in Santa Cruz, Brazil, receive aid.

Residents of a favela in Santa Cruz, Brazil, receive food packages.

Jones Manoel and Tiago Paraíba

It’s 2023, and over half of Brazil’s population is impacted by a hunger crisis. That is the shocking news from the Brazilian Research Network on Sovereignty and Food and Nutritional Security (PENSSAN).

After making strides in the first part of the 21st century, by 2020, hunger in Brazil had returned to 2004 levels. But now the problem is even worse. According to PENSSAN, 125 million Brazilians, or 58% of the country, face food insecurity, defined in various stages of severity by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, with technical “hunger” being the most severe. The number of Brazilians facing hunger has jumped from 9% to 15%, a return to 1994 levels, which corresponds to 33 million Brazilians.

This stunning step backwards has occurred in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic is not solely to blame. An economic crisis, lack of agrarian reform, inflationary effects on the cost of food, and a systematic dismantling of public policy to assist poor families have combined to make a bad situation worse. In Brazil, already one of the most unequal countries in the world, that has meant that in the past two years an additional 14 million people have found themselves dealing with hunger on a daily basis.

In the 1940s, the doctor and anti-hunger activist Josué de Castro called Brazil “a country of the geography of hunger.” In Brazilian history — from the colonial period to the development of capitalism and the formation of the Republic — high prices, deprivation, a lack of access to basic rights, and hunger have been present in the daily lives of working people. Concentration of land-ownership and wealth in the hands of a few have marked Brazil’s history.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest