The US & the UN: Russia, China, & Syria Challenge the Concept of Unity

There may be revolution in the Middle East, but perhaps the largest shift in thinking is happening thousands of miles away, in New York City.

This shift of thinking, however, is not on Wall Street --- for all the passion and potential of the thousands protesting --- but inside the United Nations. This week, Russia and China vetoed the UN Security Council joint resolution condemning the violent crackdown against civilians in Syria. What happened next, with the outrage and frustration expressed by the US ambassador Susan Rice, might signal a fundamental challenge to the concept that the UN is founded on unity.

From the perspective of the US, and much of Western Europe, the proposed resolution was already a watered-down compromise which had lost its teeth. It was designed, however, to be a symbolic statement, complementing economic sanctions passed by the US, the European Union, and Turkey. The intelligence from Syria suggests that the middle class, or at least the upper middle class, is still on the fence about joining the protests, largely because of their vested economic interests in whatever happens next. The idea of sanctions is that if the merchant class, and the soldiers fighting for Assad, feel serious economic consequences from the ongoing conflict then they may make their decision to oppose or at least stand aside from the regime.

It's a strategy that can work. The overwhelming majority of oil exports from Syria are sold to Europe. Prices of many goods have swelled, as have the ranks of soldiers who are defecting. The ongoing military operations are running up the price tage for President Assad, and it's possible that the Syrian government will eventually have to stop paying the soldiers...which will have obvious consequences.

However, in other countries where sanctions have been imposed, almost without fail Russia aqnd China have been willing to continue business. Moscow and Beijing have both sold weapons and actively traded with Libya, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and others, undermining the pressure on these nations. In some of those instances, sanctioned economies can shift their trading partners so that they can endure.

The Obama administration, and many other members of the UN, have had enough. They believe that what is happening in Syria is potentially a serious blow against the organization Hezbollah, the confrontational government of Iran, and all those who would oppose free speech and democracy in the region and beyond. The fate of Arab Spring may rely on Syria (perhaps as it once did in Libya), and the Obama administration, at least rhetorically, has been championing the democratisation of the region since 2009.

But what is happening in the UN is larger that Syria. The US is recovering from ugly and costly wars, both of which it is still fighting, in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the President is pressured to cut the budget, the pressure to become isolationist is also growing, with Obama pushed to withdraw troops from the field and cut foreign aid. Libya proved that the US is increasingly demanding that the other nations in the world step up their own efforts, and several American military commanders and politicians have warned NATO that the other nations in the alliance have to contribute more money, troops, and leadership if the organisation is to survive.

But Europe is also feeling the heat. England has passed serious austerity measures, as has France which has also raised taxes, and the entire EU is worried about the debt crisis. As military options seem to be off the table for Syria, these nations need Russia and China to cooperate. They have not cooperated, and US ambassador Rice broke all diplomatic tact by saying why she thought that was: Russia and China would rather sell weapons to human rights abusers. The insinuation, also, is that those weapons may eventually be used against other UN members who eventually do step in to stop a crisis, just as they were in Libya.

The US and Europe are also facing down the barrel of serious threats in Pakistan and in Iran. The American frustration with Islamabad has never been greater, and US commanders have now turned to the domestic and international press to express their discontent, a trend which has been intensifying exponentially since the death of Osama bin Laden on 1 May. Iran has recently deployed Revolutionary Guard Crops soldiers to Syria in order to assist the Assad regime, they have recently developed new weapons, including new cruise missiles and new warships, and they have moved (or threatened to move) those weapons into the Persian Gulf.

Whether these threats are as dangerous as the media makes them out to be, the US and its partners are increasingly looking for allies against enemies, as well as groupings to address global problems, and at almost every turn they see Russia and China on the other side.

What is happening with the UN is a fundamental debate about the usefulness of this organisation. The original concept of unified global action to avert and respond to crises is threatened if nations with veto power consistently find themselves at opposite poles of debates. Many in the "West" are asking a simple question: if the UN was founded as a response to war and genocide in Europe and in Asia, what good is such an organisation if it does not confront mass murder of civilians in Syria?

More countries are asking this question. The answer may threaten the existence and nature of the UN itself.