Opinion Veto power

India voted with the majority for the resolution,which called for dialogue and political transition in Syria. The double veto by China and Russia defeated the resolution. As an editorial in China’s Global Times newspaper put it this week,abstention is no longer the default option for Beijing in the UNSC. “China needs to speak out. Hiding its true thinking does not help avoid trouble. The veto may have its consequences,but the Chinese people are willing to face it together,” the editorial declared.

Since joining the United Nations in 1971,China has used veto only eight times. The first time it used the veto had something to do with the subcontinent. It was to block the admission of Bangladesh into the United Nations after its liberation from Pakistan.

Since then,China has been quite reluctant to use the veto except on issues of direct concern to it. Since the end of the Cold War,as the West repeatedly sought to use the United Nations to legitimise its actions around the world,Beijing preferred to step aside rather than confront.

The Chinese veto marks a more assertive policy in the Middle East. Global Times took some pains to make it clear that Beijing was not simply tailing Moscow,but had its own logic in exercising the veto. “It does not hint at a possible China-Russia alliance. Both China and Russia have their own interests and dignity. If the West is not willing to see the two move closer,it should not force their hand,” the Times said.

‘Neutered’ UNSC

Susan Rice,the US permanent representative to the UNSC,called the Russian-Chinese double veto “disgusting”. She might want to get used to it.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was more accurate in pronouncing that the UNSC is now “neutered”. For more than two decades since the end of the Cold War,Washington has had a free hand in the UNSC. Russia was down for long and was in no mood to resist the US even when it disagreed. China was rising,but did not want to get into the fray. Its focus was on protecting its own interests rather than challenging the West.

At the UNSC,Moscow and Beijing bargained hard on the specifics of the issue involved,but eventually let the West do what it wanted in the Middle East.

The weekend’s double veto changes all that. With both Moscow and Beijing ready to say no,the UNSC could be heading to the old stalemate of the Cold War,when US-Soviet disagreements made it dysfunctional.

The widespread current belief that multilateralism has come to define international politics was based on a simple reality — there was no real conflict between the great powers. That illusion of collective security was shattered by Moscow and Beijing. Without great power cooperation,the UNSC can’t do much. That does not mean the world will come to an end. What it does mean is that the real action will be outside the UN.

Mid-east balance

Whatever the formal logic of China’s veto,Beijing would have a done a clear cost-benefit calculus. In opposing a resolution sponsored by the Gulf Cooperation Council and other Arab states,China is perhaps betting that the Arab displeasure can be managed.

If India’s support to the UNSC resolution was a tilt towards the Gulf Arabs,China’s veto is a definitive boost to Iran,which has been one of the staunchest allies of the Assad regime. As Iran hailed the double veto,Saudi Arabia is holding its tongue,at least for now. In a statement on Monday,King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said the international community should “not stop their genuine efforts to find a solution to this crisis” but did not single out China or Russia for their veto of the Arab plan at the UN Security Council.”

Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was in Saudi Arabia last month trying to deepen ties with Riyadh. China’s stakes with the Gulf Arabs are quite high and the next few weeks will show how Beijing might try and square the circle.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research,Delhi