After months of aggressive debates over the Middle East, the U.N. Security Council is starting to calm down. Last week the council released a statement supporting Kofi Annan’s peace plan for Syria -- which calls for a U.N.-supervised cease-fire and an “inclusive Syrian-led political process” -- signaling the change of mood. The Western powers reached consensus with Russia and China on the text, toning down and cutting controversial passages, after Moscow called for daily cease-fires to let humanitarian aid reach suffering Syrians.
The contrast with the mood at the United Nations in February, when the Chinese and Russians vetoed a resolution effectively calling for a change of leadership in Damascus, is startling. American, Arab and European officials responded to that veto with vitriol. “To block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria,” declared U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Foreign policy experts were equally unimpressed by the February veto. Marc Lynch captured the mood, arguing that the vetoes signaled “the end of the U.N. option,” thereby damaging the institution. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $9 monthly or $59/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- World Citizen: In Qusair, Assad and Hezbollah Show Their Hand
- Strategic Horizons: Endgame Scenarios for the Syrian Conflict
- Global Insights: Syria Crisis Overshadows Broader Turkey-U.S. Tensions
- The Realist Prism: China the Likely Winner if U.S. Intervenes in Syria
- China-India Border Incident Highlights Uncertainties in Bilateral Relations