Voting while bullets fly

United Nations resolutions are starting to resemble a Keystone Kops routine.

The U.N. estimates more than 5,000 people have been killed in the protests against the Syrian government — yet Russia and China have blocked a resolution against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Almost everyone involved in the proceedings of the so-called “international community” bears some blame for the irresolute resolution and the haphazard non-response to the rising civilian death toll.

Russia and China are simply pursuing their own national interests. In light of the ever-changing balance of power and alliances in the Middle East, they would rather not risk alienating major regional powers.

This is true no matter how noble and justified the cause of the dissidents actually is.

Russia objected to this particular resolution because it assigned the blame for casualties solely to the Syrian government.

This is a laughably self-serving justification: Russia currently supplies arms to the Syrian government.

Both China and Russia have their own dissatisfied minority groups. And both governments have themselves resorted to violent repression and might do so again in the near future.

Governments faced with structural instability want the widest possible latitude to deal with dissent without international interference.

American wavering and inconsistency have long contributed to the confusion and double speak in the Middle East. Just two years ago, the State Department was interested in working with the al-Assad regime.

American foreign policy is cloaked in moralistic rhetoric but is actually determined by the shifting course of events.

Dictators who step down like Hosni Mubarak quickly lose the support of their alleged American allies. Dictators who crush their opposition and remain in power can be reasonably certain that most nations, and even the United States, will eventually normalize diplomatic relations.

This is the crux of the problem with the U.N. process. The whole U.N. project is based on the assumption that all nations can agree on certain ideals — but governments actually cast votes in the U.N. based on their political calculations.

These ineffectual votes absolve the member states from any further responsibility. After a resolution fails, every diplomat and politician can claim  he or she did their part and tried his or her very hardest to stop the bloodshed, even though no one actually did anything.

This is not to say that unilateral action is appropriate in the Syrian case or in foreign affairs generally. Every nation does have the right to formulate its own policy toward Syria.

There should be no surprise on the part of the U.S. if some nations are willing to tolerate a repressive Syrian regime. But purely national decisions are destroying whatever moral authority a U.N. resolution is supposed to carry.

It is shameful that cynical political calculations continue to override the alleged ideals of an international organization such as the U.N.

— jzsoldos@indiana.edu