Moscow rules

By J.P.P.

SO MANY remarkable things have sprung from the Arab Spring that it's possible to overlook that, in addition to toppling aged tyrants and now menacing a more youthful one, it has accomplished something that decades of communism could not: warmth between China and Russia. At the nadir of that relationship, which came between Krushchev's denunciation of Stalin and the Prague Spring, Chairman Mao accused his Russian counterpart of “patriarchal, arbitrary and tyrannical behaviour”. Krushchev, reaching deep into the lexicon of Soviet insults, denounced Mao in turn as an “adventurist deviationist”. Things had become so bad by July 1964 that relations between the two countries were broken off.

The veto exercised by China and Russia in the UN Security Council on February 4th was another demonstration of how the two countries now see their interests as aligned. China's decision to veto a resolution condemning the government's killing spree in Syria was, on the face of it, odd. Anxious as it is about anti-government protests in a year when leadership of the party is changing, China has little interest in propping up Bashar Assad. But its vote returned a favour from Russia, which, as Richard Gowan of NYU points out, hugs China close at the Security Council, ensuring that neither country need fear complete isolation.

Russia's support for the Syrian government has at least three motivations. First, standing firm against the West evokes proud memories of table thumping at the UN and plays well for Vladimir Putin, who is faced with an election at home that is likely to be more competitive than any he has fought before. Second, Syria allows Russia to keep a naval base on its shore and buys Russian weapons in return. Though Syria accounted for just 10% of Russia's arms sales to the Middle East from 2004 to 2008, this was sufficient to make it “largely dependent” on Russia for weapons in the judgment of SIPRI, a Swedish NGO which monitors such things. Third, Russia fears a repeat of Libya and the establishment support for the principle of intervention by foreign countries to topple unpleasant regimes. This all helps to explain why Russia continues to stick by a regime that looks to be finished.

While the assault on Homs continues, so does the diplomacy. Some hope that Russia can be talked into accepting the demise of the Assads and be allowed to back down gracefully, playing a role in the handover of power and holding on to some of its interests in Syria. Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, is due in Damascus on February 6th, where he may float the idea of negotiations between a representative of the regime and the Free Syrian Army. If that fails and the killing continues, then military intervention by outside powers will likely follow.

(Photo credit: AFP)