I was reading this article earlier and I was thinking of all the times China and Russia seem to be in lock step to support countries that are, well, out of lock step with The West™ and in the case of Syria, pretty much every one of their neighbors. From the article:
This seems to be a common theme, with China and/or Russia blocking moves by the international community to punish some country for some abuse. They are doing much the same thing in Iran today, and these aren’t isolated examples. My question is…why? And, obviously, is this a case of the white van always being on the corner, or is this an actual trend?
ETA: And just to preempt the ‘well, America does exactly the same thing!’ line of response, I’m not really interested in why the US might or might not do similar things…I’m interested in why Russia and China are doing what they are doing, or if this is perception bias on my part and they don’t actually tend to do stuff like this, but I only notice when they do.
Human rights issues are trumping sovereignity issues in an ever widening front. Both countries try to put a brake on this development. When they defend any country’s right to shoot its citizens, they are defending it inside their own country. For Russia, this has a historical aspect: the rulers probably think the Soviet Union collapsed because those damned sissies did not shoot enough. Of course, Syria has also been a traditional ally of Russia.
It could just be the available opportunities. A country like Sweden has lot of other countries that want to be its friend. But pariah states like Syria, North Korea, or Iran have to take what friends they can find. Russia and China are more flexible, shall we say, in their foreign policy so they are willing to step in and support countries other less tolerant countries avoid. These pariah countries, with limited alternatives, are eager to be stay on good terms with their patron so they’re loyal and devoted clients.
[QUOTE=treis]
I doubt it is an actual trend. Russia and China rarely block actions against Israel, for example.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, so you put Israel’s actions on par with Syria, Iran, and North Korea then? Interesting.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
It could just be the available opportunities. A country like Sweden has lot of other countries that want to be its friend. But pariah states like Syria, North Korea, or Iran have to take what friends they can find. Russia and China are more flexible, shall we say, in their foreign policy so they are willing to step in and support countries other less tolerant countries avoid. These pariah countries, with limited alternatives, are eager to be stay on good terms with their patron so they’re loyal and devoted clients.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this seems the most likely answer to me. It seems to be a good give and take type relationship for all parties.
For one thing, both of them have issues with separatism in regions they consider their sovereign territory (e.g. Russia with the north Caucasus and China with Xinjiang,Tibet & Taiwan). So both are seriously touchy about any international actions concerning the inviolability of borders and sovereignty. They don’t want to support any precedents that could technically be applied against their actions in these regions, or implicitly make rhetorical concessions to separatist groups by supporting principles abroad that they aren’t abiding by at home.
It also benefits Russia and China to do that. I mean, look at Sudan, for instance, which has become sort of an international pariah, but who China and Russia have a pretty close relationship with. China and Russia can, like Little Nemo said, guarantee that Sudan will sell them oil and buy weapons from them, because most other countries don’t really want to be Sudan’s friend. So it’s win/wins. It lets the Sudanese find a way around the arms embargo declared by the US and continue committing genocide, and it lets the Russians and Chinese have an almost uncontested market for their weapons.