Naming and shaming Syria
February 16, 2012
The United Nations' General Assembly voted 137 to 12 in favor of a resolution proposed by Egypt that condemns the "widespread and systematic violations of human rights" in Syria and calls for the implementation of an Arab League plan to end the violence within 15 days. China, Russia and Iran were among the nations that opposed the measure, with another 17 countries abstaining from the vote.
Although the General Assembly vote may be a powerful symbolic gesture aimed at isolating the Assad regime and its allies, the resolution itself is non-binding. The real power within the UN lies with the Security Council, whose resolutions are binding under international law.
Security council powers
The Security Council can condemn a state or party whose actions breach international law or human rights or jeopardize international security in any other way. Security Council resolutions also determine the scope of sanctions imposed on warring factions - for instance through a UN embargo.
The Security Council can also pass a resolution authorizing military intervention to end a conflict. That's what happened in 1999 in Kosovo. And the Security Council also passed resolutions to intervene in Afghanistan in 2001; in March 2011 it authorized UN member states to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.
The veto powers' strategic interests
But so far the Security Council has failed to pass a resolution on Syria. Russia and China, who as permanent members have veto powers, have twice prevented such a resolution. Both the resolutions put the blame for the bloodshed primarily on the regime of the Syrian ruler, Bashar al-Assad. But, for strategic reasons, neither China nor Russia were keen to alienate the Assad regime.
The Security Council is made up of ten non-permanent and five permanent members. The US, France and Great Britain - in addition to China and Russia - are the permanent members who have the power to veto any resolution.
General Assembly condemnation
The UN General Assembly's Thursday vote condemning the Syrian government's crackdown on the opposition came after UN human rights chief Navi Pillay claimed on Monday that "crimes against humanity have likely been committed" by Syrian security forces since March 2011.
There's no veto in the General Assembly, which runs on the principle of "one state, one vote." A resolution requires a two-thirds majority to pass.
The General Assembly - the "parliament of the international community" - can vote to condemn, but its condemnations merely carry moral weight and are not binding under international law. Critics say they expect the vote will have little influence and they speak of "tokenism."
International legitimacy of veto powers in doubt
But a condemnation is not entirely without effect, says Winrich Kühne, an expert in international relations at the John Hopkins University in Bologna: "A condemnation would increase the pressure on the Russians and the Chinese. They would find themselves isolated in the international community. And they wouldn't like that."
Kühne says a condemnation by the General Assembly is "a vote by the international community," which would increase the moral pressure on both countries.
Heiko Wimmen of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs adds that international condemnation by the Assembly could raise the pressure on the veto powers blocking a resolution: "The Russians don't like to be the bogey-man of the international community."
Kühne points out, "It could cause problems for the countries opposing a Syria resolution in the Security Council because their international legitimacy would suffer."
Historic decisions in the General Assembly
In the past, General Assembly resolutions have often had political significance, says Kühne: "The resolutions passed during the period of decolonization were particularly important. The Assembly gave observer status to liberation movements like the African National Congress in South Africa or SWAPO in Namibia, effectively ramping up the pressure on the West." And indeed, over time the European powers quit their colonies - the rest is history.
In 1975, another resolution caused a political storm. Under the banner of removing all forms of racial discrimination, Zionism was declared to be a form of racism. That put Israel in the same camp as South Africa and Rhodesia.
The resolution was passed with 72 votes in favor, 35 against, and 32 abstentions. Many Arab, Third World and Eastern Bloc countries voted in favor, but the West, including the US and West Germany, rejected it.
After the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, the controversial resolution was reversed on December 16, 1991, with 111 votes in favor, 25 against and 13 abstentions. No Arab state voted in favor of repeal. It's the only resolution in the history of the United Nations to be rescinded.
Many countries vehemently backed this controversial resolution, which shows that votes by the General Assembly do carry a certain degree of weight on the global stage, even if they are purely symbolic.
The issue at stake is the control of the standards set in international politics. As Winrich Kühne says, condemnation of Syria will not force Bashar al-Assad from his current course, but it may become more uncomfortable for the remaining supporters of the Syrian government to continue backing Assad.
Author: Lewis Gropp / ar / mll
Editor: Neil King