I have talked at length about the growing monetary, ideological and political schism developing between the Eurasian powers, and the Western ones.
I have talked at length about the growing Eurasian coalition of resistance against American interests, against American interventionism, against the dollar.
I have talked at length about that coalition’s fear of further American encroachment into Eurasia.
So I was especially prepared for further spats between the two coalitions during 2012, and especially over Iran and Syria.
But the nastiness and disdainfulness of today’s events surprised even me.
An Arab and Western-backed resolution condemning the violent crackdown in Syria has been vetoed at the UN Security Council by Russia and China.
The two permanent council members rejected the draft resolution, which came hours after activists accused Syrian security forces of killing at least 55 people at Homs.
The US ambassador said the vetoes were “shameful”, Britain was “appalled”.
China and Russia defended their move, saying the draft was “unbalanced”.
Russia says the draft resolution had singled out the government of President Bashar al-Assad, and did not containing measures against armed opposition groups.
But proposed Russian amendments to the text were described as “unacceptable” by the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is due to have talks with Mr Assad in Damascus on Tuesday.
To be clear: this resolution was a step toward military intervention against Bashar al-Assad. I am extremely sceptical that this is a good idea. I believe that the best thing that the global community can do is facilitate dialogue between the government and the protestors, and work toward a peaceful compromise.
This is not because I believe al-Assad deserves to remain in power. He is certainly a tyrant and despot of the highest order. But can we honestly say that committing guns, blood and money to deposing him will guarantee peace and stability? Can we honestly say that the next regime might not be worse? I do not believe we can — especially considering that almost every nation involved in the “Arab Spring” has since elected Islamists to power.
Even with the support of the Arab league, is getting entangled into another messy and open-ended conflict in Russia and China’s backyard really a good idea? Some voices in China are already rumbling that they would be willing to go to war to prevent an American takeover of Iran.
If avoiding nuclear proliferation is our goal, intervention is certainly a bad idea. Qaddafi’s deposition — in stark contrast to nuclear-armed North Korea — was a signpost to rogue regimes that the only way to ensure their survival is to pursue nuclear armaments.
So the biggest story here — and the real reason for the Sino-Russian veto — is the rumbling tension between the Western and Eurasian blocs.
It is a hornets’ nest the West should not stir. Instead, I believe, we should be more concerned about our own economies, particularly the factors of energy independence, resource independence and domestic manufacturing. For the Eurasian powers are not merely nations far across the world: they are our productive base, our resource base, our labour base. Without their support and co-operation the West’s physical economy will be severely damaged.
In insisting upon picking sides in the Syrian Civil War, we might well be shooting ourselves in the foot. Or the head.