The UN Charter, the

Responsibility to Protect,
and the Syria Issue
Qu Xing

Syria has been in turmoil since March 2011. Western countries

have intervened in Syria in a high-profile manner since the

beginning of the turmoil, first imposing unilateral sanctions on
the Bashar al-Assad government, then presenting the Syria issue
to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) twice through
the League of Arab States (LAS), then submitting the issue
to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), holding the
Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia, and finally proposing
a resolution concerning Syria at the United Nations Human
Rights Council. China and Russia vetoed the UN Security
Council draft resolutions twice and cast a negative vote at the
UN General Assembly. Neither Russia nor China participated
in the Friends of Syria Conference and both voted against the
UN Human Rights Council resolution on Syria.
The stances of China and Russia have drawn much attention
from both the international community and Chinese citizens.
Some people say that it is easy to understand Russias veto of
the Western and LAS resolutions since Russia possesses over
$20 billion in investments in Syria and maintains a military base
there which is the only one left outside of the Commonwealth of
Qu Xing is President of China Institute of International Studies.

14CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

Independent States. Meanwhile, Syria is a huge export market for

Russias military equipment and Russia remains deeply concerned
about the security of its southern border, provided that the Syria
turmoil extends to Central Asia. However, China does not have
too many interests in Syria. The two countries are thousands of
miles apart and the China-Syria trade was worth only 2.48 billion
US dollars (in 2010), accounting for only 0.08% of Chinas overall
foreign trade. Meanwhile, Chinas imports from Syria were worth
only $40 million dollars with almost no oil or gas products. The
cumulative number of Chinese
students in Syria since 1978
China does not seek
amounts to only 131. Chinese
selfish interests in
labor working and overseas
Syria, and Chinas
Chinese living in Syria are very
attitude towards the
sparse and Chinas investments
UN Security Council
there are negligible. Therefore,
resolutions is not
some people think Chinas veto
perplexing.
on the Syria issue eludes their
understanding.
China does not seek selfish interests in Syria, and Chinas attitude
towards the UN Security Council resolutions is not perplex-ing.
China exercised its veto power in the Security Council because the
draft resolutions contained contents that violated the purposes and
principles of the UN Charter (referred to as the Charter hereafter).
These contents may be employed as the foundation for waging an
interventionist war, making political dialogue over Syria completely
at sea while further escalating the Middle East turmoil and posing
negative consequences on global resource supply and economic
development. As a result, what China vetoed were violations of
the basic principles of the Charter. They were challenging the
foundation used by foreign or international military blocs to wage
war against Syria, the possibility that the West would bombard
another Arab state, and the disastrous possibilities if the West were
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201215

Qu Xing

actually to become militarily involved in Syria. While opposing the

Wests violations of the purposes and principles of the Charter,
China has also been making active diplomatic efforts to promote a
peaceful solution of the Syria issue.

I. T
 he UN Charter does not give the Security Council
power to push for regime change.
The Charter is the basic norm governing modern international
relations as well as the cornerstone for maintaining international
order today. Chapter I of the Charter lays out the four purposes
and seven principles of the United Nations. The essence of the
four purposes is to bring about settlement of international
disputes by peaceful means, to take collective measures for
the suppression of acts of aggression, and to remove threats
to peace. The core of the seven principles includes sovereign
equality of all UN members, mutual non-use of military force,
and non-interference in other countries internal affairs. Article
4 in Chapter II of the Charter stipulates that all Members shall
refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations. Article 7 in Chapter II states
that nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize
the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially
within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require
the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the
present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the
application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. The
logic underlying these statements clearly demonstrates that
the United Nations should not intervene in any states internal
affairs unless it acts according to Chapter VII of the Charter.
What then are the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter?
16CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

It reads, the Security Council shall determine the existence

of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to
maintain or restore international peace and security. Article
41 authorizes the UN Security Council to take any measure not
involving the use of armed force, while Article 42 asserts that
the Security Council may take such action by air, sea, or land
forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international
peace and security. All these mean that the premise for the
UN Security Council to take action is the existence of a threat
to and breach of international peace and security, while the
objective of such actions is to restore international peace and
security. The military conflicts in Syria have caused significant
civilian casualties, a fact that should attract the attention of
the international community. The Syria issue, however, is a
domestic one by nature, since Syria did not have disputes with
its neighboring states, nor did it threaten to use force against
its neighbors or wage a war of aggression against any states.
Therefore, the Syria issue should not be discussed within the
framework of the UN Security Council and the Security Council
should not intervene based on Chapter VII of the Charter.
With respect to the functions of the Security Council, Chapter
V of the Charter specifies that its members confer on the
Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance
of international peace and security, thereby establishing its
fundamental duty of maintaining international peace and
security. Chapter V also stipulates that the specific powers
granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties
are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII, meaning that
besides the purposes and principles outlined in Chapter I
and the provisions regarding the Security Council outlined
in Chapter V, the duties of the Security Council are also illusCHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201217

Qu Xing

trated in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII. The regulations of

Chapter VII are already elaborated above. Chapter VI prescribes
that the Security Council may call upon all parties involved
in international disputes to settle their conflicts by peaceful
means such as negotiations, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, and may investigate any situation which might lead
to international friction or give rise to a dispute in order to
determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation
is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and
security. The character of such international disputes which
the Security Council is authorized to mediate or investigate
is very clear here. Chapter VIII of the Charter stresses that
nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of
regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters
relating to the maintenance of international peace and security
as are appropriate for regional action provided that such
arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with
the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. According
to this, a regional organization (e.g. the Arab League) could take
action (e.g. in the Middle East where members of the LAS are
located) on the premise that international peace and security
in that region are threatened, and these actions do not violate
the Purposes and Principles of the Charter. Chapter XII of the
Charter lays out provisions about the trusteeship system
which is irrelevant to our discussion here.
In sum, in all the Charters articles regarding the Security
Councils functions, there is no mention of the power to make
a member states government resign, let alone taking coercive
actions to force the government to step down if it does not
comply. In the draft resolution submitted by the West to the
Security Council through the LAS but vetoed by China and
Russia, one article reads as such: Fully supports in this
regard the League of Arab States January 22 2012 decision
18CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

to facilitate a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic,

plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless
of their affiliations or ethnicities or beliefs, including through
commencing a serious political dialogue between the Syrian
government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition
under the League of Arab States auspices, in accordance with
the timetable set out by the League of Arab States. (Article 7)
The true essence underneath this rhetorical maneuvering is to
fully support the LAS decision and implement the decision
according to the timetable set out by the LAS. Meanwhile, the
most fundamental content of the LAS decision is that Bashar
al-Assad transfer power within two weeks so that a national
unity government can be established in two months.
For China, the problem is not about whether Bashar al-Assad
will transfer his power. If the LAS can reach an agreement with
all parties concerned in Syria so that Bashar will transfer power
in two weeks and a unified Syrian national government could
be set up within two months, China would have no difficulty
endorsing such a decision since China welcomes any political
arrangement supported by all sides in Syria. China does not have
any diplomatic scheme aiming to sustain anyones leadership or
prevent anyone from seizing power in Syria, otherwise it would
go against the fundamental principle and diplomatic practices
of non-interference in others internal affairs, which China has
been upholding for over 60 years. If the Security Council passed
such a resolution, the purposes and principles of the Charter
would be endangered, particularly because another article in
the draft resolution noted that the Security Council would
review implementation of this resolution within 21 days and,
in the event of non-compliance, [] consider further measures.
(Article 15) The so-called further measures here may include
taking actions by air, sea, or land forces as outlined in Article
42 Chapter VII of the Charter.
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201219

Qu Xing

Expecting Bashar al-Assad to resign due to the Security Council resolution is politically nave. With the UNSC resolution, the
opposition in Syria would be less likely to compromise while
military clashes on the ground would be more intensive in the
event that Bashar refuses to quit. Over a month has passed
since the draft resolution was submitted for voting on February
4. If the resolution were passed then, the Security Council
would have started negotiating whether to authorize the use of
force against Syria based on the timetable set out by the LAS
and contents of the resolution.
Western countries are keen
on addressing the Syria issue
Taking actions
by following the Yemen model.
irrespective of
But in pursuing this objective,
principles had led
they seem to have forgotten that
to the irresponsible
the Yemen model was not formulated by passing mandatory
and selective use of
Security Council resolutions. If
interventions.
Western countries had propelled
the Security Council to pass a mandatory resolution requesting
regime change in Yemen, it would have caused the deterioration
of Yemens political opposition and Yemen would not have
achieved so much political development today. If we look back
further, we find that the West also tried repeatedly to push the
Security Council to take coercive measures against Myanmar
but failed due to objections from China, Russia, and other states.
China was under tremendous diplomatic pressure and was
accused by Western media at the time, but it chose to uphold
the principles of the Charter. Today, national reconciliation and
democratic transition have been initiated in Myanmar. We can
imagine, if the Security Council did pass resolutions sanctioning
the Myanmar government as requested by the West, opposition
parties would have been provoked while political turmoil, such
20CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

as what occurred in Libya last year, would have occurred in

Myanmar. This would have made it completely impossible to
launch Myanmars political transition peacefully. Both theory
and practice have proven that intervening in other countries
internal affairs through passing compulsory Security Council
resolutions will not lead to ideal outcomes. On the contrary,
more problems and trauma may be caused in relevant countries. Without foreign intervention, all nations are capable of
conducting reforms based on their national conditions, in the
process choosing development paths suitable to the situations
in their country. What China has insisted on is that all countries
leave enough space and time for the autonomous reforms of
other countries throughout the world.

II. T
 he Concept of Responsibility to Protect tends
to be abused due to its extensive definition.
Western countries insist that the UN Charter was formulated
more than 60 years ago, but the international situation has
undergone tremendous changes since then. With globalization,
military conflicts happening in one country impose threats on
regional and even international peace and security. Meanwhile,
with the development of international norms, humanitarian
disasters that occur in one country no longer belong strictly
to its own internal affairs. Because of this, reports regarding
the responsibility to protect were included in the World
Summit Outcome Document passed by the UN General
Assembly in 2005. Based on this, Western states assert that
the responsibility to protect provides the legal basis for the
Security Councils intervention in the Syria crisis.
The concept of responsibility to protect was proposed at the
beginning of the 21st century. Its background was the serious
humanitarian catastrophes that occurred in Rwanda and Kosovo
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201221

Qu Xing

in the mid-1990s. In these cases, the international community

failed to take effective measures to prevent recurrence, causing people to reflect and criticize the system. The concept of
responsibility to protect appeared thereafter, calling for the
international community to intervene in the domestic affairs of
countries in order to avert humanitarian disaster. In support of
the concept of humanitarian intervention, former UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan wrote in the 2000 UN Millennium Report
that if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable
assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda,
to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violations of human
rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?
Since the concept of intervention was at odds with the
principle of non-interference in ones internal affairs specified
in the UN Charter, humanitarian intervention gradually evolved into the responsibility to protect. There have been five
important documents in the evolution of this concept. The first
is a report entitled the Responsibility to Protect published
by the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001. This report stated that sovereign
states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from
avoidable catastrophe from mass murder and rape, from
starvation but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so,
that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of
states. The second came when the High-level Panel on Threats,
Challenges and Change submitted a report titled A More Secure
World: Our Shared Responsibility to the UN Secretary-General
in December 2004, endorsing the concept of the responsibility
to protect. In the third, which was titled In Larger Freedom:
towards development, security and human rights for all
and submitted by Secretary-General Annan to the 59th UN
General Assembly in 2005, Annan expressed that if national
authorities are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens, then
22CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

the responsibility shifts to the international community to use

diplomatic, humanitarian and other methods to help protect
the human rights and well-being of civilian populations. When
such methods appear insufficient, the Security Council may
out of necessity take action under the Charter of the United
Nations, including enforcement action, if so required. The fourth
document was the World Summit Outcome Document adopted
by the General Assembly in 2005, which declared that [w]e
are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive
manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the
Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in
cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate,
should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities
manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The
fifth document, Implementing the responsibility to protect,
was part of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moons report to the 63rd
General Assembly in 2009, in which he outlined three pillars
of the responsibility to protect, including the protection
responsibilities of the state, international assistance and
capacity-building, and timely and decisive response while
suggesting the time has come to implement the proposal of
the responsibility to protect.
The concept of responsibility to protect has been controversial
since it was formulated. Many countries worry that the RtoP
may become a tool for powerful countries to interfere in the
affairs of the weak, or that it may be applied selectively and
that its scope will be extended arbitrarily. Venezuelan President Huge Chavez has said that the responsibility to protect
is a dangerous concept since it is a tool for America and
other Western states to justify their infringement on others
sovereignty. Thomas Weiss, a political science professor at the
City University of New York, also noted that the legal prospect of
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201223

Qu Xing

humanitarian intervention had been completely ruined by Bush

and Blairs invasion of Iraq, and that taking actions irrespective
of principles had led to the irresponsible and selective use of
interventions, weakening the legitimacy of the practice.
In the 2001 report titled The Responsibility to Protect, it
was emphasized that humanitarian intervention aimed to prevent avoidable catastrophe. However, assessing what kinds
of atrocities are avoidable is a subjective assessment that
involves much individual evaluation. Another controversial
point concerns when exactly the international community
should conclude that individual states are unwilling or unable
to protect their populations? The Responsibility to Protect
Report outlined six thresholds to authorize military intervention,
including just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, final
resort, proportional means and reasonable prospect.
As regards the criterion of right cause, genocide, ethnic
cleansing, war crimes, and large scale natural disasters are
defined relatively clearly based on relevant international treaties.
However, the threat or occurrence of large scale loss of life
and situations of state collapse and the resultant exposure of
the population to mass starvation and civil war can be defined
very widely. Foreign nations may criticize one states military
actions against anti-government forces as possibly causing the
occurrence of large scale loss of life, thus providing a rationale
for intervention. The relevant state, however, may well argue
that its crackdown on illegal military forces was an attempt
to prevent mass starvation and civil war resulting from state
collapse, which conforms to the first of the responsibility to
protects three pillars advocated by UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon. Therefore, its actions should be assisted rather than
intervened upon. In fact, the international community granted
understanding, sympathy, and support to the Sri Lankan
governments military attacks on the Tamil Tiger based on the
24CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

responsibility to protect.
With respect to the threshold of legitimate authority, some
Western scholars advocate that relevant nations or temporary
state alliances may take actions as a response to urgent and
serious situations should the Security Council fails to fulfill its
responsibility to protect. But the ICISS Report did not endorse
such a suggestion, reiterating that all proposals for military
intervention must be formally brought before the Security
Council and Security Council authorization must in all cases
be sought prior to any military intervention action being carried out. The Reports emphasis on the Security Councils
authorization is founded on its due concern that interventions
may be initiated arbitrarily according to the responsibility to
protect, hence why a Charter-based threshold should be set
for them. According to this rule, no state or state group can
enforce armed intervention in other countries unless they are
authorized to do so by the Security Council.
As for the right intention, it is stressed in the Responsibility
to Protect Report that the primary purpose of interventions is
to halt or avert human suffering. However, since any military
action involves budgetary costs and risk to personnel, it is thus
imperative for the intervening state to claim some degree of selfinterest in the intervention. In the ICISS Report, the primary
purpose of interventions is set as halting or averting human
suffering, meaning that any other purposes, such as promoting
certain kind of values, establishing political systems, or
supporting any nations pursuit of independence, should not be
perceived as legitimate reasons to intervene. However, the notion
of claiming some degree of self-interest for the intervening state
can be interpreted much differently. Some degree of self-interest
may be viewed as seizing oil and gas resources in the intervened
state, demanding favorable invest-ment conditions and market
entry, or requesting the intervened state to follow policies that
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201225

Qu Xing

favor the intervening state. The most effective means to realize

these goals, moreover, is to infuse values of the intervening state
into the intervened, while fostering a regime that is in favor of
the intervening state. In fact, traces of these rewards for the
intervening states can be found in the interventionist wars that
took place after the Cold War, which diverged largely from the
justice of humanitarian intervention.
Concerning the threshold of last resort, it was noted in the
RtoP Report that when humanitarian crises occur, armed
interference can only be considered after every non-military
avenue, such as mediation, arbitration and sanctions, has failed.
Looking at the Syria issue now, we see that although the chance
of initiating political progress is slim, it is not completely lost yet.
The Syrian government has started constitutional re-forms and
taken big strides on issues such as lifting the ban on political
parties and allowing direct presidential elections. About 57.4% of
Syrian citizens participated in the referendum on constitutional
reforms in which 89.4% voted in favor, indicating that adding up
all those who didnt vote, who abstained from voting and who
voted against the reforms, the total took only 48.7% of Syrias
electorates. These figures demonstrate that over 50% of the Syrian
public still supports the governments reform plan while hoping
to launch political transitions via reforms. However, whether
the political process can be initiated depends largely on foreign
influence in Syria. Western nations did not take the chance to
promote political progress in Syria, they provided assistance
to the opposition and supported their founding of a Military
Bureau instead, thus narrowing the space for compromise and
actually escalating the situation into a civil war. On the other
hand, Western countries also sought to wage armed interventions
against Syria by passing Security Council resolutions, claiming
that they had exhausted all diplomatic endeavors. This is not a
responsible option for most of the Syrian people.
26CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

As for proportionality and reasonable prospect factors, the

ICISS Report claimed that the scale, duration, and intensity
of any military intervention should all be kept to a minimum
to secure that the humanitarian objective in question not
be hindered. However, this rule was not observed in several
intervention cases. According to reports by the U.S.-based Time
magazine, over 5,000 Yugoslavian policemen and soldiers were
killed and 1,500 civilians bombed to death in the Kosovo war,
whose casualties were three times larger than those suffered
during the Serbian-Arabian conflict prior to the NATO bombing.
Resolution 1973 of the UNSC authorized member states to take
all necessary measures other than foreign military occupation
to impose a no-fly zone and ceasefire in Libya. However, NATO
turned the ban on all flights into extensive attacks on Libyan
governmental forces while turning the ceasefire into assisting
anti-government troops counter-offensives until they seized
Tripoli the capital. NATO became involved in the Libyan civil
war by helping the oppositions air force, which went beyond
the UNSC authorization of enforcing a no-fly zone and
ceasefire. Prior to NATOs bombings, thousands were killed
in Libyas internal conflicts. However, the conflicts escalated
under NATOs bombing and the death toll reached over 20,000
when the opposition took Tripoli. In the process, more than one
million people became refugees. In Iraq, the U.S. waged war
against Saddam and overthrew his regime without authorization
from the UN Security Council or any concrete evidence, causing
the collapse of Iraqi state institutions. The rebuilding of Iraq,
however, has been slow and ineffective. More than a decade has
passed, and stability has not been restored in Iraq. Meanwhile,
ethnic and religious conflicts have been so aggravated that
bombings have occurred almost every week, causing mounting
civilian casualties. The U.S., however, has somewhat abandoned
Iraq. Some impassioned Western human rights fighters, who
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201227

Qu Xing

have always been outraged by human rights violations, kept

silent and turned a blind eye to humanitarian catastrophes
in Iraq, with no one questioning or condemning the atrocities
there. All these facts prove that once military intervention has
been launched, all limits and rules set in the RtoP Report
are completely ignored. Humanitarian disasters resulting from
armed intervention tend to be worse than the pre-intervention
situation, a fact that violates the principles of proportionality in
means or reasonable prospect advocated in the ICISS Report.
To sum up, in theory, the responsibility to protect concept
is apt to be abused due to its blurred and extensive definition
and the arbitrariness of its application. In practice, various
thresholds set by advocates of the RtoP to avoid its deviation
from the correct path have been neglected and thus not performed their functions. All precedents ended with disastrous
consequences, deviating largely from the original intention of
the original concept of responsibility to protect. The situation
should not be repeated in Syria or any other place in the world.

III. R
 ussias attempt to promote a balanced resolution in the Security Council met with Western
rejections.
The UN Security Council held intensive discussions over the
Western countries draft resolution submitted by the Arab
League on January 22, 2012. The key of the discussions surrounded whether to condemn all parties engaging in violence in
a balanced manner, whether to impose equivalent pressure on
all parties to immediately stop all violence, or whether to leave
a door for the UNSC to authorize the use of force against Syria
later. Russia proposed amendments to the draft in order to make
it more balanced and fair, but most of Russias amendments
were turned down by the West.
In the preface of the draft resolution, Russia proposed
28CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

to add the phrase Expresses support for the broad trend of

political transition to democratic, plural political systems in the
Middle East, but the West denied this request. Their hidden
concern was that, according to Western criteria, Syria or Iran
were not the worst cases in terms of promoting democracy and
political plurality in the Middle East. Instead, U.S. allies in the
Persian Gulf, where it pursues substantial oil and geopolitical
interests, have been the slowest to make democratic progress.
The US wished to see earth-shattering democratic transitions in
dissident states like Syria and Iraq, but it did not necessarily
hope the broad trend to go across the Middle East in order to
sustain the political survival of its resource-rich allies.
Article 1 of the original draft went like this: Condemns the
continued widespread and gross violations of human rights
and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities, such as
the use of force against civilians, arbitrary executions, killing
and persecution of protestors and members of the media, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, interference with
access to medical treatment, torture, sexual violence, and illtreatment, including against children. Russia asked to revise the clause such as the use of force against civilians,
to become especially the use of force against civilians, but
Western states rejected the request. The key point was, the draft
sought to take all accusations against the Syrian government,
which were filed by the opposition but not proven by any
independent international investigative body, as facts that could
be confirmed by the adoption of a UNSC resolution. All these
accusations, meanwhile, used words describing crimes against
humanity as outlined in existing international treaties. Once
the accusations were confirmed, the Syria authorities could be
viewed as committing one of the four crimes crimes against
humanity upon which the UN could intervene based on the
responsibility to protect which was illustrated in the World
Summit Outcome Document adopted by the General Assembly
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201229

Qu Xing

in 2005. Therefore, it would be reasonable and legitimate to

conduct humanitarian intervention against Syria.
Article 3 of the original draft read, Condemns all violence,
irrespective of where it comes from, and in this regard demands
that all parties in Syria, including armed groups, immediately
stop all violence or reprisals, including attacks against State
institutions, in accordance with the League of Arab States
initiative. Russia suggested reformulating the second part of
the sentence to read, immediately stop violations of human
rights, including intimidation of civilians and attacks against
State institutions, in accordance with the League of Arab
States initiative. The difference between the two was that the
revised version implied that armed opposition groups in Syria
also committed crimes such as violating human rights and
intimidating civilians. Facing rejection from the West, Russia
further suggested a reformulation of Article 3 as such: Calls
for all sections of the Syrian opposition to dissociate themselves
from armed groups engaged in acts of violence and urges
member-states and all those in a position to do so to use their
influence to prevent continued violence by such groups. In this
way, Articles 1 and 2 of the draft would condemn the Syrian
governments acts of violence, while Article 3 imposed pressure
on armed groups and sought to overthrow the Syrian government
by force. The revised draft, which was more balanced in calling
for the end of violence, was again completely rejected by the
West, thus appeasing and even encouraging armed groups to
engage in acts of violence.
Article 5 of the Draft Resolution demanded that the Syrian
government fulfill six duties without delay. The original wording
of the Third point was, withdraw all Syrian military and armed
forces from cities and towns, and return them to their original
home barracks. Russia proposed to amend it to become,
withdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and
towns, and return them to their original home barracks in con30CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

junction with the end of attacks by armed groups against state

institutions and quarter of cities and towns. The West once
again turned down Russias proposal, with the logical inference
that the Syrian government must withdraw its military forces
from cities and towns while other armed groups may not stop
their attacks against state institutions and cities and towns.
We could imagine what kind of situation would appear if such
a resolution was adopted and enforced.
The Arab Leagues decision on January 22, 2012 was reiterated in Article 7 of the draft resolution, commencing a serious
political dialogueunder the League of Arab States auspices,
in accordance with the timetable
set out by the League of Arab
China vetoed the
States. Russia demanded to
draft resolution at the
rephrase the article in the followUN Security Council
ing way: commencing a serious
which may have
political dialogue under the
provided a foundation
League of Arab States auspices,
for the Wests armed
taking into account the timetable
intervention in Syria.
set out by the League of Arab
States, without prejudging the
outcome. Russia changed in accordance with to taking into
account while adding the condition of without prejudging
the outcome, all aiming to leave more space for compromises
through political dialogue. Again, their suggestions were not accepted by the West. Once the Western draft was adopted as a
UNSC resolution, political dialogue would only be a superficial
gesture, since the schedule and final result had been unilaterally
predetermined by the opposition side. It is hard to imagine that
the Syrian government would accept such a resolution.
Article 9 of the draft called for the Syrian authorities to
cooperate fully with the League of Arab States observer mission
and to provide all necessary assistance to the mission. In
accordance with Article 9, Russia demanded to add a phrase
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201231

Qu Xing

in Article 10. The West rejected Russias attempt to include the

sentence, stresses the need for armed groups not to obstruct
the missions work.
All amendments to draft resolution raised by Russia were
rejected while all condemnations and mandatory requirements
put forward in the resolution targeted the Syrian government
rather than the opposition factions. Under such circumstances,
Article 15 of the draft stated decides to review implementation
of this resolution within 21 days and, in the event of noncompliance, to consider further measures. Russia finally demanded a three-day delay in its voting in order to grant time
and diplomatic space for Russian Foreign Minister Lavrovs
mediation tour to Syria on February 7, but Western countries
again refused. How could Russia not to veto the draft resolution
under such circumstances?

IV. C
 hina strongly pushes for a political settlement
on the Syrian issue.
China and Russia are strategic partners, and it is natural for
the two to exchange views and coordinate their actions on key
international issues. At the same time, the two are each others
largest neighboring states and share many common viewpoints
regarding international affairs, thus making it ea-sier for them
to understand and support each other. More importantly, the
draft resolution vetoed jointly by China and Russia contained
contents that violated the purposes of the UN Charter, as
well as the basic norms that govern international relations.
The principles governing international relations are not only
guaranteeing the political independence and economic growth
of developing countries. They also include determining whether
general trends of peace and stability can be sustained in the
world and whether China can continue taking the historic
opportunity to maintain its momentum of rapid growth.
32CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

Therefore, adhering to the purposes and principles of the UN

Charter and the basic norms of international relations are
attempts to ensure a friendly external environment for Chinas
peaceful development and to protect Chinas national interests.
On the one hand, China vetoed the draft resolution at the
UN Security Council which may have provided a foundation
for the Wests armed intervention in Syria. On the other hand,
China has been making serious efforts to mediate and promote
dialogue among various factions in Syria. Except for repeatedly
urging the Syrian government to respect its peoples appeal for
political reform and stopping all acts of violence, China has also
established connections with factions on the opposition side
which do not opt for the use of force in Syria.
China started contacting Syrian opposition groups as early as
last August. In early February 2012, China received a delegation
from the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change,
the most influential opposition group in Syria. The Chinese
government also sent a Special Envoy, Vice Foreign Minister
Zhai Jun, to Syria, who met with Syrian authorities and the
opposition to push for an initiation of political dialogue. The
Chinese government further issued a six-point statement for
the political settlement of the Syrian issue via a talk given by
a top Foreign Ministry official on March 4th. Ambassador Li
Huaxin visited Syria on behalf of Chinese Foreign Minister
Yang Jiechi on March 7th, exchanging views with the Syrian
government and all parties concerned on the above-mentioned
statement. Chinas stance can be summarized in six key terms:
ending violence, dialogue, assistance, non-military interference,
coordination, and unity.
In order to end violence, China urges all parties concerned
to immediately and fully cease all acts of violence in Syria.
China has repeatedly condemned all acts of violence targeted at
civilians, including those committed by the Syrian government,
which controls the national military force, as well as those by
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201233

Qu Xing

various opposition factions seeking regime change by force. They

especially condemn opposition factions engaging in terrorist
activities such as the bombing of Syrian state institutions.
Only when all parties concerned abandon the use of force can
violence really be stopped and civilian casualties reduced.
As for dialogue, China urges all sides to immediately launch
an inclusive political dialogue with no preconditions attached
or outcome predetermined, since this is the key to initiating
Syrias political change. With no preconditions attached
means that the top priority for all parties concerned is to embark
on negotiations instead of shedding blood on the streets and
battlefield. With no outcome predetermined means that any
faction can rule the country so long as there is an agreement
reached among all sides. Inclusive indicates that all political
forces should engage in the political dialogue. Only when no
political party is excluded from the process can dialogue truly
reflect Syrias political reality.
With respect to assistance, China supports the endeavor of
the international community in providing humanitarian assistance to Syria and is willing to contribute to such assistance
as well. However, China emphasizes the UNs leading role in
coordinating humanitarian relief efforts, insisting that the UN,
or an impartial body acceptable to all parties, should make an
objective and comprehensive assessment of the humanitarian
situation in Syria in order to ensure the delivery and distribution
of humanitarian aid. If this is properly implemented, the
attempts by certain nations to impose a non-fly zone or enlarge
a corridor by force under the banner of humanitarian assistance will become futile. Meanwhile, the possibility of turning a
humanitarian relief act into a war against the Syrian government
would be quite impossible.
Regarding non-military interference, China insists that the
principles of the UN Charter and the basic norms governing
international relations should be strictly observed, and it calls for
34CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012

The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria Issue

all relevant parties of the international community to earnestly

respect the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Syria. China does not approve of armed interference
or pushing for regime change in Syria. It believes that the use of
sanctions does not help resolve this issue appropriately.
As for coordination, China calls upon the international
community to enhance their cooperation in promoting a political
solution to the Syrian issue. China welcomes the appointment
of the Joint Special Envoy on the Syrian crisis by the UN and
the Arab League and supports the Special Envoy in playing a
constructive role in bringing about a political resolution of the
crisis. China used its veto power at the UN Security Council
while casting a negative vote in the General Assembly, but this
does not mean China negated the diplomatic efforts made by the
Arab League. On the contrary, China endorses the propositions
of the Arab states and the LAS on ending violence immediately,
properly protecting civilians, providing humanitarian assistance,
and avoiding foreign military interference. What China does not
approve in the LAS resolution are those contents that may be
utilized by the West to wage war against Syria.
Concerning unity, China maintains that based on the
purposes and principles of the UN Charter members of the Security Council should engage in equal-footed, patient and full
consultation in order to safeguard the unity of the Security
Council. This means that no one should force other permanent
members of the UNSC to exercise their veto power by pushing a
not-fully-consulted and thus apparently flawed draft resolution
to vote. Putting a seriously divided draft resolution to a vote
while knowing it will be vetoed embarrasses states vetoing it and
does not help push for its adoption. This is not a constructive
attitude towards problem solving.
Today, Syria is at the crossroads between peace and war. We
see two trends developing in the international community. One
involves various peace efforts taken to promote Syrias political
CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 201235

Qu Xing

process, including the Chinese Special Envoys visit to Syria,

the six-point statement issued by the leading Chinese Foreign
Ministry official, the visit to Syria made by the Russian Foreign
Minister, the increasingly rational voice inside the Arab League,
some LAS members abstention from UN voting on resolutions
concerning Syria, and the appointment of the Joint Special Envoy
on the Syrian crisis by the UN and the Arab League. The other
trend, however, has been contributing to the escalation of the
military conflict. For example, some opposition groups in Syria
set up a Military Bureau abroad while some states ask to provide
military equipment and training of personnel to the opposition.
Since there are only around 30,000 opposition militants who
want to defeat the hundreds of thousands of Syrian soldiers
and police by relying on foreign assistance, we can imagine that
the intensity of the fights, the devastation wrecked upon state
infrastructure, and the tragic casualties among the people.
China exercised its veto power at the UNSC and voted against
a resolution in the UN General Assembly. It did this not for the
sake of siding with one party or the other. Instead, China does
not want to see the UNSC resolution become distorted again to
provide a foundation for waging war against Syria, nor does it
like to see the complete loss of a rare opportunity for political
dialogue, nor does it hope to see another Arab state being
shattered under foreign bombing and another group of Arab
people, irrespective of their political beliefs, being slaughtered
by foreign bombs. Frankly speaking, in todays world, if the
most powerful military alliance is committed regime change
in a weak state via the use of force regardless of the purposes
and principles of the UN Charter, it is very difficult to stop. As a
permanent member of the UN Security Council and in an attitude
responsible to the UN Charter, China has been promoting the
start of political dialogue in Syria. China is making the biggest
effort for peace-building in Syria, and we truly hope that these
efforts are successful.
36CHINA INTERNATIONAL STUDIES . March/April 2012