Editor's Note:
The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution Friday in Geneva, condemning Syria government and the pro-government militias are responsible for the recent massacre in the rebel town of Houla, where more than 100 people were killed. Russia and China vetoed the resolution, backed by Cuba. What drove the veto? How will the Syria situation develop? Global Times (GT) reporter Fu Qiang interviewed Li Weijian (Li), director of the Institute for Foreign Policy Studies of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, on these issues.
GT: How do you think China and Russia's veto on the UN Human Rights Council resolution this time?
Li: I think it is too soon to come to the conclusion that the Syrian government or pro-government militias are responsible for this tragedy.
The Western nations have been looking for a method to topple the regime. But they should not force other nations to change their system in such a way.
The investigation into this tragedy is still on-going. Opposition forces said the tragedy was a result of artillery fire from government forces.
Recently, some evidence has shown that many mortal wounds in Houla were caused by knife blows. The evidence is in doubt.
The Houla tragedy hurts the Syria government, for Western countries have condemned the Assad regime. In turn, this will speed up his fall.
Western countries have made their position clear from the very beginning. They insisted that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's departure was a prerequisite for a political transition in Syria.
International public opinion has been led by the West and before Houla, Western countries were already putting pressure on Assad.
GT: The West sees the stepping down of Assad as a precondition for the solution of the Syrian crisis, but some say this is likely to bring bigger turmoil because he still has many supporters. What are your comments?
Li: I just visited some Middle East countries, including neighbors of Syria. Basically, I came to the conclusion that the Syrian majority still support Assad.
The president has carried out a series of democratic reforms in Syria. Many people in Syria turned to support the government after witnessing the Libyan unrest. They are not willing to see their own nation fall into chaos.
GT: Do you think the Syrian crisis is at a critical point? What are the differences between the US and France on the issue?
Li: Compared with France, the approach of the US on the Syria issue is more realistic and sober, which is a signal that the US fever for the Arab Spring is decreasing.
The US committing itself early on the Libyan issue led it into trouble. Currently, the US leaders are under high pressure of presidential election, they have to be cautious with their remarks on the Syrian issue. And the Obama administration has to be cautious in the Middle East.
Besides, one difference between Syria and Libya is that the Syrian government is more powerful. Thus the US has a more careful attitude on Syria.
French President Francoise Hollande is a newcomer to international politics. He is impulsive and enthusiastic but he is not able to keep a clear mind of the current situation.
GT: Hollande said he would try to persuade Putin to change Russia's policy on Syria during Putin's trip to France. And there are also speculations that Russia and China will change their stance on the issue after the massacre. Do you think it possible?
Li: The problems regarding to Syria, which must be made clear are first, what exactly should be changed and second, how to make a change.
I disagree with Hollande's argument on the crisis and believe it is completely wrong.
The Russia and China's veto on Syria was intended to avoid a deepening humanitarian crisis so the two countries expect a cease-fire between the Syria government and the opposition groups.
But in fact, the Western countries have secretly provided the opposition groups with weapons
.
Under such circumstances, the Western countries have criticized Russia and China by claiming that the two side with the Syrian government. Public opinion in China won't be shaped by the West.
China abstained from voting on the Libyan issue because it valued the decisions made by the Arab League. However, it turns out that the Western countries made use of the non-fly zones which resulted in the collapse of the Gaddafi regime.
The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Western countries have spurred China to take a more determined stand.
GT: The UN envoy Kofi Annan's peace plan in Syria is described by some as a "complete failure." Do you agree with such comments? Is a political solution still possible at the moment? Would that be a choice acceptable for all sides?
Li: I believe the key point in the Syrian crisis is that the Western countries should be more rational and clear-minded, or at least refrain from interfering in the Syrian domestic politics.
For the solution of the Syrian unrest, in my opinion, the government forces and the opposition groups should come to a cease-fire agreement.
Then the Syria people should decide whether to organize political reform or hold a general election to settle the political disputes.
Again China is not concerned with regime change in Syria.
China's connections with both the Syria government and the opposition groups account for our consistent position.
source：Global Times