UN Syria Resolution

Just days after Russia and China vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the General Assembly moved to rectify that injustice. What's most impressive is how decisively that body acted.

The only nations to vote with Russia and China against Thursday's resolution, which calls for Assad to step down and government violence against the Syrian opposition to cease, were ones with serious deficits of their own in terms of democracy. They include dictatorships such as Belarus, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe and Cuba. And, of course, Syria itself.

Otherwise 166 of the world's nations supported the resolution, which is based on a plan of the Arab League. A clearer result would hardly have been possible.

With that, the United Nations has officially given its seal of approval to a workable roadmap for Syria.

Moral authority

Naturally, unlike resolutions of the UN Security Council, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. Still, this statement has enormous symbolic influence, since no select group of nations has the power of veto in the General Assembly. Instead, the rule there is the fundamental democratic principle of "one state, one vote."

The Assembly's condemnation of the Assad regime is thus based on a broad international consensus and carries commensurate moral authority.

It's is a long-awaited signal to the Syrian people that the world community is not ignoring their desperation and plight. The resolution also increases the pressure on Russia and China to accede to the clear opinion of the rest of the world, or risk undermining their legitimacy as veto-holding members of the Security Council.

Beijing and Moscow need to recognize that their policy toward Syria contradicts their own overarching interests in the Middle East. If these two powers want to maintain their influence in the region, they need to contribute constructively to political transition there.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has offered to serve as a mediator between Assad and the opposition, while Deputy Chinese Foreign Minister Zhai Jun has traveled to Damascus to meet with the Syrian leadership. It is in their own interest to pressure Assad into ceding at least part of his power - so that they can depict themselves as forces for peace.

Order or chaos

Nonetheless, a partial transfer of power is not an option. Assad simply has too much blood on his hands.

One strength of the UN resolution is that it backs a concrete plan that would see Assad immediately hand over the reins to his vice-president, with a national unity government to hold parliamentary and presidential elections within two months.

International observers would monitor the whole process. This is important because violence has begun to spiral out of control in Syria, threatening to plunge the country into civil war.

Should that happen, it would benefit Jihadists connected with al Qaeda's international terrorist network. They would like to cause the sort of chaos visited upon Iraq after the US-led invasion of that country.

Assad has tried to use the specter of Islamist terror to divide public opinion in the West and has allegedly already released one of the most influential jihadist ideologues, Abu Musab al-Suri, from a Syrian prison. That move was intended to suggest that the secular despot was the only thing standing between Syria and al Qaeda.

The best way to prevent Syria from being dominated by radical Islamists is to guide the Syrian uprising into orderly channels.

With the General Assembly resolution, the UN has not only set down a moral marker, but endorsed a realistic plan for the future, and Moscow and Beijing should recognize it as an opportunity.

If they did, an ethical appeal by the international community could become a motor for change in Syria.

Author: Daniel Scheschkewitz/jc
Editor: Michael Knigge