Provocative and counterproductive

Spain, New Zealand and Egypt submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council on Syria recently only to have it vetoed by Russia and China last Monday. 

Eleven members of the council supported the draft, but this widespread support was not enough to override the vetoes of two permanent mighty members. 

A closer look at the proposed resolution makes opposition to it frustrating, bewildering and disappointing. 

What adds insult to injury is the Russian description of the draft as “provocative” and “counterproductive” when all it called for was the cessation of hostilities in Aleppo for seven days, the evacuation of the sick and injured, and supplying the besieged people of East Aleppo with much-needed aid. 

The draft also excluded Daesh and Al Nusra Front from its purview.

The question that comes to mind is what is so provocative or counterproductive about the benign wording of the proposed resolution, especially when the three sponsoring nations are not exactly on the side of the opposition in Syria, and share most — if not all — the perspectives of Moscow on the imminent dangers of the terrorist groups operating in Syria. 

To be sure, I looked up the definition of provocation in the dictionary and found that it means, inter alia, goading or incitement, rousing, stirring or causing indignation. 

I also searched for the definition of what constitutes counterproductive, and I found that it means, inter alia, self-defeating or hindering the attainment of the desired effect, or having an effect that is opposite to the one intended or wanted.

By what rational justification can any nation legitimately or logically claim that the provisions of the proposed resolution amount to an incitement to do evil or cause indignation to any side? 

What could possibly be counterproductive in the draft that merely calls for a seven-day truce for certain benign purposes including the evacuation of the sick and wounded, and the supply of food and medicines to the people still stranded in East Aleppo in the face of the blitz being launched by Damascus with the aid and support of Russian warplanes and troops belonging to Iran and Hizbollah? 

I fear that the image and prestige of Russia — in particular — has been tarnished, perhaps beyond repair, in the eyes of many peoples around the world and not just in the Arab world, because of its blind support to one side in the Syrian conflict at a time when much more constructive efforts were expected from it. 

Moscow needs to revisit its stand on the Syrian situation with a view to making it more balanced and — above all — in a manner that befits the international standing of Russia in the world.