Global: BRICS vs. NATO - battle of ideas on action

This post is part of our special coverage of International Relations and Security .

The recent decision by China and Russia to veto the resolution [in] Security Council United Nations against Syria has reignited debate about the relationship between the 'new' powers such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -the BRICs - with 'old' powers such as the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) in international interventions.

Heads of state of BRICS in New Delhi, India for the Fourth Summit BRICS, March 2012. Photo of Roberto Filho Stuckert / PR. Used with permission.

The BRICS conference [es] held last March provides the setting for Oliver Stuenkel article in The Hindu [in] had anticipated the decision of Russia and China to veto for the third time the UN resolution on Syria:

There seemed to be a consensus ... in the case of Libya in February and March 2011. However, already during the war, the BRICs have rightly pointed out that the forces of the Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) exceeded the mandate given by the UN. Resolution 1973 was "to protect civilians and civilian areas under threat of attack", however, NATO considered as permission for a change of regime. As a result, the BRICs now doubt any resolution on Syria.

Across the table, the position of the BRICS has attracted much criticism from the 'old' powers. Daniel Korski, advisor to the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, wrote that one would expect a world locked in 2012 [in]:

And although NATO Allies succeeded in Libya, both diplomatically and militarily, China and Russia have managed to block decisive action against Syria, despite his government's violent crackdown on demonstrators. Dealing with Iran, a topic of great concern to NATO allies, it also requires the support of China, Russia and India.

¿To intervene or not intervene?
Both cases of Syria and Libya are controversial. In fact, show that the 'old' and 'new' powers have different approaches on how to deal with conflicts and there are different opinions to support those positions. Alex Thurston, a doctoral student in the Department of Religion at Northwestern University, Illinois, believes that "the NATO intervention in Libya was a mistake" on his blog sahelblog [in]:

While civil war regardless would have produced a certain chaos, I believe that without Western intervention were strong probabilities that the faction of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi would have defeated the rebels and Gaddafi would have remained in power, a result that would have reduced the chaos resulting regional.

Legacy of the Second World War
Countries with a historical tradition of intervening in regional affairs blame the 'new' powers not to act on behalf of human rights. The 'new' powers argue that the intervention does more harm than good. All countries tend to act in their own interest though. Indeed, while China and other countries boost their economies through economic ties, last year, U.S. spending in defense exceeded $ 700 billion, the highest since World War II, according to Time [in]. Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar calls the insistence of the "West" to intervene in Syria ", "" cost hellish "Holy War NATO" [pt]:

E, enquanto or "Western society" flerta com a Holy War, as companies estatais chinesas compram Mercadorias Feito doidas, for all or the Middle East and North America gives Áfria do Sul - além to expand seus rare nas terras stocks of strategic reserves .....

The role of NATO in the current world order - in which the bipolar world divided between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union has been replaced by a multipolar international system - changes things, according to Hans Christof von Sponeck , former Secretary General of the United Nations:

The mandate (of NATO) based in the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, originally was the defense of its member states. At the end of the Cold War in 1989, seemed to have fulfilled its mandate. However, NATO members wanted to keep the Western alliance. This triggered the search for a new role for NATO.

Written by Thiana Biondo · Translated by Juan Arellano · View original post [en] · Comments (0)
Share it: Meneame · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper