OPCW under the CWC, it helped to secure its remaining sovereignty against the possibility of foreign military intervention by removing the most likely trigger for such intervention, viz. allegations that it was using chemical weapons. With states reluctant to intervene primarily for humanitarian reasons, and with Security Council members reluctant to invoke R2P, by acceding to the CWC Syria is able to maintain most of its sovereignty, Security Council mem-
III:
bers are able claim that they have carried out their “responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” under Article 24 of the UN Charter, and the Norwegian Nobel Committee is able award the Nobel Peace Prize to the OPCW and while expressing “hope that this award ... will help broader efforts to achieve peace in [Syria] and (ease) the suffering of its people,” even as the civil war in Syria wages on and the death toll continues to rise.
Comments on Syria Becca McBride
Today I want to attempt to answer the question: What exactly is Russia doing? Or more specifically, what is Putin doing? There are three specific things Putin has done in the past month that seem puzzling. First, Putin has supported, and continues to support, the Syrian regime; despite the fact that the rest of the world thinks this is a very bad idea. Second, Putin wrote an op-ed for the NY Times in which he appealed directly to the American people. Third, he continues to block a UN Security Council resolution that would hold Syria accountable by threatening military action if Syria fails to follow through in disclosing and surrendering its chemical weapons. I want to answer this question by first discussing two Russian interests that are likely driving Putin’s behavior. Then I will discuss two contradictions, or tensions, in Putin’s recent behavior. First, Russia has an interest in preventing the United States from getting involved in the domestic affairs of other countries. This is in Russia’s interest for economic reasons; Russia sells military technology to regimes that the United States sees as problematic. If the United States gets involved in those regimes’ domestic affairs, Russia could lose customers and take an
economic hit. Additionally, if the United States attacks Syria, they will be attacking Russian military technology. If they are able to defeat that technology, this will undermine the quality of Russian military technology. Russia also has an interest in keeping the United States out of other states’ domestic affairs because Russia has its own domestic problems. For example, last year the United States passed a law, the Magnitskiy Act, that prevents Russians who are accused of human rights abuses from receiving visas to travel to the United States and from owning property in the United States. From a Russian standpoint, it is extremely problematic for the United States to adopt a law domestically that punishes Russian citizens. Immediately following the passage of this law, the Russian Duma passed a law banning US citizens from adopting Russian children. Second, Russia has an interest in using its primary power tool, its veto power in the UN Security Council, to reclaim some of the power it lost at the end of the Cold War. Russia no longer has the domestic resources—economic or military resources—to wield significant power in the international system. But Russia
7 C/O EXIST