Russia and China protect the rogues.
Russia and China are apparently blocking attempts to impose individual sanctions against Sudanese officials accused of fostering violence in Darfur. "Let's wait, at least until the end of April, and then come back to the issue," pleaded Russia's UN ambassador. The Russian and Chinese stance is a helpful reminder that protecting rogue regimes (particularly those with whom they have ...
Russia and China are apparently blocking attempts to impose individual sanctions against Sudanese officials accused of fostering violence in Darfur. "Let's wait, at least until the end of April, and then come back to the issue," pleaded Russia's UN ambassador. The Russian and Chinese stance is a helpful reminder that protecting rogue regimes (particularly those with whom they have important energy ties) has become a feature of their diplomacy. As the Iran crisis develops, it will be important to remember this context.
Russia and China are apparently blocking attempts to impose individual sanctions against Sudanese officials accused of fostering violence in Darfur. "Let's wait, at least until the end of April, and then come back to the issue," pleaded Russia's UN ambassador. The Russian and Chinese stance is a helpful reminder that protecting rogue regimes (particularly those with whom they have important energy ties) has become a feature of their diplomacy. As the Iran crisis develops, it will be important to remember this context.
Observers skeptical of a tough approach to Tehran sometimes seem to assume that Security Council members favoring gentler tactics are operating out of high principle or deep wisdom. Don't believe it. There is strong evidence that the Russian and Chinese positions are about 1) protecting important energy sources; and 2) undermining the precedent that the international community can meddle in countries' internal affairs (however bloody or dangerous). There's nothing particularly high minded about either rationale. None of this means that coercing Tehran is necessarily the right approach, but let's at least be clearheaded about why certain states oppose that course.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
