A recent New York Times editorial included this stern message, stating that although Russia and China are beginning to express some level of doubt about their continued diplomatic chumminess with the Syrian dictator, Moscow and Beijing need to do more:
If Russia and China really want to preserve their influence in the region, they need to stop handing the Syrian dictator economic, military and diplomatic lifelines. The only way to repair their reputations is to end their complicity. The only way to end the killing is for Mr. Assad to go. Moscow and Beijing need to use all of their leverage to make that happen.News emerging from the conflict has been nothing short of disturbing. After the last month's violent and merciless bombardment by Assad's government, we learn that government forces have taken Homs, leaving the city's brave residents to either flee or be killed at the hands of their own government. A death toll now estimated to be around 7,500 continues to rise because of such developments. The onus is now on Syria's perceived allies in Moscow and Beijing to ensure all support has been withdrawn for this madness. Only then will the bloodshed end.
The United States, Europe, the Arab League and Turkey need to make that case to China and Russia every chance they have. And they need to keep tightening their own sanctions. At some point, the Syrian military and business elites will decide that backing the dictator is a losing proposition. The United States and its allies also need to use all of their influence and coaching to help the opposition form a credible, multiethnic government, one that will respect all Syrians.
Sentiment among Western scribes appears to be fixed around the sensible notion that intervention at this stage would be a sign of strategic folly, and I'm personally inclined to agree that it could evolve to become an unnecessary civil war that may spread beyond Syria's borders into an already precarious Middle East. But that doesn't mean that the United States cannot provide assistance to the rebel forces, fighting the Assad government vicariously, and doing what it can diplomatically to bring the violence to an end. There have been incautious but quiet calls from Senators McCain and Graham to provide weapons, intelligence, financial assistance, and other supplies to the rebels. "What is needed urgently are tangible actions by the community of responsible nations to ensure that the Syrian people have the means to protect themselves against their attackers," they wrote, underemphasizing the obvious but crucial fact that the 'attackers' in this case is actually their government.
It's encouraging to see that diplomats are no longer afraid to use the accurate term 'war criminal' to describe Mr. Assad, if a little reluctantly. Anne Applebaum had the following to say about its use:
So far, Western leaders have refrained from this kind of language because, as Hillary Clinton put it this week, using labels like "war criminal" to describe Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, can "limit options to persuade leaders to step down from power." She is right—which is why rhetoric aimed at delegitimizing the regime should be accompanied by immediate and strenuous efforts to not only unify the opposition but also to get its disparate members talking about the post-Assad future. In particular, the Syrian rebels need to start talking about transitional justice: how, exactly, former regime allies will be treated; how real criminals will be distinguished from mere collaborators; how victims will be compensated; and how the minority rule of a dictatorial clan can be ended without bloodshed.However, this might be looking forward a trifle too soon. Even the most incurious follower of foreign-policy might have cause to ask when and in what form such assistance will be offered. The Times editorial ended on a firm and assured note: "Mr. Assad must go. And the world must keep pushing until he does." My thoughts exactly.