The wheel of fortune of multilateral diplomacy has thrown up an interesting coincidence this week. It just happens to be Russia's turn to host the G20 summit, just at the time where the Syria crisis, in which Russia is a key player, is approaching a turning point. Of course, the G20 is supposed to be a forum about global economic cooperation, and isn't really meant to deal with issues of peace and war. But the opportunity provided by the presence of 20 world leaders in the same place, considering the increasing difficulty of getting anything agreed at the UN Security Council, was just too good to miss.

On his home ground, President Putin is in a strong position. His American counterpart is not finding it easy to garner the support of Congress for military intervention, and his most reliable ally, the UK, has just voted down a similar motion in Parliament. Support for intervention is not strong in either country. But President Obama is clearly very determined, and the argument that it would be very dangerous to "normalize" the use of chemical weapons in conflict by allowing Bashar al-Assad to get away with it, is also a strong one. The world cannot simply allow the Syrian situation to burn itself out.

The clash of principles between Russia and the West -- the principle of "no intervention without a UNSC mandate" versus that of "zero tolerance for chemical weapon use" -- is, of course, overlaid with politics. Russia's major concern is to avoid the loss of a regional ally in Assad's Syria. Both Russia and China are very keen to avoid any further marginalization of the Security Council. At the same time, Obama has now committed himself so far on this issue that to climb down would look like a humiliating defeat.

At the same time, Vladimir Putin knows that he too faces potential humiliation. He has let it be known, as he has to in his position, that unilateral American action in Syria will be regarded as an act of aggression, and that Russia will reserve its right to respond. But what sort of response can Russia give? Nobody can possibly think that Syria is worth starting World War III over. And yet if Putin fails to deter a US attack or fails to respond effectively if one occurs, he risks an equal or greater humiliation.

Thus the timing of the Russian-hosted G20 summit really is most unfortunate. Not only is there a full-scale security crisis in progress, but relations between the two 20th century superpowers are also at a low because of the Snowden affair. Though both leaders are happy to participate in a multilateral forum, they are being careful not to go anywhere near each other in the margins.

Where does this leave China? China may find itself almost the only participant who has come to the G20 willing to talk about the issues the G20 actually exists to discuss. China certainly has no interest in escalating of the situation in Syria to a higher level of tension, and will tend to support Russia on the issue of the primacy of the UN Security Council on security issues. But equally China will not wish to take a leading role in facing down the U.S., whose cooperation it needs (and has increasingly enjoyed) on issues of global economics and finance. There must be opportunities in St Petersburg for China to earn favors from all sides for playing a constructive role as "honest broker" on the Syrian issue; but it will no doubt be seen as more important for China to avoid getting its hands dirty.

It is likely that the tension over Syria at the G20 will overshadow any contentious issues on the economic front. It doesn't mean that no progress can be made -- the leaders have already drawn up a significant agreement on cooperation against the dodging of tax by large multinational corporations; anything more difficult to agree on will probably have to wait for more propitious circumstances.

One can only hope that, in whatever forum the Syrian crisis is discussed, some peaceful solution will emerge -- but either way the principle of non-interference in internal affairs will be further tested. It is not a question of peace or war; there is a war there already, and the issue needs to be resolved somehow. And then perhaps the nations of the G20 will perhaps be able to turn back to resolving the -- perhaps less urgent but equally important -- problems of the global economy.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/timcollard.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)