The United Nations Security Council in session, September 24, 2009

China and Russia on Saturday blocked a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have called on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to cede power to a transitional government. The Russian ambassador to the United Nations accused Arab and Western powers of undermining a diplomatic solution by calling for regime change in the Middle Eastern country.

Ahead of the vote, Russia said the resolution wasn’t “hopeless” but needed to avoid “taking sides in a civil war.” Its deputy foreign minister warned last week that, “Pushing this resolution is a path to civil war.”

The Chinese representative insisted that “the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria should be fully respected.” Imposing an international solution would only “further complicate the situation,” he said. He blamed other members for pushing the resolution although there clearly wasn’t a consensus.

Susan Rice, the American ambassador, said she was “disgusted” that a mere two members of the Security Council blocked international action while the other thirteen voted in favor. She accused China and Russia of propping up “desperate dictators” and said, “Any further bloodshed that flows will be on their hands.”

This intransigence is even more shameful when you consider that at least one of these members continues to deliver weapons to Assad.

The Russians maintain strong trade relations with Syria, including billions worth of annual arms sales.

Germany’s permanent representative to the United Nations similarly lamented the Sino-Russian veto although his country abstained from supporting intervention in Libya last year. He stressed that the resolution “did not contain an arms embargo nor a sanctions regime” despite Western wishes for such language. It was taken out to accomodate Chinese and Russian concerns.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the British ambassador, also pointed out that the resolution had been watered down to stop a veto. “There was nothing in this text to justify a veto. We removed every possible excuse.” He lambasted China and Russia for choosing to “support tyranny rather than the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.”

The French, who, last year, played a key role in enacting a Security Council resolution that empowered Arab and Western countries to intervene in Libya’s civil war, have staunchly sided with the Sunni monarchies that suspended Syria from the Arab League in November and called on the United Nations to take more forceful action against Damascus last week.

Qatar has already voiced support for an armed intervention. Turkey, which maintained amicable ties with the Ba’athist regime before the uprising, said it had “lost confidence” in President Assad’s willingness to reform. The Turkish foreign minister last week said that his country was prepared “to do everything for the Syrian people” although he stopped short of endorsing calls for military action.

The French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said recent killings in the western Syrian city of Homs, which has been a hotbed of the unrest, amounted to “massacre” and proved that “Syrian authorities have jumped a new hurdle in savagery.”

In remarks that were clearly aimed at Moscow, Juppé further suggested that any country that blocked international action would bear a “heavy responsibility in history.”

The Russians were not persuaded. They fear that a resolution will pave the way for foreign intervention as happened in Libya last year. The Russians weren’t pleased to see NATO take sides in what they considered to be an internal conflict.

If Assad falls, he would likely make way for an administration that is dominated by Arab Sunnis who might be tempted to align their country to the Arab Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, which are generally favorable to American and Western interests. Russia would thus be without leverage in the Middle East.

Finally, the Kremlin may worry that if the Syrian uprising manages to overthrow Assad, it will embolden separatist movements in its outer provinces and former satellite states which could dampen Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s hopes of establishing an Eurasian Union under Russian leadership before he has even had a chance to reunite the former Soviet Union.

Presidents Dmitry Medvedev of Russia and Bashar al-Assad of Syria in Damascus, May 10, 2010

A senior Russian diplomat on Tuesday warned that if Syrian president Bashar al-Assad were forced to resign, his country would surely descent into chaos.

Encouraged by the Arab League, which withdrew its monitors from Syria last week as the regime continued to deploy force against the opposition, the United Nations Security Council considered a resolution that urged President Assad to step down on Tuesday.

Ahead of the vote, Russia’s deputy foreign minister said, “Pushing this resolution is a path to civil war.” The country has threatened to use its veto power to prevent the resolution from being enacted.

Demonstrations in Syria have been subject to brutal crackdowns for almost a year. Thousands are estimated to have died in confrontations between protesters and Assad’s security forces since the revolt started in March 2011. Part of the opposition has since banded together in militias while a government in waiting sits in Istanbul.

Despite international pressure, Damascus has shown no sign of relenting.

The Arab League suspended Syria as a member in November. Qatar has called for an armed intervention. Turkey, which maintained amicable ties with the Ba’athist regime before the uprising, said it had “lost confidence” in President Assad’s willingness to reform. The Turkish foreign minister just last week said that his country was “ready to do everything for the Syrian people” although he stopped short of endorsing calls for military action. Even Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and the West, has severed ties with Damascus.

Besides Iran, a stalwart Syrian ally, only Russia has continued to stand by Assad’s side. The two countries have been close since the Cold War.

Syria is still a top buyer of Russian military hardware. In 2010, it received 6 percent of Russian arms sales. Contracts for future deliveries are worth up to $4 billion. Syria has also hosted a Russian naval base in the city of Tartus on the Mediterranean since 1971. The facilities are partly derelict. Of three floating docks, one is known to be operational although renovations started in 2009.

In the strongest show of support for the Assad regime yet, the Kremlin anchored its aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, the flagship of the Russian navy, off the port of Tartus earlier this month.

Russia is also invested in Syrian natural gas extraction. The Stroitransgaz company is building a gas processing plant in central Syria and involved in technical support for the expansion of the Arab Gas Pipeline which exports Egyptian gas to Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. The energy company Tatneft plans to spend $12 million on drilling exploratory wells near the Iraqi border and is engaged in contracts with the Syrian national oil company.

The largest oil producer and second largest oil exporter in the world, Russia hardly depends on Middle Eastern states like Syria. Its loyalty to Assad and his government may be informed more by a concern of strengthening the Sunni axis in the region, led by Saudi Arabia and allied to the West, as well as the fear that successful rebellion in Syria could embolden Islamic insurgents in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

In supporting Assad, Moscow may seek to dissuade dissident groups in its outer provinces and former satellite states from imitating the “Arab spring” and crush Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s hopes of establishing an Eurasian Union under Russian leadership before it has probably taken off.

The deep warm water port of Tartus is also a strategic asset that is coveted by Russia. It may not be as relevant to Russia’s ability to project power as during Soviet times, especially as the country’s emphasis shifts to the Arctic region, but a presumably Islamist regime, in league with the Turks, would surely expel the Russians from their one naval base that isn’t either frozen during part of the year or inaccessible, as in the Black Sea, if NATO powers erected a blockade of the Dardanelles.

The guided missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill anchors in Manila Bay, the Philippines, May 15, 2011

The governments of the Philippines and the United States are in talks about expanding the American military presence in the island nation. The renewed commitment is part of a comprehensive effort on the part of the Obama Administration to firmly establish America as a Pacific power.

Among the options to bolster America’s alliance with the Philippines are deploying more troops to the islands on a rotational basis and operating United States Navy ships from Philippine ports. Some six hundred Special Forces already operate in the Philippines in assistance of local counterinsurgency efforts.

A future agreement would follow the basing of US Marines in northern Australia and the stationing of warships in the port of Singapore. The United States have also reached out to Thailand and Vietnam to discuss military cooperation. It is all part of an effort to back up President Barack Obama’s words with action. He insisted last November that, “The United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has earlier declared stability in Southeast Asia to be of “national interest” to the United States, a claim that drew a fierce rebuke from the Chinese who argued that “China is a big country and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.”

It’s because of China’s emergence as an economic superpower and regional hegemon that other countries in East Asia welcome America’s security presence to provide balance.

Especially in the South China Sea region, revisionist Chinese border claims have antagonized its neighbors and the United States alike. Both recognize the importance of safeguarding free shipping though this strategically positioned body of water. Officials in the Philippines acknowledged that their priority is to strengthen maritime ties with the Americans to dissuade Chinese saber rattling to their west.

American attempts at mediation have so far failed to significantly change Chinese behavior and may be unlikely to. The country is facing major demographic challenges as well as resource and water scarcities well into the twenty-first century, compelling it to ensure a favorable balance of power in its vicinity and a foothold in Africa and Central Asia where there are natural riches to be secured.

This could pose a threat to the sovereignty and security of China’s neighbors if Beijing is unwilling to share the role of security provider in East Asia with the United States.

The Americans currently have several tens of thousands of troops stationed across East Asia, in Guam, Japan and South Korea.

This article also appeared in The Seoul Times, January 28, 2012.

Texas congressman Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum debate Latin American policy during a Republican Party presidential debate in Jacksonville, Florida, January 26 (CNN)

Rick Santorum, a Republican Party presidential contender, accused Barack Obama of pursuing “a consistent policy of siding with the leftists, siding with the Marxists” in Latin America.

The former Pennsylvania senator, who appears to have little chance of securing the Republican nomination to challenge the incumbent in November’s election, participated in a televised debate sponsored by CNN in Jacksonville, Florida on Thursday night. Conservatives in the southeastern state vote in a primary on Tuesday to elect a presidential candidate.

Santorum referenced Colombia in particular which “is out there on the frontlines working with us against the narco-terrorists, standing up to Chávez in South America and what did we do?” he asked.

For domestic political purposes, the president of the United States sided with organized labor and the environmental groups and held Colombia out to dry for three years.

Colombia successfully crushed the drug and FARC insurgency with military and financial support from the United States.

A free trade agreement between the two countries, which the government in Bogotá ratified in 2007, was held up for nearly three years by the Obama Administration over union concerns about the safety of labor leaders in Latin America—even if the murder rate among union members has steeply declined in recent years. A unionized laborer in Colombia today is one sixth as likely to be a victim of homicide as a fellow citizen who does not belong to a trade union.

Colombia accounts for just 1 percent of America’s trade volume but 40 percent of Colombian exports are to the United States. A third of the products it imports are American.

The country sells mainly coal, coffee, cut flowers and petroleum. As the security situation has stabilized, the Colombian economy is performing strongly. 4.3 percent growth is expected this year.

Despite a long standing economic and military relationship with the United States, Colombia’s second largest trading partner is neighboring Venezuela where the president, Hugo Chávez, works to build an anti-American league in the region.

Bogotá suspects Venezuela of supporting the left wing revolutionaries of the FARC but seeks to normalize relations with the Chávez regime nonetheless. Conservatives in the United States blame President Obama’s three years of inaction on the Colombian free trade agreement for this apparent alienation. “We cannot do that to our friends in South America,” was how Santorum put it Thursday night.

He also rejected calls to normalize relations with Cuba which he described as “the heart of the cancer that is in Central and South America.” He alleged that the president intended to reward a behavior of thuggery. “This is the exact wrong message at the exact wrong time.”

Texas congressman Ron Paul, who advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy, challenged Santorum’s call for a more activist American presence across the Western Hemisphere. “You’re talking about force,” he said. “The Cold War is over. They’re not going to invade us.”

I don’t think the nations in South America and Central America necessarily want us to come down there and dictate what government they should have.

Rather he championed freer trade before pointing out that economic sanctions, well intended as he said they may be, “almost inevitably backfire and help the dictators and hurt the people.”

During the Cold War, the United States regularly intervened in the political affairs of Latin American nations to prevent leftist regimes from coming to power there. Santorum said he didn’t necessarily favor military intervention but suggested that an economic union should be erected across the Americas.

Mohamed Saad al-Katatni, the speaker of the Egyptian parliament, greets another lawmaker of the Muslim Brotherhood, Cairo, January 23 (Reuters/Asmaa Waguih)

The contours of a post-Mubarak political reality in Egypt are becoming clearer in the wake of the longtime president’s removal from office last year. The military, which has since governed the country on an interim basis, is reportedly reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood, by far the largest political faction in the new Egypt, in an attempt to maintain the influence it has had in defense and foreign policy for many decades.

The military council previously insisted that the army’s status must remain “unchanged” and the Muslim Brothers may be wary of challenging the generals on their own turf to engage in adventurism abroad, whatever their opinion of Israel and the West.

Even if they nearly secured an absolute majority in parliament, the Brothers fear a backlash from secularists and the army as happened in Algeria in the 1990s. When Islamists won free elections there, it sparked a civil war and ushered in two more decades of military rule.

The Brothers therefore remained on the sidelines when major anti-Israel demonstrations erupted in Cairo in 2002 and again a year later, when Egyptians took to the streets to protest the Iraq war. They belatedly joined the effort to oust Hosni Mubarak in February of last year to the chagrin of some of their own, younger members and appear to have little desire to fundamentally uproot the way Egypt conducts itself on the international state.

The military meanwhile will not want to jeopardize Egypt’s ties with the Americans nor will Amr Moussa, the former head of the Arab League who is set to become president in June.

Despite lingering protests against military rule in the capital, the vast majority of Egyptians probably cares less about foreign policy and more about finding a job and being able to provide for their families again.

Their yearn for a return to normalcy is evidenced by the official results of recent parliamentary elections in which the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and the puritanical Al Nour Party together won 72 percent of the vote. Both support expanded access to education, health care and housing. The Brotherhood has provided food, medical aid and shelter to Egypt’s poor for several decades as a charitable organization which accounted for its strong showing even in the cities where voters otherwise tend to be less conservative. Al Nour would like to provide all these services for free.

A radical Islamist government of the two parties seems unlikely to emerge as the Brotherhood says to prefer a coalition with the liberal New Wafd Party which has thirty-eight seats in the legislature. They have considered an alliance before and now control a majority.

A religious revival may occur nevertheless as the forced secularization of Egypt under sixty years of authoritarian rule comes to an end and some 90 percent of Egyptians is Muslim. This should be of particular concern to the tourist industry which employs two million people and accounts for 11 percent of Egypt’s gross domestic product.

The Brothers have said to favor a ban on alcohol and wish to see pious Muslim women wear traditional garb, a practice that was frowned upon during the Mubarak era when it was associated with religious extremism. The party may be prepared to make exceptions for tourist areas. Al Nour is not. It advocates an alcohol ban across Egypt as well as the erection of a dedicated police agency to ensure that people fast during the holy month of Ramadan.

Even if the Wafd become part of the government, liberalization of the economy may prove difficult. The mere notion of “economic reform” has been tarnished by the half hearted privatization and free trade policies of the 1990s which opened Egypt’s economy up to the world but also institutionalized corruption and strengthened single party rule.

The need for a pro-growth program is pressing all the same. A year of political upheaval has left the economy in shambles. Foreign direct investment has virtually come to a standstill. Economic expansion has stalled while the Islamist parties, including the representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, tend to be hostile to globalization and wary of international trade.

Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu is interviewed on France24, January 21

Turkey’s foreign minister told France24 in an interview this weekend that his country was prepared “to do everything for [the] Syrian people.” Ahmet Davutoğlu said the demands of the Syrian opposition “are right demands” but insisted that international action against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad should be coordinated with the United Nations.

In the wake of the “Arab spring,” Ankara has distanced itself from Damascus despite fostering trade relations with the Ba’athist regime there in previous years. President Abdullah Gül said that he had “lost confidence” in his Syrian counterpart in August of last year and Turkey has refused to close its border with Syria for refugees seeking to escape the brutal crackdown on anti-government demonstrations.

Erecting a “buffer zone” along the border may be a step too far for the Turks to do on their own even if a Syrian National Council that aims to organize the opposition to President Assad has been allowed to set up its headquarters in Istanbul.

Turkey seems anxious to position itself as a champion of the revolutionary cause lest the new rulers in countries as Egypt and possibly Syria remember that it was quite willing to work with their authoritarian predecessors until just last year. Asked whether he sees a role for Turkey as a regional power broker Davutoğlu said, “Of course.”

Whenever there is any need for Turkish help and assistance, we are always here in the most critical geographical part of the world.

The academic turned politician had more conciliatory words for Iran. Ever the diplomat, Davutoğlu said his country didn’t feel obliged to support unilateral Western sanctions against the Islamic republic. “The best and only way to solve this dispute is diplomacy,” he said.

Turkey’s resurgence as a regional power has complicated its relations with the West. Where it used to be staunchly pro-American and wished to become a member of the European Union, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his party appear to have realigned their nation to become a Middle Eastern one again. Davutoğlu will have to more clearly communicate Ankara’s motives to the West if Turkey is to become the interlocutor it says it aspires to be.

America’s and Europe’s rejection of the nuclear fuel exchange agreement which Turkey negotiated with the Iranians in conjunction with Brazil two years ago wouldn’t appear to bode well for its regional aspirations but it is the only NATO member that the Iranians trust as their middle man—even after, just last month, it agreed to host an early warning radar on its soil that will be part of a system designed to shoot down Iranian missiles.

Prince Saud bin Faisal Al Saud, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, participates in a United Nations forum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 28, 2010

Saudi Arabia on Sunday said it would withdraw its members from an Arab League monitoring mission in Syria as the regime there continued to deploy violence against protesters. In Cairo, Prince Saud bin Faisal, the kingdom’s foreign minister, also called on the international community “to bear its responsibility” and increase pressure on Damascus.

Soon after the Saudi withdrawal, the Qataris demanded a review of the entire Syrian operation. The smaller Persian Gulf states, which usually follow Saudi foreign policy, could pull out their monitors as well. The Qatari emir as recently as last week suggested that Arab troops had to go into Syria to quell the violence.

Twenty-two members of the monitoring mission have quit since their work began last month, claiming that despite their presence, the Syrian Government is determined to crush the popular revolt.

A Syrian National Council that is supported by Syria’s banned Muslim Brotherhood as well as defected elements of the Syrian army, is seated in Turkey. The Arab League urged the formation of a unity government, presumably in conjunction with this body. To that end, they said, Bashar al-Assad should step down and hand power to his vice president.

After ten months of unrest, the Syrian uprising tends to break down increasingly along sectarian lines with Christian, Kurdish and Shī’ah minorities supporting the dictatorship and Sunnis, who are in the majority among Syria’s twenty-three million population, sympathizing with the protests; protests which, in at least parts of the country, have morphed into armed rebellions.

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni state, supports the anti-government forces in order to weaken Assad’s Ba’athist regime which is allied to Iran.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have been engaged in a power struggle for years. With American troops pulled out of Iraq, the country that is home to Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis is now contested as a sphere of influence by both major powers.

The Sunni population in Iraq is concentrated in the south and southwest whereas in Syria, it is the eastern part of the country that is overwhelmingly Sunni. The border that divides them is the legacy of European colonialism. Iraq was once a British protectorate while Syria was ruled by the French. There are actually few differences in culture, language and religious beliefs among the Sunnis who live in the two countries. There may not be substantial differences in political affiliation either.

Reportedly, the Saudis have supplied the Sunni opposition in Syria with satellite phones to organize their protests after the Assad regime was supposed to have had Iranian support in disrupting telephone communications. Reports have also surfaced of Saudi interlocutors approaching Sunni leaders in the eastern Deir ez-Zor Governorate which is where Syria’s largest oil fields happen to be situated.

The demise of the Assad regime would be a huge boost to Saudi Arabia’s standing in the region, especially after its favored government in Lebanon was undermined by the militant organization Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, last year. The Shī’ah uprising in Bahrain that coincided with the “Arab spring” in Egypt in February and March 2010 was regarded with apprehension in Riyadh which quickly sent its troops into the island state to silence the dissent, a move that, naturally, was condemned by Tehran.

Premier Wen Jiabao speaks in Dalian, China, September 14, 2011 (Adam Dean)

China’s premier on Friday warned Iran not to block access to the Strait of Hormuz and said his country “adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons.”

The words came as tensions are rising across the Persian Gulf and were unusually blunt for a Chinese leader. Wen Jiabao’s criticism of Tehran’s threats were well received by his Arab Gulf hosts however who fear Iran’s aspirations to regional leadership.

Wen was in the Middle East for a six day visit of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, three Sunni monarchies that are wary of Shī’ah Iran projecting influence across the Gulf.

The Islamic republic is under increasing international pressure because Western nations suspect it intends to develop a nuclear weapons capability. China is among few countries that is recognized as a nuclear power under nonproliferation accords. Iran is a signatory to these treaties. A nuclear weapons program would be in violation of them.

The European Union and Japan announced this month that they would join the United States in a boycott of Iranian oil sales. The country is heavily dependent on oil revenue but its export market is limited. If Europe and Japan were to suspend their petroleum imports, it would cut Iran’s sales by roughly a quarter.

China is another major buyer of Iranian oil but its largest supplier is Saudi Arabia. The kingdom and its emirate allies have offered to expand production to make up for gaps if oil consumers won’t trade with Iran. Wen insisted that China considers its business ties with Iran independently of its diplomatic relations. He has little choice but not to. China imports more than a third of its oil and Chinese oil consumption grows by 7.5 percent per year. It needs to buy wherever it can.

The crisis in the Gulf coincides with mounting turmoil in the Sudan. Before South Sudan seceded last year, the country exported the bulk of its oil to China. The Sudanese oil fields are largely situated in the South but the export industry is controlled by Khartoum. It recently confiscated Southern crude exports as compensation for unpaid transit fees.

Although the civil war in Sudan formally ended with Southern independence there continue to be clashes along the border. Oil revenue is a source of considerable discord between the two governments. If there is a disturbance in Sudanese exports, it would force China to increase its dependence on Middle Eastern oil producers, including Iran. Chinese petroleum imports from Iran already surged by 30 percent last year.

Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama meet with National Security Staff in the Situation Room of the White House in Washington DC, June 20, 2011

“Iran now faces a unified world community” in opposition to its uranium enrichment program said President Barack Obama on Wednesday. International sanctions are putting “enormous economic pressure” on the Islamic nation while its regional standing is “diminished.”

The president made his statements in an interview with Time magazine. “When I came into office, what we had was a situation in which the world was divided, Iran was unified, it was on the move in the region,” he said. He cited his administration’s “effective diplomacy” in convincing China and Russia, which had previously balked at attempts to isolate Iran, to support sanctions.

Chinese companies are known to have violated United Nations sanctions at least since October of last year however while India aimed to work “creatively” around the punitive measures, fearful of upending ties with Iran which it regards as an ally in keeping Pakistan out of Afghanistan and countering Chinese influence in Central Asia. Neither has signaled a willingness to join an oil embargo which European nations, Japan and the United States are planning to enforce.

Russia did suspend a planned sale of surface to air missiles to Iran and banned trade in military hardware with the Islamic republic.

The most recent unilateral American sanction against Iran targets its central bank, the main conduit for oil revenues. Financial institutions that do business with Iran’s central bank could be subject to fines.

The government in Tehran relies on oil sales for some 85 percent of its income. China and India are among Iran’s main buyers. They take a 16 and 13 percent share respectively. European Union nations, which are expected to enact a boycott this month, buy roughly 15 percent of Iran’s oil.

In response to international pressure, Iran has threatened to block access to the Persian Gulf. The Iranian navy staged exercises in the narrow Strait of Hormuz this month to demonstrate its ability to close the waterway through which passes 40 percent of the world’s seaborn oil transports.

President Obama’s Republican challengers for the presidency have advocated more forceful action against the regime. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told CNN in December that “Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon. All the world can decide is whether they help us peacefully stop it or they force us to use violence,” he warned, “but Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon.”

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who is deemed likeliest to be nominated by the opposition party to run against the president in November, declared boldly during a televised debate in November that, “If we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. If we elect Mitt Romney, they will not have a nuclear weapon.”

The president admitted that there isn’t a guarantee that sanctions will change Iran’s behavior. “Which is why I have repeatedly said we don’t take any options off the table in preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon.”

But what I can confidently say, based on discussions that I’ve had across this government and with governments around the world, is that of all the various difficult options available to us we’ve taken the one that is most likely to accomplish our goal and one that is most consistent with America’s security interest.

He also reiterated that there is still “a diplomatic path where they forego nuclear weapons, abide by international rules and can have peaceful nuclear power as other countries do” but there seems little reason to suppose that, after the Iranians rejected several overtures on the part of Western powers, this is the path they’ll chose to walk.

Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the emir of Qatar, appears on CBS News' 60 Minutes, January 14

The emir of Qatar has called for an armed intervention of Arab nations in Syria. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of the tiny but enormously wealthy Persian Gulf state, told CBS News’ 60 Minutes in an interview that was broadcast on Sunday that in order “to stop the killing, some troops should go.”

The uprising in Syria has gone on for nearly a year but unlike was the case in Libya, where Arab and Western countries intervened last year with military force to stop the brutalities which Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi’s government committed against demonstrators, President Bashar al-Assad has been able to kill probably several thousand people in an effort to crush the civil unrest.

Syria was suspended as a member of the Arab League in November and monitors of the organization’s have been sent into the country to examine the situation. Barring further international pressure though, it would be difficult if not impossible for the protesters to overthrow the Ba’athist regime.

Qatar was among few Arab states that pushed for an intervention in Syria last year and along with the United Arab Emirates, the only regional member of the international coalition to support the effort with military assets.

Six Qatari fighter jets and two transport aircraft participated in the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya while Qatar supplied weapons to the rebels which ultimately enabled them to tilt the balance of the war in their favor.

Qatar’s natural gas wealth and popular monarchy enable the emirate to conduct an activist foreign policy. Qatar is aligned to neighboring Saudi Arabia and the United States and aims to position itself as a mediator between Arab states and the West. To that end, it has reached out to organizations as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Afghan Taliban without jeopardizing ties and arms deals with the Americans. Where Western nations are hesitant to engage in talks with radical Islamist organizations, the Qataris have no such reluctance.

For a small nation of just a quarter million people, situated between Saudi Arabia and Iran, being friends with everyone is a policy of survival. As the emir put it, “Don’t you think this is a good policy for a small country?”

David Roberts observed in Foreign Affairs magazine last year that “being at the forefront of popular Arab opinion and defending fellow Arabs against an onslaught from a widely hated dictator is a priceless commodity” for Qatar’s leaders, “both at home and abroad.” It may be the only leverage they have.