"If the United Nations charter is to have any value in the 21st century we must now join together to support a rapid political transition, - the Guardian quotes Mr. Cameron as saying. – And at the same time no one of conscience can turn a deaf ear to the voices of suffering."
He did not particularly mention those who are "of no conscience", but British diplomats have made it clear that the British Premier had in mind Russia and China – the two countries that have blocked a number of West-sponsored resolutions on Syria.
Now, it would be permissible to ask Mr. Cameron a couple of questions.
First of all, is it really the fate of "young children" that bothers the British Premier, or is it the strategic dominance of Britain's elder brother in the crucial Middle Eastern region – the dominance, for which Bashar al-Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are posing the two last remaining obstacles. Otherwise, why be so insistent on a "rapid political transition", even putting it before the "voice of suffering".
Second, the course of events in Syria definitely shows that there is a civil war going on. The war, in which the government is only trying to quell a mutiny. The mutiny itself was raised by local radicals with direct participation of mercenaries from a number of adjacent countries and armed by the West via its satellites in the Middle East. A war is always fraught with atrocities, and despite whatever Mr. Cameron might have been saying from the UN rostrum, the insurgents are no "meek lambs" or "innocent children". As has been demonstrated by numerous reports from Syria, the biggest bulk of atrocities were committed by the insurgents armed with Mr. Cameron's friends' assistance. So, he may be right in criticizing the UN for being unable to stop the atrocities, but the tip of his criticism should be aimed at those who instigate violence in Syria in order to achieve their geopolitical aims. And to find those, the British Premier should not look at Russia or China, but rather turn his eyes westwards (or, while being in New York, look around).
Third, while speaking of the sufferings of young Syrian children, why didn't Mr. Cameron mention the sufferings of young Yugoslav children in late 1990s who died under NATO bombings? Why didn't he refer to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans who were killed as a result of Western aggression, in which Britain took an active part, second only to the elder brother? Why didn't he made any reference to Western marines who went on a rampage in Libya leading to mass atrocities against Gaddafi loyalists? Such questions may go on indefinitely.
Indeed, those events do not seem to have taught Mr. Cameron and his like anything. The invasion of Iraq has led to total chaos in the country. The invasion to Afghanistan has not only alienated 99.99 percent of Afghans against the West but has also led to a loss of a long-time Western ally in the region, Pakistan. The "Arab Spring" which caused such enthusiasm in the West just a little bit more than a year ago, now has backlashed in a way that no one would like to have experienced.
And still, while lamenting over "the sufferings of Syrian children" (which, for the most part have been a direct result of Western interference), the West, under an outdated pretext of "freedom of expression" remains stubborn in its intentions to let the instigators of violence to roam at large and add further fuel to the bonfire flaring up in all Muslim world.
Or, maybe by referring to the "suffering of young children" Mr. Cameron suddenly remembered Ivan Karamazov who rejected global harmony based on a single tear of a child. But really, the allusion is a very disclosing one – while speaking about the "child's tear", Ivan Karamazov in fact instigated Smerdyakov to murder the Karamazov father. Isn't it something the British premier is trying to do now?
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies