What China and Russia Were Thinking

China and Russia vetoed a proposal in the UN Security Council today that would have imposed long-overdue sanctions against Zimbabwe's corrupt government. It seems absurd: denying justice to a well-deserving tyrant. Yet go beyond the headline, and the whole picture begins to emerge.

China's foreign policy fundamentally differs from the Western approach in that it generally does not believe in meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries. This Confucian-based philosophy is as deeply ingrained in the Chinese as the Western evangelistic nature of spreading ideals like democracy. For example, China sees its struggle with Taiwan as internal, and therefore off limits to others. Likewise, its economic ties with Sudan, however controversial, are no one's business but theirs. In the case of Zimbabwe, Chinese UN Ambassador Wang Guangya defended China's veto by saying that the situation "has not exceeded the context of domestic affairs."

Similarly, Russia's decision to veto sanctions hinges on the fact that the crisis in Zimbabwe has (arguably) not spread throughout the region. It is not an international threat, say the Russians. Sure enough, Article 39 of the UN Charter says "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace... and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken... to maintain or restore international peace and security."

While some are sure to interpret the actions of Russia and China as condoning Mugabe, the reality is different. China's is mostly a veto based on principle and Russia's is based on interpretation. Want to place blame? Try the UN's outdated Security Council with absolute veto power granted to the four post-World War II powers (Russia, France, Great Britain and the U.S.) plus China - hardly representative of today's global dynamic. Or the UN's Charter, which apparently could use some clarification.