NEW YORI // The failure of international diplomacy in the Syrian crisis after Russian and Chinese vetoes last week highlighted a weakness in the United Nations that has thrown into doubt its future role in Syria.
Reminiscent of the heated rhetoric of the Cold War in the 1960s, the East-West diplomatic clash flared about the same time as street battles in Damascus did. But the vetoes made it clear the conflict will be decided in neighbourhoods of the Syrian capital, rather than in the corridors of the UN.
The Cold War was marked by conflict and paralysis in the Security Council as both sides vetoed each other on a variety of issues.
The 1990 fall of the Soviet Union ushered in an era of cooperation at the UN; one that frayed over the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and has become open confrontation over Syria.
"Those who believed that we were somehow past those days [of the Cold War] were living in a world that didn't actually exist," said George Lopez, a political scientist at the University of Notre Dame in the US.
"The Arab Spring is clearly the dividing line for the Russians, since [President Vladimir] Putin facing 10,000 people lined up in his own central squares questioning his legitimacy hits home a lot clearer than whether Russia should pass sanctions on somewhere like Ivory Coast."
Africa is no longer in contention the way it was during the Cold War, but Syria still lies at the crux of a geopolitical battle between the West, with its Arabian Gulf partners, and Russia.
Moscow blames its rivals for using militant Islamists to encroach on its sphere of influence in central Asia and the Middle East, and remove its allies from power, analysts said.
Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the UN, blasted the West for having "fanned the flames of extremists and terrorist groups" in pursuit of its own designs.
Mr Churkin called the West hypocritical for engaging in "biased rhetoric without saying anything about their real interests in Syria", which he said were "all about Iran".
"Unexpected changes brought about by the invasion of Iraq", which strengthened Iran, required the West to weaken Tehran by challenging its ally in Syria, he said.
Mr Churkin said Moscow could "not accept the pressure of sanctions … [or] external military involvement in Syrian affairs".
Russia had launched diplomatic action, he said, but for the West, "would a Tomahawk cruise missile on the presidential palace in Damascus constitute action?"
The Chinese ambassador Li Baodong called the West rigid and arrogant for backing an uneven resolution singling out the Syrian government that would derail … a political settlement, and aggravate the turmoil, causing it to spill over to other countries in the region.
Western envoys pushed back. Susan Rice, the US ambassador, said Russia's fear of military intervention was "paranoid and disingenuous". Ms Rice told the council that if the resolution had passed it would in "no way authorise or pave the way for foreign military intervention".
Mark Lyall Grant, the UK ambassador, called Moscow irrational for arguing the resolution would have led to western military action.
"They have chosen to put their national interests ahead of the lives of millions of Syrians," Mr Grant said.
The core weakness of the UN is the competing interests of 192 member nations that results in agreements often so compromised that they appear spineless. In the Security Council it takes only one of the five permanent members with the power of veto to stop any agreement at all.
It was the third time Russia and China have vetoed resolutions aimed at pressuring the Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, to leave power.
The latest would have threatened financial and travel sanctions against Syrian leaders if they did not withdraw their troops and heavy weapons from populated areas within 10 days. With battles raging in the capital, that was not likely to have happened.
The latest Security Council paralysis puts into question a UN role in Syria. The peace plan by the joint UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan, appears to be dead. And without East-West consensus, fresh multilateral initiatives or UN activity in a post-Assad Syria is uncertain.
The Security Council has extended its 300-man unarmed observer mission for a final 30 days unless the fighting ends before that. The observers could then become the embryo of a post-conflict UN mission, if East and West can agree.
"Although Kofi Annan has made the best out of a weak hand that he was played and he's really stayed in the game longer than many thought, events have so far outstripped now what the Security Council can do," said Mr Lopez.
The UN could provide a stabilisation force, and eventually election monitors and constitutional experts if Mr Al Assad were overthrown and chaos ensued, he said. But he thinks Russia may well block that, too.
"They would prefer anarchy with limits to attempts by the UN to engage in missions that they know will fail," Mr Lopez said. "They can blame the anarchy on the quick trigger of the West continuing to back movements that have no ability to actually take over government and rule."
He said the opposition lacked a figure or institutions to bring confidence that factional fighting would not erupt if Mr Al Assad were ousted.
"It would demand a major multinational effort that nobody is prepared to mount," Mr Lopez said. "No one wants chaos, but nobody is prepared to take the highly cooperative steps you would need to avoid chaos because the political risks are too high.
"Maybe it's next week or maybe it's three months from now, but we are all going to wake up and find there is no Assad in charge," he said. "What is the Russian position going to be then?"