Russia and China�s shameful veto must not deter UK

Never mind about a week, in Russia three days is a long time in politics. On Tuesday, along with the rest of the G8 leaders, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev agreed to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe after widespread violence and vote-rigging reduced presidential elections to a sham. But 72 hours later, at the UN Security Council, Russia joined China to veto economic sanctions, an arms embargo and a travel ban on key members of Robert Mugabe's clique.

The move simultaneously handed Mr Mugabe a propaganda victory, which he gleefully exploited, and undermined the moral authority that a united UN front against him would have created. By any standards, it was a shameful decision. The excuse that the Security Council is mandated only to intervene in a country's affairs when regional stability is threatened does not hold water when millions of Zimbabweans have been forced to flee from violence, economic meltdown and starvation. The recent attacks on refugees sheltering in South Africa by those who fear for their own jobs was a sharp reminder of how easily the chaos can spread. And the claim by Russia, China and South Africa that sanctions could undermine talks on a Kenyan-style power-sharing agreement is equally absurd. Few now regard South Africa's Thabo Mbeki as an honest broker, capable of framing a workable diplomatic solution.

However, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband is naive to call the volte-face "incomprehensible". The most charitable explanation is that it reflects internal disagreements within Russia. The most telling comment came from the Russian foreign ministry, which opined that sanctions would have "created a dangerous precedent", opening the way for Security Council interference in elections elsewhere. (The latest Russian version was hardly free and fair, by any impartial measure.) Had Russia stuck to its originally stated intentions, would China have been prepared to go it alone? That is debatable. A month before the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government is responsive enough to western sensibilities to remove dog from its restaurant menus but still shows scant regard for human rights in its determination to exploit Africa's oil and mineral reserves. Despite international efforts to stop it, a shipment of Chinese arms addressed to Robert Mugabe was duly delivered in time for his "war veterans" to terrorise those suspected of supporting the opposition.

This latest failure by the UN again raises questions about the structure of the Security Council and the power it hands to those who subvert democracy and human rights. The same two countries last year rejected measures to curb repression in Burma. It is now incumbent on Britain and the US, along with the EU, to pool their considerable global influence to find a new way forward. Options include extending targeted sanctions against Mugabe and his henchmen and supporting a genuinely neutral figure, such as the Ghanaian former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, to broker a lasting settlement. Robert Mugabe may have won the latest diplomatic skirmish but he must not be allowed to win the war.