It would be simplistic to attempt to divide geopolitics into good guys and bad guys. There are moments, though, when right and wrong become clear, when the actions of a government are so egregious that they demand universal condemnation and action.

Syria has become such a circumstance. China and Russia, in vetoing a Security Council resolution calling for an end to the violence in Syria, have chosen the wrong side.

Of course China and Russia aren't the first to support an odious regime. Western nations have done it countless times. And it's true that the truth is never as simple as the narrative of bad regime versus freedom fighters.

Nonetheless, it comes down to this: The Assad regime has been massacring Syria's people. The Arab League's plan for a political transition is the best option on the table.

The watered-down UN resolution supporting that plan was far from a declaration of war. It would, though, have signalled to the government in Syria that its time is running short. In vetoing that resolution, China and Russia sent the opposite signal, letting the Assad regime know it can keep killing. Ultimately, this veto might prolong the conflict and make both a full-scale civil war and an international intervention more likely. China's excuse, as always, is that it doesn't want to interfere in internal affairs. But it has interfered. It has chosen to support a government that responds to dissent with force, as China's own government does.

Stephen Harper is now in China on a visit intended to strengthen economic ties. Five years ago, he declared that he wouldn't sell out Canadian values for the sake of "the almighty dollar." That has never been an easy line to walk, given China's clout.

If Harper has now decided that engagement with China is the best course, how does he intend to use that new, friendlier relationship? Is China an "important ally," as Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird claimed last year? If so, it's a funny alliance; our foreign policy seems to be working at cross purposes.