For two years, Syria has experienced the most prolific dissent since the Arab Spring. The public outrage and opposition have consistently insisted on a change of leadership in Syria. However, the authoritarianism approach by President Bashar al-Assad has been determined as the cause of the revolt. Nevertheless, there are other major reasons for the current crisis in Syria.
A critical analysis of the diplomatic policies of the United States, Russia, and China provides an insight into how to solve the crisis in Syria.
Apparently, lack of leadership reforms, since the President assumed power in 2000, has resulted in political oppression in the country. Poor politics and economics have contributed to the country’s rising dissent1. In recent years, Syria has experienced an increasing gap between the rich and the poor. However, the problems among the middle class have resulted in dissent against private investors allied to the government. Since 2008, the country has withstood a devastating drought. In this context, millions of Syrians languish in poverty and famine at the expense of the government’s lack of responsibility. The Syrian leadership has failed to provide social amenities for the increasing population.
From this perspective, the increasing young population is perceived to be a time bomb as the struggle for social and economic resources begins. In addition, the government’s control over the media, via mobile phones and the Internet, is viewed as a hypocritical approach aimed at preventing the youth from external exposure. Apparently, the youth feel irritated by such initiatives that do not support any development agenda. The Syrian government has remained ignorant of the rampant corruption encouraged by state officials. Finally, although the majority of the Syrian population consists of Sunni Muslims, the country is ruled by the Alawis, a minority group from the Shiite community. In this context, the need to implement democracy as the will of the majority has been instrumental in the Syrian uprising.
The diplomatic policies of the United States are to encourage the rest of the world to help Syria in improving democracy, security, and economic prosperity2. However, this engagement must benefit both the American people and the international community. In this context, the diplomatic policies of the United States prevent the proliferation of nuclear technology in other countries and provide control that promotes domestic and global economy. Moreover, the United States has included international education, aid, and other humanitarian services as core activities of the country’s diplomatic policies. However, the law requires the United States to act on diplomacy issues after a consensus between the President and the Congress has been achieved. In addition, diplomatic policies are acted upon through treaties and presidential executive powers.
The diplomatic policies of the United States do not allow the country to intervene in Syria unless both the President and the Congress agree to the contrary. Considering that the United States does not harbor much interest in Syria, its involvement in the country’s issue is not significant and able to help the Syrian population. However, the country’s diplomatic policy in issuing humanitarian aid has been quite helpful.
The diplomatic policies of Russia are based on understanding the country’s potential and responsibility of equal and mutually beneficial agreement with another state3. The development of Russia as a nation is a primary objective of the diplomatic policies. The country promotes domestic and international modernization of innovation-based economies for mutual benefits. In addition, Russian diplomatic policies include the use of safe military and political interventions to resolve conflicts. The Russian diplomatic policy advocates for the demilitarization and protection of human rights at domestic and international levels.
The diplomatic policies of Russia are ideal in resolving the Syrian crisis. In this regard, Russia’s intervention in Syria would ensure that the population would enjoy improved respect for human rights and access to socio-economic resources.
The diplomatic policies of China are based on peaceful co-existence4. In fact, China portrays itself as a poor country that prefers peace for the sake of development. From this perspective, China respects other country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In addition, China’s foreign policy is to use non-aggression strategies when solving conflicts. In this context, the need for non-interference into other country’s internal affairs is deemed to promote peaceful co-existence. China’s involvement with foreign countries is based on issues that result in equality and mutual benefit.
The diplomatic policies of China can help the Syrian population to overcome the current political situation. China’s reluctance to interfere with the internal affairs of a foreign country allows Syrians to solve their issues on the national level and benefit from economically-oriented developments.
In conclusion, the ideal diplomatic policy of the United States in Syria should be economically-oriented. In this regard, the United States intervention should target the business community in Syria. Apparently, the Syrian regime has already sanctioned for the United States trade against the country’s business community. In this context, the United States can persuade the European Union and other trading partners in Asia to sanction against Syrians in terms of trade5. From this perspective, the United States will avoid any blame for political and military interventions. Moreover, the Syrian government will be under pressure, especially if the European Union fails to import oil from the country.
Bibliography
Bindi, Fedeariga & Angelescu, Irina. The Foreign policy of the European Union: Assessing Europe’s Role in the World. Washington, Brookings Institution Press, 2012. Web.
Maoz, Moshe & Yaniv, Avner. Syria under Assad: Domestic Constraints and regional Risks. New York: Routledge, 2013. Web.
Pettiford, Llyod. Foreign policies of the major powers: powers and diplomacy since World War II, Vol.1: United States of America; Vol.2: Soviet Union and Russia; Vol.3: China and Japan; Vol, 4: Europe. London: I.B. Tauris, 2007. Web.
Footnotes
1 Moshe Maoz & Avner Yaniv. Syria Under Assad: Domestic Constraints and Regional Risks (New York: Routledge, 2013), 196-197. Web.
2, Llyod Pettiford. Foreign policies of the major powers: powers and diplomacy since World War II, Vol.1: United States of America; Vol.2: the Soviet Union and Russia; Vol.3: China and Japan; Vol; 4: Europe (London: I.B. Tauris, 2007), 336-382. Web.
3 Ibid, p.368.
4 Ibid, p.382.
5 Fedeariga Bindi & Irina Angelescu. The Foreign policy of the European Union: Assessing Europe’s Role in the World (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2012), 225. Web.