The United States and Syria Conflict - Essay Example

?The United s and Syria Conflict Introduction Inter war is defined as the war or armed combat between two or more s. It is a continuous battle that results to deaths of thousands of people, soldiers of the different states or civilians. Inter-state war is considered as the most destructive type of warfare since the seventeenth century (Cashman & Robinson, 2007). Unfortunately, it still exists in the modern times. One of the contemporary post World War II conflicts today is between the United States and Syria which will be the focal point of the paper. Currently, the main concern of conflict between the U.S. and Syria is that it has been revealed that the Syrian government is said to be creating a program for nuclear weapons, and its allegiance with Iran. For this reason, the paper will dwell on the prospects for long-term peaceful relations between the United States and Syria Syria In brief, Syria is one of the most heterogeneous states in the world. It holds in its land a vast number of sectarian and non-sectarian groups that are autonomous and independent. The diversity within the state is considered as a hindrance in the creation of policies and the establishment of a strong government. In totality, there are almost 19 million people in Syria which are divided into ten major sects. The Sunni Arabs composes 65 percent of the total population in Syria, followed by Alawis with 12 percent, Christians with 10 percent, Kurds with nine percent, Druze with three percent, and the remaining percentage is composed of Assyrians, Bedouin, Circassians, Ismailis, and Turcomans. Among these fractions, the group that greatly challenges the Syrian government is the Kurds and the Sunni Islamists. Along with this, the Syrians have considered a pan-Arab identity which causes them to be generous to Arab countries, which allow the Arab refugees to take flight on Syrian land. Currently, Syria, under the regime of Bashar al-Assad, are portraying as “spoilers” by acting as a benefactor of the Palestine militants. Aside from this, it also often rearms Hezbollah. With this matter on hand, Syria has become more estranged from the United States which had caused Syria to create a strong relationship between Iran (Kaplan, 2008; Sharp, 2010). Relationship of United States and Syria As an overview, the relationship of the Unites States and Syria was a diplomatic relationship after Syria achieved its independence in 1944. The diplomatic relationship worsened during 1967; however, it was reestablished during 1974. Syria has become part of the list of states terrorism sponsors of the United States since 1979. However, within the years 1990-2001, the two countries had cooperated in some of the issues involved in the regional level. However, in 2003 to 2009, the government of Syria was unable to prevent the country from being a passage point of the fighter which is in their way to enter Iraq. Also, another cause of the conflict was that Syria was unable to deport some of the supporters of Saddam Hussein, and it had also protected the Palestine opposition group in Damascus. Furthermore, the conflict between the states is also ignited by the creation of weapons in Syria for mass destruction and along with its anti-human rights activities (U.S. Department of State, 2012). Approaches for Reconciliation between United States and Syria There have been many approaches in order to create a peaceful relationship between the United States and Syria. One of the first approaches to gain peace and reconciliation between Syria and U.S. is the realist approach or political realism, which was done during President Ronald Reagan’s administration. As an overview, political realism is based on the paradigm that humans are born with the need for power. Realism focuses on the use, containment, and the consequences of power. Also, a political realism approach explains the use of power by a state against or for each other (Duncan, Jancar-Webster, & Switky, 2009). During the Reagan administration, foreign policy considered within the national interests which opposes the achievement of idealistic purpose. According to Marc Genest (cited in Sadat & Jones, 2009), the realist manner of handling international relations by the United States was also dominant during the Cold War. For this reason, President Reagan implemented the approach in relation to Syria even though Syria was in the list of the countries that sponsored terrorists in 1979. Reagan did not isolate or bully Syria; instead, the administration continued its relationship to Syria through President Hafez al-Asad. The realist approach towards Syria was continued during the administration of George H.W. Bush in 1991. The foreign policy continued, and the United States disregarded the authoritarian manner in Syria due to the fact that Syria plays a vital role to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The United States responded in this manner because President Bush wanted respond to the needs of the state and to return into normal state (Sadat & Jones, 2009). On the other hand, George W. Bush altered the course of relationship with Syria when he became the forty-third president of the United States. A neoconservative approach was used by the United States. In this manner, the United States combines extreme realism and an altered theory on the democratic peace. In the effect of neoconservatism, instead of engaging with the Syrian government, the U.S. isolated Syria. Also, a change in governance was also the end-goal of neoconservatism. However, it also incorporated democratic-peace theory that democratic states must not engage into war in order to maintain international peace. The theory was used by the Bush administration in order to warrant their actions towards Iraq, and soon towards Syria. In this manner, the actions of U.S. towards Syria can be considered as an act to overthrow the current regime. With this matter on hand, many of the other European countries and other western countries had filled in the economical hole that the United States had left in Syria. However, this approach did only bear a few or even no results for the United States. Also, a result of democratic-peace theory might be that the process of democratisation of Syria will only increase conflict in it. Throwing out the current Bashar al-Asad administration will create more conflict within the different factions in Syria. Also, many specialists see the replacement of the current regime will be more harmful and will not create any positive changes within the government. The interest of the U.S. in Syria will also be worse as a result of the change of leadership (Sadat & Jones, 2009; Zunes, 2004). Furthermore, due to the deteriorating political and social system of Syria, it is suggested that it has to change its policies and political system. It is suggested that the Syria, with the help of the United States and the European countries, should act from within. This can be done in a “non-liberal democratic model” (Kaplan, 2008, p.114); thus, prioritising the security of the society at large rather than the freedom of individuals. Kaplan (2008) suggests that Syria must create a unified head figure such as the National Security Council of Turkey. The creation of a Syrian National Security Council (SNSC) will play an important role as an “all-power judicial body” (Kaplan, 2008, p.115). In the creation of the SNCS, efficient incorporation of the media, schools, religions, and political sects will cause lesser conflict within. The manner of committing cooperation within the different sects will allow leaders to slowly inject reform because there will be a chance that the society at large will not be divisible. Aside from the political reform, economic and political reform will eventually take place within the state. In the current U.S. and Syria conflict, it can be inferred that ousting the regime of Bashar al-Asad can be done with the use of military force. Another option for the U.S. would be to overthrow the current government with the aid of the oppositions; however, there is a little chance that the opposition themselves might be united. Therefore, the most realistic answer to this is that to create a “tactical engagement that seeks to change the existing regime’s behavior” (Kaplan, 2008, p.118). A slow process on the changes in the Syrian government is important in this engagement. If the SNSC framework will be realised, the transitional stage of the changes in the government will eventually be reduced. This will not be only favorable for Syria but will also be favorable for the West and the United States. Cooperation between the U.S. and the European Union (EU) in realising the SNSC will be beneficial in the transition stage of the government. In this manner, the U.S. must act in convincing the EU to agree on a free-trade with Syria in order to begin its economic reform and modernisation plan. In this manner, the business economy in India will eventually take part in the international economic realm and will eventually help in fostering peace within the state (Kaplan, 2008). Conclusion It is inevitable that interstate conflicts result to the deaths of many. For this reason, many are hopeful for the achievement of peace and reconciliation in the current interstate conflict between Syria and the United States. The U.S. had used the realist approach down to democratic peace, and some suggest of internal democratisation. The currency and the pile of proposed agreements between Syria and U.S. are proofs that as of the moment, whatever path the two states might decide on is still in the working process. Word count: 1568 References Cashman, G. & Robinson, L., 2007. An introduction to the cause of war: patterns of interstate conflict from World War I to Iraq. United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Duncan, RW. Jancar-Webster B. & Switky, B., 2009. World politics in the 21st century. Boston, MA: Houghton Harcourt Publishing Company. Kaplan, S., 2008. A new U.S. policy for Syria: Fostering political change in a divided state. Middle East Policy Council, 15 (3), pp.207-121. Sadat, M.H. & Jones, D.B., 2009. U.S. foreign policy toward Syria: Balancing ideology and national interests. Middle East Policy Council, 15 (2), pp.93-105. Sharp, J.M., 2010. Syria: Background and U.S. relations. Pennsylvania: Diane Publishing Co. U.S. Department of State. 2012. Relations with Syria. [Online] Available at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm [Accessed 6 December 2012]. Zunes, S. 2004. U.S. foreign policy toward Syria and the triumph of neoconservatism. Middle East Policy Council, 12 (1), pp.52-69. Read More