Syria Crisis, Liberalism versus Realism - Essay Example

?Syria Crisis Introduction The Syria crisis is currently one of the major political issues plaguing the international community and international relations. The Syrian crisis first came about on March of 2011 where groups supportive to the Syrian Ba’ath Party government and groups against it clashed in armed uprisings (Hinnebusch, 2012). Nationwide demonstrations in 2011 initially marked these uprisings and these demonstrations were associated with the Arab Spring phenomenon which saw the uprising of various Arab countries against oppressive government acts (Al Jazeera, 2011). The protesters were basically opposing more than 50 years of Ba’ath rule in Syria. The Syrian government set out its army to suppress the militants and clashes between the military and the protesters have persisted since then (Hinnebusch, 2012). The protesters also gained more support from other civilians and defecting soldiers. However, the leadership for the rebels was still very much splintered. The protests and clashes are an ongoing battle to this day and the crisis has already caused the death of thousands of military and civilian participants; it has also significantly disrupted the efficient government processes for the country (Hinnebusch, 2012). Latest tallies by the UN place death tolls to about 60,000 and these numbers will likely continue to grow if the crisis remains unresolved (Associated Press, 2013). This conflict has created a significant domestic and international dilemma. This paper shall now seek to explain and evaluate the conflict based on two international relations theory – realism and liberalism. Both theories shall be used in order to establish which theory best explains the conflict and the international as well as state actions which have been secured for the country. Body The realism theory in international relations is founded on four principles. First, is that the international system is anarchic; second, that states are the most relevant actors in international relations; third, that all states are rational actors; and finally, that the main consideration for all states is their survival (Ashley, 1981). In general, in relation to the Syria crisis, the theory of realism supports the position of the state in seeking to maintain its control and authority over its people. The fact that the states and related government processes are seeking to maintain their statehood seems to explain the need for the state to impose its power over its people (Ashley, 1981). The fact that the Ba’ath party is doing whatever it can, using fair means and foul to remain in power is part of the ideals of the realism theory and its related manifestations. Another theory in international relations is that of liberalism. Liberalism is founded on the principles of enlightenment (Wallerstein, 1992). This theory assesses the problems of securing lasting peace and cooperation in international relations and the different methods which can ensure their achievement. Liberalism posits that state choices, not state capabilities are the main determinant in state behaviour (Wallerstein, 1992). Liberalism is the opposite of realism as it supports plurality in state actions. Actions may therefore be diverse for each state, often influenced by elements like culture, economy, and form of government. In relation to Syria crisis, the theory of liberalism explains the crisis in terms of the state choices and the actions which have been carried out by their officials. These choices are diverse and based on their unique qualities, including their culture as well as their economy (Wallerstein, 1992). In general, considering the theory of realism, the idea of a state being rational actors does not seem to apply to this Syrian crisis. The Syrian government has not manifested rational acts, especially in its failure to manage the crisis and civil unrest as well as its failure to engage in peaceful talks with the rebels. In relation to the liberalism theory, this theory cannot adequately explain the state actions and the fact that these actions Syria are not sufficiently supported by various elements including their economy and culture. Liberalism cannot provide sufficient tools in order to understand the Syrian crisis (Haas, 2012). Moreover, the theory seems to be based on western ideals and concepts which, in the end, do not adequately explain the lack of democratic peace for Syria. Moreover, the realism theory also has gaps in its conceptualization of the Syrian crisis. Such gaps shall be further explained below. Realism theory and the Syrian crisis Political realism explains that power has a significant role to play in securing interest (Morgenthau, 1978). The Ba’ath party perceives their power as one coming from interest, which under these conditions, is no longer true, especially with thousands of their citizens no longer having an interest in state power and related activities. The interest of the people for state activities seems to have faded out. Where initially, the people have retraced and anticipated the steps which statesmen have taken in the political scene, such practice is no longer true in the case of Syria (Haas, 2012). The interest which was initially attributed have borne negative results, as the people now realize that there are significant gaps between what the statesmen are declaring and what they are actually doing. Since the modern realist theory declares that the primary order of international relations is anarchy and that there is no existing central authority which can manage inter-state relations, each state must therefore be its own self-help unit in order to survive and protect its interests (Haas, 2012). In this case, the UN as well as the international community is powerless when it comes to the Syria crisis. Moreover, since most Arab countries, including the Syrian government, do not support international interference in their affairs, the international community is also having a difficult time gaining a foothold in the management of the Syria crisis (Haas, 2012). The actual events in Syria are very much against the sensibilities of American society. US policymakers are quick to condemn realism in securing the country’s policy, choosing instead the policy founded on liberalism (Kissinger, 2012). In general, the western world is hostile to realism as it does not agree with their basic values, which is mostly based on optimism and moralism. Liberalism fits their values perfectly (Kissinger, 2012). The American response to the Syrian crisis is very much in line with these liberal pontificating. And in the end, the liberalist theory does not have much to say about the Syrian uprising itself. From the very first, US lawmakers were not correct in their belief that social uprisings would gradually be successful (Keck, 2012). Americans believed that the Arab spring uprisings seen in Tunisia and Egypt could not be quelled by the state’s dictatorial regimes. Based on their belief in the important role of states and their power, realists did not support the American beliefs. In fact, the incidents in Syria revealed the significant role of the military in managing the crisis (Keck, 2012). The wrong perceptions of the uprising following the Egyptian incident were very costly for the west and for the western-supported Libyan uprising. In the end, an illusion was created for Syria and also for the western community who had set perceptions on the crisis which was not founded on the realities of the Arab situation (Keck, 2012). Liberalism and the Syrian crisis Liberalism can be understood based on the simple idea of freedom for individuals. It is a theory which supports the fact that human beings are basically good (Wallerstein, 1992). It is also founded on individualism, human rights, protection of the law, respect for others, and freedom for social action (Doyle, 1983). In the case of Syria, the liberalism theory clashes on so many levels, mostly because the context of liberalism is a western context. Individualism is strongly a western American term. In the case of Syria, individualism cannot fully encompass the desire of the people who have gone through significant hardships under their Ba’ath party (Jehangir, 2012). Moreover, simply securing liberal ideals for the country does not resolve the problems in Syria. In association with liberty, the idea of a representative government and the importance of owning private property as well as securing economic activity without the interference of the state have been considered important (Fukuyama, 1992). In Syria, the idea of owning property or securing economic activity without state control cannot easily be secured without overhauling traditional values in their politics and economic affairs. Various scholars like Kant have indicated the importance of harmony among people while being overseen by government leaders who exercise authority with the permission and support of the people (Doyle, 1983). Such conditions in Syria cannot easily be secured based on these liberalist concepts. For Syria, the economic and political activities are largely state-founded. The causes of the uprisings are not simply based on changing political processes and statesmen (Jehangir, 2012). These are based on the desire of the people to depose oppressive political power and secure more stable political leadership. Liberalism also supports the notion that democracies are basically peaceful countries and rarely do occasions for uprisings occur (Morgenthau, 2006). Syria has been considered traditionally parliamentary republic, however, it was placed under Emergency Control by the Ba’ath Party which implemented a non-democratic rule for the country. This non-democratic practice has been in place since 1970 and since 2000, Bashar-al-Assad has been in control of the country (Lawson, 2010). Without the democratic position, Syria has been thrown into political turmoil. This can be said with much definitiveness. Under democratic conditions, power is distributed and not installed in one person or one autocratic leader (Lawson, 2010). In the case of Syria, power has been concentrated on the Ba’ath Party, specifically under the control of the Assad family, first Hafez-al-Assad, and now his son, Bashar-al-Assad (Lawson, 2010). Unrest, dissatisfaction, human rights violations, corruption has been observed in this non-democratic country. To such extent, these points secure a connection between the political unrest in Syria and their non-democratic form of governance (Jervis, 2002). The liberalism theory suggests the existence of democratic governments which have transparent and accountable systems which work well to ensure accountability of government officials (White, 1990). These countries are said to rarely go to war within their boundaries and against each other. The idea behind this concept is founded on the commitment which the people have to free economic trading which secures correspondence and economic progress for the country and its people (White, 1990). As Syria lost its democratic status, the accountability and transparency needed for efficient government running was discarded by the dictatorial Ba’ath party. As a result, the people became distrustful of the government, eventually leading to the uprisings and protests. Where the democratic status of countries is lost at some point, the possibility of uprisings and turmoil within their borders and other countries is also increased (White, 1990). This was clearly apparent in the case of Syria which became subject to the autocratic rule of the Ba’ath party. Such autocratic and corrupt state control eventually led to the political unrest for the state. Liberalism versus Realism While liberalism provides a more engaging outlook of international affairs, realism is not as optimistic. Instead, the perspective of realism highlights the anarchic state of international affairs. In relation to Syria, the autocratic management of their political affairs as well as their firm belief in non-interference by the international community supports the anarchic state of affairs in the country (O’Sullivan, 2012). Realists believe that international politics is a highly amoral practice which seems to be vulnerable to wars and conflicts because such is part of human nature. In Syria, undeniably, the protests and the subsequent government response are very much amoral. To some extent, the conflicts seem to indeed be a part of human nature mostly because years of suppression and hardship suffered by the people could not be quelled by the government authorities. The natural state of affairs under realism posits man not being governed by a higher authority. This state of affairs is considered to have been shaped by their human nature (Hobbes, 1985). In applying the realism theory in the Syria case, the people are likely manifesting their true human nature. For a long while, the people of Syria have been ruled by the Ba’ath Party. The realism theory understands that being governed by a higher authority is an unnatural state of affairs for the people of Syria (Hobbes, 1985). To some extent, they are straining against the leash of their government, seeking to free themselves from the control of their autocratic leader. In the more modern setting, realism separates itself from the traditional qualities of human nature and realizes that with the lack of an overall authority, the state of international relations is one of anarchy (Waltz, 1979). There is some truth to this declaration, especially as the United Nations does not have sufficient international authority to sufficiently manage international relations. While the United Nations can issue sanctions on states for violating treaties and conventions, these sanctions are often not sufficient to adequately manage international affairs. In the case of Syria, the UN has been limited in its options. Its actions have mostly involved evaluation of human rights violations for the contending parties. Sending in troops to control and manage the situation has been ruled out because these actions have been blocked by Russia and China who are supportive of the Syrian government (New York Times, 2012). In the end, the UN is not a strong body to manage international affairs. Its role in so many ways is only symbolic because it does not have the strong political tools which can be efficiently used to manage its member states, especially in times of conflict and wars. As realism and liberalism provide strong suggestions and explanations on the Syrian crisis, both theories also lack certain aspects which help secure arguments for peace. The liberalism theory has its weaknesses in its application in this Syria crisis as it does not sufficiently address the attitude of the other democratic states against Syria (Fukuyama, 1992). The preoccupation of liberals on the Syrian crisis has been on human rights violations; and such preoccupation has led them to dismiss the sovereignty of states dominated by non-democratic rules (Fukuyama, 1992). Liberals have dented the possibility of peace even with their beliefs in the democratic peace theory primarily because of their perceived liberal democratic position. The liberal claims that Islam is a major threat to democracy as well as their beliefs of values systems being difficult to comprehend have created counterproductive results in seeking peace in Syria where the process for seeking peace have been based on the imposition of militant remedies (Fukuyama, 1992). Realists have established their own thesis in relation to the Syrian crisis in terms of the democratic peace which evaluates the current conditions of the country (Jervis, 2002). International policymakers, especially those in the US initially made a mistake in evaluating the social uprisings would eventually succeed. These policymakers believed that from the protests that the state’s autocratic power could not anymore be contained. Based on the primacy of states which realists support, they were also very much wary and sceptical of such American perception (Mearsheimer, 2011). Realists are also one in their belief that it is not their place to intervene, resigning to the nature of the world – the anarchic world. They would consider Syria one among many states in Asia and Africa which have gone through wars and conflicts (Beehner, 2012). Syria would be considered nothing special in the bigger picture. Hence, intervening in their conflict would not be part of their nature as realists. For leaders like Obama, they are very much realists. They seek to fix and mend relations with other superpowers like Russia and China, but at the greater cost of specific issues involving smaller and less significant states like Georgia or Tibet (Beehner, 2012). These realists would be preoccupied with power, not so much in intentions and motives. The realists’ position in relation to the Syria uprising are more or less firmly set, and such position has been set towards political non-interference (Beehner, 2012). Possible interference has only been considered in case chemical and nuclear weapons would be used. As such, this places the conflict in a holding pattern especially in terms of intervention. The US will not likely do anything for as long as the violence is contained and chemical weapons are not deployed. Assad is very much aware of this, therefore, he has displayed no intention to consider other actions, especially actions which may incite international retaliation (Beehner, 2012). Based on realist concepts, states are generally free to act in any way they want for as long as they do it within their borders, even if the acts include war crimes and violent conflicts. However, even realists often manifest more sympathetic sides, as have been seen during their previous interventions in the Iraq and Somalia conflicts (Beehner, 2012). If realists like Obama are in a position to save the innocent lives trapped in Syria, then there is nothing significantly wrong in doing so. Conclusion In attempting to understand the Syrian crisis, the realism and the liberalism theories provide varying explanations and conceptualizations of the crisis. Liberalism argues that stability can be secured through an international system where active interest is taken in international politics. On the other hand, realism takes a harder line towards active interest in international politics. In the Syria crisis, liberalism seems to support the line taken by the people, with their ideals and their goals wanting to seek a clear opening within their society. The fact that the international community has opted not to intervene in the crisis is a position very much based on realism. Realism suggests that states are anarchic, and in so many ways, as far as the Syrian government is concerned, such anarchy is very much apparent. In fully understanding the Syrian crisis, the theory of realism provides a harsh picture of the Syrian government as well as the reality for the people of Syria. Liberalism on the other hand seeks to point out that it is possible to justify the international support for Syrian peace, for as long as the people are given more liberties in their decisions and state options. In the end, liberalism provides a more positive understanding of the crisis, while realism puts the people squarely in the middle of an unsolvable political unrest and crisis. References Al Jazeera, 2011. Is Syria the next domino?. Al Jazeera [online]. Available at: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/03/20113482455647372.html [Accessed 11 January 2013]. Ashley, R., 1981. Political realism and the human interests. International Studies Quarterly, 25, pp. 204-36. Associated Press, 2013. UN says more than 60,000 dead in Syrian civil war [online]. Available at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXO0ozZ-vVvSlYxVGX83xOAc9bQQ?docId=3d669218156e4397b2a27520e0441ed7 [Accessed 09 January 2013]. Beehner, L., 2012. The realist case for intervening in Syria [online]. Available at: http://thesmokefilledroomblog.com/2012/08/30/the-realist-case-for-intervening-in-syria/ [Accessed 11 January 2013]. Doyle, M., 1983. Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3), pp. 205-235 Fukuyama. F., 1992. The end of history and the last man. New York: Macmillan, Inc. Gladstone, R., 2012. Russia and China veto resolution on Syria. The New York Times [online]. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/world/middleeast/russia-and-china-veto-un-sanctions-against-syria.html?_r=0 [Accessed 09 January 2013]. Haas, M., 2012. The clash of ideologies: Middle Eastern politics and American security. London: Oxford University Press. Hinnebusch, R., 2012. Syria: From 'Authoritarian Upgrading' to revolution?. International Affairs, 88 (1), pp. 95–113. Hobbes, T., 1985. Leviathan. London: Penguin Classics Jehangir, H., 2012. Realism, liberalism and the possibilities of peace [online]. Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/02/19/realism-liberalism-and-the-possibilities-of-peace/ [Accessed 10 January 2013]. Jervis, R., 2002. Theories of war in an era of leading-power peace. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), pp.1-14 Keck, Z., 2012. Realism and the Arab Spring [online]. Available at: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-02/opinions/35492816_1_military-regime-revolution-muslim-brotherhood [Accessed 11 January 2013]. Lawson, F., 2010. Demystifying Syria. London: Routledge Mearsheimer, J., 2011. Imperial by design. The National Interest, 111, pp. 16-34. Morgenthau, H., 1978. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, H., 2006. Politics among nations. (7th Ed.) Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin O’Sullivan, N., 2012. The moral enigma of an intervention in Syria: A just war analysis. IAI Working Papers [online]. Available at: http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iaiwp1222.pdf [Accessed 09 January 2013]. Wallerstein, I., 1992. The collapse of liberalism. The Socialist Register, pp. 98-110. Waltz, K., 1979. Theory of international politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education White, R., 1990. Why aggressors lose. Political Psychology, 11(2), pp. 227-42. Read More