The Syrian Conflict - Essay Example

Syria The Syrian conflict was sparked during the Arab Spring when a number of demonstrators went to the streets to protest against the rule of the Assad government. These protests turned increasingly violent and the government was forced to crack down on the protestors. The result is that some of the protestors took up arms against the government and the situation quickly turned into a civil war in which almost a hundred thousand people have been killed and millions either internally displaced or gone into exile (Landis 73). This conflict has brought about one of the worst humanitarian crises of the twenty first century and this is mainly because of the fact that neither the rebels nor the government seem to be backing out. The Syrian people are the ones who have ended up suffering because this civil war has developed into a proxy war between the most powerful states and forces in the Middle East, namely Iran and Hezbollah on one hand, and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states on the other. These foreign nations have worked towards the employment of mercenaries to fight in Syria as well as the supply of weapons which are used in the war. It is because of the presence of these foreign actors that the civil war has lasted as long as it has and this has created a situation where the war is no longer in the hands of the Syrian people but in that of the rival foreign forces. Because of the large influx of foreign fighters in the country, there has developed a situation where when most rebels of Syrian origins have sought to end the war, the foreign fighters have gone on with it. Thus, the conflict has continued and the devastation of the country and its people is likely to go on for quite some time to come because there has yet to be any solution to the conflict. The diplomatic push to end the conflict has been led by the United States and Russia and it is between these powers that the world has come to look upon to find a solution to the Syrian civil war. Different officials from these governments have travelled to each other’s capitals in the hope of finding a solution to the crisis but their negotiations have ended up in stalemates because of Russia’s support for the Syrian government. For several years now, many people have hoped that the severity of the crisis in Syria would end and convince Russia to reconsider its support to President Bashar al-Assad and his regime, as well as have a plan to have a multilateral form of diplomacy (Spyer 44). This plan has not been successful because it lacked leverage, therefore, it was unable to bring the parties involved in the Syrian conflict to negotiate and come to an agreement. A diplomatic resolution is the best possible solution as compared to military intervention; therefore, it has been imperative from the United States’ point of view that whatever solutions Syria reaches, it might end up leaving either Sunni jihadists or Iranian proxies to take charge of the country. In order to reach for a successful resolution using diplomatic means, a lot of this success will depend on the efforts of the parties involved. There is no universal agreement that exists between these parties at the present and, this is the reason diplomacy has failed in Syria. The Assad regime and the rebels are both supplied with weapons from their sponsors and they both believe they will win the war, and because of this, they have each decided to dictate the terms to be used in post-conflict Syria. Most of the secular elements present within the Syrian opposition either have few resources or are divided by internal differences. This makes them unable to mount sufficient challenge to both the Assad regime and the extremists, and in addition to this, Russia has continued to provide support for the Syrian government (Herbert 69). This has been done for various reasons, which include that of frustrating the aims of the Western countries which aim to put a western friendly successor to the Assad government. The United States and its allies have become alarmed by the violence present in Syria and have also been aware of the risks involved in case they become too deeply involved in the conflict. This has therefore created a situation where the allies have disagreed amongst themselves concerning the best action that they can take to end the conflict while also securing their national security interests. Because of these disagreements and lack of a cohesive plan to deal with the Syrian crisis, they have come to lack the capacity to bring the conflict to a conclusion. The countries and governments that oppose the Assad regime in Syria are absent despite their interests in the country and among these is the United States, which has failed to provide humanitarian support for Syrians through the various channels available. The United States has sworn not to be involved in any matter concerning the Syrian conflict, with the exception of securing the chemical weapons which the Assad regime has in its possession. In addition, the provision of arms to the rebels has proven to be a risky venture because of the massive involvement among them by groups affiliated to such terrorist organizations as al Qaeda. Those who are opposed to the use of intervention and instead support the use of negotiations to find a solution to the conflict and these find comfort in the absence of the United States in all these issues. However, the absence of the involvement of the United States can be considered to be misguided because it makes the Western Allies’ leverage for supporting diplomatic efforts to end the conflict void. In addition, one would suggest that the Syrian rebels have come to take the influence of the United States for granted and the influence it could have will greatly depend on either the good will or esteem of United States. This depends on the willingness of the United States to exercise its powers for the purpose of advancing its objectives in Syria. Therefore, if other stakeholders realize America is not willing to act on Syria, then the rebels should work towards the achievement of their goals without factoring in American support for them. Over the past year, officials from Russia have made announcements on the sale of weapons to the Assad government, and they have done this despite pledging to support the Geneva conference. Russia’s move to support Assad not only bolsters the latter’s effectiveness in fighting the rebels but it also serves the purpose of embarrassing the Western Allies by undermining their military options and at the same time underscores the commitments of Moscow’s policy, because it increases the leverage that Russia has in advancing eventual negotiation in support of its ally. Therefore, it should be recognized that if the Obama administration is serious on achieving a resolution in Syria through diplomatic means, then it will have to develop its own leverage which would bring all the stakeholders together to clear the misunderstanding (Sorenson 9). The first way United States can use in achieving a resolution in Syria, while at the same time achieving its objectives, is to link Syria to other issues of great interest key to both Russia and Assad regime. However, this is unlikely to happen due to a host of reasons and one of these is that the United States has not interfered in the crisis because of a wave of protests in Turkey. This is because the Turkish government has taken a stand against the Assad government, it does not have the support of its entire people, and this has created a situation where although concerned about the crisis in Syria, the United States has found it unnecessary to distract Turkey’s help to the Syrians. The second reason is that the United States can decide to participate in the conflict by altering how both parties observe the scenarios. There will be a further involvement of the United States and diplomatic policies will change and involve a serious involvement of the United States in supporting Syrian opposition by providing funds that will enable to opposition to govern the areas its holding in Syria and arming the rebels in order for them to be able to create a balance which is at the same level of strength as the Assad regime. This could entail the supply of its forces to assist the opposition rebels or influence other countries to pass sanctions to Syria until the country resolves the crisis. Moreover, the United States should be hands on in giving the rebels assistance in order to overcome its internal rivalries. It is always perceived that the assistance of the United States will come with a price tag and because of this, the opposition is required to assure the civilians of their future in case they overthrow Assad. Another option that is available is to stop swearing off involvement of the forces and leave all possibilities available for interventions open. The elites in support of President Assad and Russia will be compelled to review their calculus, thus they can opt for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Taking the abovementioned steps will provide an opportunity for the allies of the United States to spread the risk of being involved in Syria, and this will also bring policies of other countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia among other countries into an alignment with those of western countries. Steps of having increased support of the opposition parties in Syria should not be taken lightly because it can be a mistake to see such steps as the best alternative to diplomatic process of solving the conflict. These steps should be seen as important in having diplomatic success because they are able to make alterations to the calculations of the parties involved in the conflict. Diplomacy and coercion are mutually enforcing even though they are not exclusive, therefore, a diplomatic breakthrough will not be present until that time when the United States takes actions that will measure to it pronouncements. In addition, another country which should be involved in finding a solution to the crisis is Turkey, which started cooperation on various issues with Syria over a decade ago and this was mainly because of the close proximity towards each other. However, Turkey changed its policies after the crisis that took place in 2011-2012 and this went to such an extent that Turkey currently calls openly for an overthrow of Assad’s regime and it has gone to the point of supporting the opposition by offering finance and firearms (Güney 51). At the beginning of the crisis in Syria, Turkey did not cut the ties present with Syria, but it took a gradual response which evolved over four stages. The reflection of this was in the forces that influenced Turkish foreign policies which include traditional security focused caution, precaution which has always been taken by the Turkish government. The first Turkish intervention was its persuasion of Assad not to attack the opposition but to instead organize for reforms. However, when Assad was later assured through the influence of various countries such as Russia and Iran to deal with the civil war, the situation between these two countries deteriorated. Turkey had its policies escalated in various forms, which include persuading Assad to reform; giving support to Syria’s opposition, giving support to both regional and international political solution, and reducing cooperation with the Assad regime ("The War on Syrian Civilians" 383). These policies are similar to that of the United States and the option of providing a launch pad for the rebels into Syria has led to a situation where questions regarding the integrity of Turkey have been raised. Another Turkish proposal is to have talks with Russia, Saudi Arabia and other counties to have a solution, and even though these actions have led nowhere, it should try to stabilize the crisis present in Syria. The current situation in Syria is changing with the government gaining the upper hand through the massive support that it has been able to gain from its allies, mainly Russia, Iran and Hezbollah in combating the rebels. One of the most significant factors which have influenced the current developments in Syria was the deployment of the forces of Hezbollah from Lebanon in mid 2013 which relieved the pressure that the Assad forces felt along the Lebanese border. Rebels had captured many strategic towns along the Lebanese border and Hezbollah’s involvement in the war and the capture of these towns can be considered to be the turning point of the Syrian civil war. In addition, the fact that Russia had provided both diplomatic and logistical support for the Assad regime has ensured its continued survival because it is the Russian made weapons, which have helped the government forces to advance against the rebels (Ayoob 85). Moreover, Russian intervention in preventing the planned airstrikes against the Assad regime by the United States provided a lifeline for the Syrian government since it gained more time to fight off the rebel onslaught and secure its position within the country. The new confidence that the Assad regime has gained has helped it weather the war in a manner unique among the countries affected by the Arab Spring and it is for this reason that it has gone ahead to prepare for elections to be carried out in early June. At the same time, the rebels have come to lose some of their most strategic positions in such cities as Damascus and Homs, the latter which was considered to be the home of the rebellion and this has further worked towards the strengthening of the hand of the Assad regime. As has been discussed above, the Syrian conflict was sparked during the Arab Spring when a number of demonstrators went to the streets to protest against the rule of the Assad government. The diplomatic push to end the conflict has been led by the United States and Russia and it is between these powers that the world has come to look upon to find a solution to the Syrian civil war. In addition, most of the secular elements present within the Syrian opposition either have few resources or are divided by internal differences. These differences have made them unable to mount sufficient challenge to both the Assad regime and the extremists, and in addition, Russia has continued to provide support for the Syrian government. Moreover, it has been found that those who are opposed to American intervention and instead support the use of negotiations to find a solution to the conflict and these find comfort in the absence of the United States in all these issues. Furthermore, it should be recognized that if the Obama administration is serious on achieving a resolution in Syria through diplomatic means, then it will have to develop its own leverage which would bring all the stakeholders together to clear the misunderstanding. Finally, it has been found that the current situation in Syria is changing with the government gaining the upper hand through the massive support that it has been able to gain from its allies, mainly Russia, Iran and Hezbollah in combating the rebels. Works Cited Ayoob, Mohammed. "The Arab Spring: Its Geostrategic Significance." Middle East Policy 19.3 (2012): 84-97. Güney, Nursin Atesoglu. "A New Challenge for Turkey: Civil War in Syria." Insight Turkey 15.4 (2013): 51-9. Herbert, Matt. "Partisans, Profiteers, and Criminals: Syrias Illicit Economy." The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 38.1 (2014): 69-86. Landis, Joshua. "The Syrian Uprising Of 2011: Why The Asad Regime Is Likely To Survive To 2013." Middle East Policy 19.1 (2012): 72-84. Sorenson, David S. "US Options in Syria." Parameters 43.3 (2013): 5-15. Spyer, Jonathan. "Syrian Regime Strategy And The Syrian Civil War." Middle East Review of International Affairs (Online) 16.3 (2012): 43-50. "The War on Syrian Civilians." The Lancet 383.9915 (2014): 383. Read More