Debates about Syrian Civil War have taken many dimensions. There are Moralist arguments, the Realists versus Idealist confrontations, as well as a re-emergence of uncommon roles of terrorist organizations in global affairs. One of the interesting things about this conflict is the evolution of a new form of diplomacy between the World major powers in international relations.
The moralists who had backed the United States threat to launch military airstrikes against Syria largely based their support for external intervention on the need to halt continuous massacre and protect civilian population. As noble as this rationale for military action seems, the moralists dangerously assumed that the U.S share similar reason with them as regard the need to attack military targets in Damascus. This weak assumption was defeated when the United States opted out of possible military actions despite continuous military offensives against opposition-controlled territories around Syria by forces loyal to President Assad of Syria.
One of the critical questions for Moralists is why U.S jettisoned military option against Syria and allows continuous military bombardment by Assad Forces despite reports of atrocities and sufferings in Syria even as the United States initially vowed to save humanity. Even though many Moralists seem confused and disappointed in U.S, they should be reminded that International Politics is a pursuit of national interests; and in this case, only the U.S could correctly in its volition define its interest in Syrian (conflict). A lesson for Moralists is not to merely depend on a major power or any or any state for that matter for achievement of their wish but should converge their institutions both exclusive and supportive for the purpose of achieving their motives. They can also work to galvanize support for Idealist structural units and institutions with aim of purpose of achieving common goal.
The idealist movement for ending Syrian civil war was spear headed by Russia. The consensus among states, organizations and individuals in this school of taught is that any military strike in Syria should be a product of United Nations Security Council Resolution. To them, military action should not displace political solution to the crisis. Other supporters of this stance include China, Iran, and in moderate stance, Germany, British Parliament among others. The current seemingly acceptable and working option to resolving Syrian impasse does not represent strength for Idealist and defeatism for Realists. It merely reflects fulfillment of U.S interest to avoid application of the Use of Force. Then, the question is, what U.S interest is being fulfilled to avert military strike? From all indications, Syria’s readiness to hand off its chemical weapon is a turning point and a game changer in reducing global tension generated by Syrian conflict. This scenario should serve as a lesson for Moralists that U.S interest in Syria is to maintain its hegemony and checkmate any potential in current global balance of power by eliminating Damascus chemical arsenal as against any humanitarian hypothesis. The aforementioned motive can also be used to explain U.S stance against Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear power. As for Russia and other states in its ‘bloc’; their realization that that the only thing that can stop U.S military action is for Assad to give up chemical weapons, is a reflection of diplomatic wisdom. The point here is that idealist forces and institutions including the U.N did not stop U.S military strike, only diplomatic wisdom did – fulfilling U.S interest.
Before analyzing the new dimension to diplomacy which Syrian conflict has introduced, let me deliberate on the re-emergence of unusual roles of global terrorist organizations in conflict prosecution. This unusual role became prominent in 1979 when the U.S gave training and logistic support to Osama Bin Laden and his jihadist group during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This support, in addition to rough terrain, ensured that the USSR could not defeat the Taliban. Consequently, the emergence of stronger and more sophisticated terrorism decades after, has been linked to 1979 U.S support for Taliban. Now, similar scenario is playing out in Syria the United States is supporting Opposition fighters who have been infiltrated by al-Qaida linked militants. The goal of getting out President Al-Assad seems to be more important than such criminality of terrorist elements in Syria that includes torture, murder and open execution. The question of if the United States has learnt from its 1979 mistake and if whether it’s not breeding future terrorists are begging for debate.
A new dimension to international diplomacy was introduced through a letter written by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Americans through The New York Times. This form of diplomatic posture which features a president of a major power directly writing to citizens of another major power with the objective of directly influencing their opinion on major international conflict is new in international politics. Putin, with this singular act has set a pace for ‘CITIZENS DIPLOMACY’. This new form of diplomacy was solidified in International Politics when Senator John McCane used the same method to reach out to Russians in his Pravda, a Russian media outfit. This is direct way to influence citizens opinion in other countries with little or no barrier.
In conclusion, the winners and losers of Syrian Civil War cannot be definitely determined as at now. However, the declaration of victory by President Al-Assad claiming that his regime’s acceptance to hand off chemical weapons as a win situation can best be described as a mere propaganda to cover up his loss. Apart from losing its chemical weapons and citizens, the cost of the war on Syria’s political, economic and social strata will be extremely difficult to quantify. While Russian has been able to uplift the perception of global influence in diplomatic circle, the U.S has so far been dictating the tunes. How the current state of the conflict will change only time will tell.
SOURCE is me. Thanks.