Is there an answer to Syria's problems?

 

As the UN Security Council struggle to see eye to eye, are there any possibilities for resolving Syria?

As the Libyan freedom fighters and the National Transitional Council prepare for life post-Gaddafi rule, it is time to reflect upon the issue of intervention. Almost six months on since the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was put into practice, we finally see Gaddafi on the run and with him the suppression allowing for a future of hope. As things begin to smooth out political eyes of the West stretch their gaze towards Syria and the ongoing demonstrations for democracy. There are many calls for intervention in Syria however will the chance for further intervention ever occur and who is capable of leading such an effort?

Currently a European backed resolution drafted by the French has been put to the UN Security Council which as French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe suggested on Friday September 2^nd that is “our objective to obtain a resolution at the Security Council condemning the use of violence against civilians and organising a regime of sanctions”. However, of the 15 members of the council, it is likely that Russia and China will use their vetos against the resolution despite it not calling for military action as the believe the UNSC needs to encourage negotiations instead of aligning to either side;

“We are proposing that the UN Security Council firmly demands that all parties to the conflict respect human rights and begin talks,” said the Foreign Minister for Russia, Sergei Lavrov.

“If it’s up to the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the Libyan scenario won’t be repeated”.

The rejection and blocking of resolutions against Syria by Russia and China could be interpreted as either a backlash against the milking of the resolution on Libya “to protect all civilians” which turned into a bombing campaign against any pro-Gaddafi threat, or simply the Russians and Chinese taking a tougher stance on their non-intervention style foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, has urged all deciding countries to impose more sanctions on the government of Syria, saying that more demands were needed to force him to step down.  Due to the recent respective failures of economic sanctions, it does appear that these sanctions will only force the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to become yet more defiant and that perhaps the backers of the resolution are only taking the necessary steps needed before intervention merely hoping that he will step down at the whim of international economic suppression.

However as Western powers shy away from military intervention it appears that economic sanctions may be the best option, this being the case if particular attention is paid to Syria’s money-spinning oil and gas industries. It is important that if economic sanctions are to work that there is a clear path ahead for when and how these sanctions will be lifted. If the incentive can encourage political transition even at least to a multi-party system and election overviewed by an international organization, then Turkey will be a key economic partner for Syria’s future. Turkey have the goal of being a key Middle-Eastern player in mind and will try to act within the interests of the region whilst also holding the hand of the West. A tricky game of relationships for Turkey to handle but if successful will give themselves and the Middle-East new realms of respect and opportunity.

The new Special Relationship

Sino-African relations have a big part to play in global security, understanding the Chinese perspective is imperitive.
Earlier this year China expectedly passed Japan to become the world’s second largest economy. It is largely expected that the rising power in the East will surpass the United States within the next 15 years to become the world’s largest economy. This raises two types of questions, what are the effects? The main problem China faces is the changing shape of its economy of one being manufacturing to one of consumerism. With unprecedented growth in GDP since 1977 comes the increasing of purchasing power within its members of society as the middle class begins to bulge. It is widely commentated that those members that are becoming middle class are also beginning to consume vast quantities of meat which they wouldn’t have done before. The grain that used to feed themselves is now being fed to the animals that provide the meat, however this isn’t enough. And of course with an increase in consumerism comes an increasing in consumption of energy for such material items that come accustomed with middle income living.

Its relationship with Africa has become of increasing interest as it increasingly expands the long reaching arm of China with what can effectively be described as ‘land grab’ within the underdeveloped, resource rich continent. China’s increasing involvement with the continent is a sign of its economic and political intentions as Wen Jiabao noted in July of 2004 that “China and Namibia have conducted very good economic cooperation over the years, which is based on reciprocity and mutual benefit and has brought benefits to the two peoples”. Many realists would believe that their relationship with the developing countries is to gain alignment and support as it positions itself in the ever changing world order. However, continuing rhetoric would imply that China is simply acquiring the needs to continue the development of its economy and security. In coalition to this apparent strategy China entertains a non-interventionist foreign policy which allows it to keep a form of neutrality across contentious issues such as their abstention from the Libyan Resolution vote. Previously Liu Guijin, the Chinese government’s special representative to Africa, said in 2006 that “China has no intention to undermine Africa’s democracy. China is working hard to build a socialist democracy at home and promote human rights and good governance”.

As much as can be said for China’s non-intervention style foreign policy, accusations of its poor management in the Dafur situation in the last decade did question their legitimacy for economic involvement. Sino-Sudan relations are only apparent because of the U.S.’s decision to pull out of Khartoum when there was instability in the region and thus in accordance with their development policy it became untenable on the face of it. However this paved the way for a leading Chinese petroleum company to invest here. And thus Chinese involvement was blamed for violence in Sudan as claims from Save Darfur were made that China was the lead supplier of weapons in the region whereas in actual fact China only accounted for 8% arms sales and Russia accounted for almost 11 times that amount. This is a common example of China “bashing” from the West as it struggles to come to terms with a competitive power. Such organisations such as Save Darfur do have legitimate grounds to question China’s continued involvement in volatile areas however misuse of information can only create more anti-China speculation on a world stage where tolerance and understanding is paramount in future stability.