Introduction
The Middle East came to be the playhouse of an incredible political movement extremely recognized as the Arab Spring in around 2011. The Spring concerns the revolution waves in the Middle East region, and North Africa organized intending to defeat the most reactive, sturdy, and long-lasting regimes nations like Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Bahrain.
In Syria, the Arab Spring started on March 15th, 2011, diplomatic democracy demonstrators went to the Damascus streets pleading for political independence and democratic reforms within the country (Humud et al. .150). From this, the teenagers’ groups accused of sketching political drawings against the government indeed demonstrated the Syrian conflict, which exploded rebellion as waves of the bordering Arab Spring. The security officers caused the protesters’ killing, which elevated anger that resulted in rapid demonstrations spread all over the nation. Consequently, the protest against the Syrian regime led by al-Assad changed into a battle among armed government and opposition armies within particular cities. Later, the conflict rose into an entirely-fledged civil war across the country. The war’s state, as well as violence arising now and then within the country, has been extending encompassing various actors joining the battle on either side. Hence, the Syrian conflict became both an international and civil war. Terrorist groups such as the Islamic States are thrilled in developing new honours on their target countries and take advantage of Syria as a base to grow around the Middle East, motivate radicals across the globe, and also attacking other continents like Europe. It is now six years with Syrian conflict being at the centre and front in the global awareness, but still, there is no agreement on what Syria should do to end it. Most Middle East countries, the European Union, the United States, as well as the United Nations, are baffled on the way to bring this war to an end.
From the difficulties mentioned above, the effects and causes that result from the Syrian conflict can be perceived by deploying theories of international relations like Realism, constructivism, and Liberalism. All these theories can elucidate the actions that different actors involved in the Syrian crisis have taken the purposes that pushed the actors to those particular situations. The international approaches enable one to understand a specific event to multilayered perceptions. Therefore, this paper will analyze the Syrian conflict using the global theory of Realism, to be precise.
Realism to Syrian Conflict
In an attempt to comprehend the methodology towards this subject, it is essential to analyze the behaviours by the diverse actors during this particular conflict. The international relation perspectives, to the actors’ actions who participated in the battle, prove the intensifying Syrian civil war is Realism. Nevertheless, it is crucial to provide a summary of the Realism background, even before handling the analytical task. The essence of this is to understand to what degree thoroughly and how can the theory of Realism elucidates the Syrian conflict, which has impacted other countries in the Middle East. Realism is a complex political thought that includes more approaches and sub-schools. The theory is based on three principal assumptions: the global system is anarchic; states are significant players in the worldwide arena; states are unitary and coherent actors that based on their self-interests they need to fulfil when egoism stimulates them. The common realism characteristics, there, include the power-hungry actors’ self-interest, the power priority over justice and morality, the significance of the nation as a significant factor, and the allegation that is inspecting the features results to a scientific and realistic account of the international relation world.
The conflict in Syria has been there for several years, and still, there are no signs that the crisis will come to an end very soon. Realis identified various causes as to why the conflict came to existence. Clausewitz, who was a realist and, at the same time, a military theorist, states that war is a political activity continuation through other means and also an that is rational and controlled (Echevarria & Antulio 300). What the theorist is merely suggesting is that the state will war as a practical political tool suppose they identify it as a significant way to enhance their interest or power.
Furthermore, Ken Waltz, who is a modern theorist and realist, has advanced the concept of the causes that result in war. The realist has created numerous images about war. First, that faulty human nature is what gives roots to war. Thus, the improper men’s behaviour and their evilness can result in conflict. War results from futility, misdirected violent instincts, and greediness……….and in my own opinion, the image in some way portrays the reason behind the intensifying of the conflict in Syria. One cause was that Syria got influenced by other nations on Arab Springs, where specific groups in Syria wanted to overthrow the regime by al-Assad. Most of these groups were dissatisfied with the al-Assad’s long-term regime and authoritarianism. They have discovered that there are restricted political liberties, inadequate chances for upward mobility, and a high unemployment rate within the country. Consequently, by the time Arab Spring launched in Syria, a group of demonstrators had already begun pleading for democratic changes. It was shown by teenage protesters that drew political graffiti, which were against the regime of al-Assad. The opposition forces directed counter blow towards the Syrian military forces that showed violent repression as demonstrations strengthened, and thus it became a complete-fledged public war.
Another war image figured out by Waltz is: “With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with each state judging its grievances and according to the dictates of its reason or desire – conflict sometimes leading to war is bound to occur” (Sebastian 590). From this, we conclude that the states are superior when it comes to the global system provided the anarchy condition. In an international anarchy situation, the world government is not there. The upper authority that could oversee and inhibit states from chasing their interest is not there. That is the reason behind conflict occurring because of the attention of the country in gaining more influence and power. And the conflict in Syria is not an exception to this setting. Without doubt, the Syrian messy and bloody difficulties mostly include people of a similar nation battling against one another. Conversely, most theorists and realist claim that whatever occurred in Syria is a small proxy war, which others call it a civil war and a revolution. I would say that the Syrian crisis is similar to all proxy and civil war and revolution as one. The different perceptions that people have about the Syrian conflict are the conception which is used in describing it and complement each other as well.
Subsequently, numerous actors participated in the war and are the reason as to why the conflict has strengthened. The actors include Assad’s regime led by the president of Syria- Bashar al-Assad, China, United States, Iran, and Russia. Besides, radical groups such as the Islamic States commonly referred to as the “ISIS” took the advantage with intentions of creating an Islamic State joining Syria and Iraq. Considering the view of a realist, one realizes that each power is battling to control the government as well as gain more power plus the Syrian land. All the parties have their interests in mind and will do whatever it takes to attain power. Since the state of nature is the state of war, there are minimal chances that the different parties will corporate and reconcile. The government of Syria disclosed that all the battling groups are obtaining their support from outside powers and pursue to outperform one another, eventually upholding the current power balance. Every state struggles to exploit its supremacy to other nations since only those states that are powerful are sure to survive. Since the conflict began, Russia has been providing support to the al-Assad’s regime as well as sending technical advisers and the militaries.
To comprehend the reasons behind Russia’s support to the Syrian government, Russia realized that Syria was the only country in the Middle East where they could exercise direct influence. One can examine the position of Russia using the concept of “nature to dominate, the push for power” by realist Morgenthau’s. In simple terms, there are assertions that one can understand the state’s behaviour in terms of power pursuit. This can be illustrated by directly quoting from defence analyst: “Syria is the only country in the Middle East which follows our advice, this is the country where we can exercise certain tangible influence [….] It has some symbolic value for the Russian authorities and the foreign policy establishment as a sign of Russia as a great power” (Monaghan 65). Hence, Russia intends to assist an old associate in being seen as a great superpower on a global setting so that other nations such as the United States and Europe can treat their views with respect.
The reasons for Russia providing support to Syria are many, but the main one is to ensure that al-Assad’s regime gets to survive. Putin and al-Assad are strongly related and have had this robust alliance for so long. Russia has been majorly supplying the weapons to Syria, which is their primary interest. But there is more beyond Russia doing all these. For instance, Syria is the only closet ally to Russia within the Middle East. Even as they see the US extending its superiority into the previous Soviet nations and the Middle East, Russia still want to make sure that its strategic alliance with Syria is there. Russia is now using the strategy of balance-of-power to counter the United States influence in the Middle East to avoid them from being eliminated in the region. As a result, the Russia balancing-power strategy main element is directing support to the only provincial associate Moscow. It is because if Assad were to decline, Russia would fail as well in terms of holding power in the region with America taking the advantage. The only state that would be remaining as the allies to Russia would be Iran. As Waltz testify: “Whether the best way to provide for one’s security is by adopting offensive or defensive strategies varies as situations change. A state having too much power may scare other states into uniting against it and thus, become less secure” (Waltz 35). Russia continues to insist that the reason for them being in Syria is to help the al-Assad’s regime battle the terrorist like ISIS.
However, Iran, as an ally ton Syria, had also a different interest. To them, the Syrian crisis provides a chance to the temperate Arab States and the West that they an emerging superpower. Iran their nuclear weapons could make them superpower in the region and eliminate West away from the Middle East. They believe that the arms provide them with the strategic position and more immunity to influence the entire area. They argue that support from regional states such as Qatar, Saudi and the West are aiding the rivals to Syria, and they cannot allow their enduring associate to receive threats from the external forces. From this, the United States then dropped their interest in supporting Syria. Instead of providing support to Syria, the United States have decided to merge with the Syrian rivals like the Democratic forces and Free Syrian Army (FSA) in the North with intentions to battle the Islamic States (ISIS).
Conclusion
The Syrian conflict is as a result of the influence of the Arab Spring. Evidence has indicated that there is a power struggle within the Middles East with both external and regional forces taking part. Diverse foreign interventions have emerged mostly driven by their specific intended interest towards Syria. Despite the most influential forces participating in the Syrian war, radical groups such as the ISIS took advantage and made honours that resulted in gruesome atrocities. The international theory of Realism can view the Syrian war as it perceives how unforgiving and messy the actor that participated in the war intensified the Syrian conflict. Global diplomatic efforts have repeatedly been done but failed to end the war. Even currently, the blasting attacks are still troubling Syria. No one is aware of when this predicament will officially come to an end.
Work Cited
Echevarria II, Antulio J. Clausewitz and contemporary war. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2007.
Humud, Carla E., Christopher M. Blanchard, and Mary Beth D. Nikitin. The armed conflict in Syria: Overview and US response. No. CRS-RL33487. Congressional Research Service Washington United States, 2016.
Monaghan, Andrew. “Facing an Arc of Crisis.” Russia in Global Affairs 14.1 (2016): 53-61.
Waltz, Kenneth N. “Structural realism after the Cold War.” International Security 25.1 (2000): 5-41.
Rosato, Sebastian. “The flawed logic of democratic peace theory.” American political science review 97.4 (2003): 585-602.