Syrian Civil War
Overview of the international relations conflict President of the United States Barack Obama met with the Turkish Prime Minister to discuss about how to end up the civil war in Syria. Syrian civil was is an armed conflict, which started in March 2011 and developed into international demonstrations in April. The main conflict is held between non-formed rebels wanted to overthrow the power government Ba’ath Party and the resignation of the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, whose family rules the country since 1971. Ba’ath Party is neo-Ba’athism dominant government party that has ruled in Syria since 1963.
All started as a civil and peaceful demonstrations against the president and government, but it turned into armed bloody conflicts as the Ba’ath party used force to stop demonstrations and strengthen their power over the country. Since Syrian civil war has started, several countries are trying to find the solution to stop the unnecessary bloodshed in the country. Even the US President Barack Obama was asked to involve and help to stop this conflict, however he did not seem to be into involving into another Middle-East conflict. The cause of the Syrian civil war rose from the demonstrations against government.
As in every armed conflict the trigger was the use of brutal force against unarmed protestants. The cause of this war follows also from the bad living conditions in the country of Syria, but that would be another story. Now, let’s take a closer look on the discussion between Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister. “While the Turkish and US leaders agree that Syria’s President Assad must be ousted to end the slaughter, the meeting was by far not all Erdogan had hoped for: Obama continues to reject arming the Syrian opposition” (Schlie? 2013). The Turkish prime minister, “Erdogan’s wish to have the US take a stronger stance on Syria” (Schlie? , 2013). However, the US president said, “Washington has a moral and national security incentive to stop the killing” (Schlie? , 2013); they would not act since there would not be stronger evidence about the usage of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons seem to be the main reason US do not want to involve for now. As Barack Obama said “that solid evidence of chemical weaponry would constitute a red line in the onflict and produce major consequences,” added “is important for us to make sure that we’re able to get more specific information about what exactly is happening there” (Sterling, 2013). It seems like a good point from US president not to send weapons and troops somewhere without knowing how the bloody situation will turn out in few months, but on the other hand this act opened many discussion if US really needs to involve as Turkish prime minister asked for.
Barrack Obama during the discussion pointed out that US wants to “find a solution that brings peace to Syria, stabilizes the region, stabilizes those chemical weapons, but it’s not going to be something that the United States does by itself” (Sterling, 2013). US president just „wants to be convinced not just that things will get worse without American intervention, but that US action will actually improve matters” (Rachman, 2013). If the US will involve and the situation in Syria would go worse and unstable US will be blamed for the situation and that is something that Obama wants to predict.
For instance the approach of Barack Obama is disputable for the German Security expert Horst Teltschik, who says, “US and European intelligence should be able to differentiate after two years which groups should be supported and which ones shouldn’t” (Schlie? , 2013). Schlieb also stated another possibility pointing out “Israel has hit Syria with its air force three times already without eliciting a response” (Schlie? , 2013). Should Turkey use their air force to attack strategic map points like presidential palace or military basements?
That’s a question asked by Mr. Teltschik. However, this is “not a very realistic scenario in the run up to the international conference on Syria that US Foreign Minister John Kerry had agreed to in Moscow” (Schlie? , 2013). To predict being lost in this international relation conflict I would focus on the Obama’s decision resulted from the article that I have chosen. Obama is not likely to act right know without having wider information about the situation in the country. It is also known that chemical weapons where used before in the Syrian war.
To analyze the decision of the US president Barack Obama, I would use three level analyses starting with the individual level, domestic level and system level to analyze the interstate causes. However, some of the answers and opinions were written in the text above, I would like to be specific and concrete when analyzing this international problem. Individual level of analysis The individual level of analysis is focused on choices and actions of individual human beings, in our case the US president Barack Obama.
As written before his attitude toward more involvement in the Syrian civil war is to wait, stand by side, because there is poor evidence about the chemical weapons and the actual situation in the Syria. Also other states should say their opinion and help the Syria. The theory of reciprocity is visible in this case. Theory of reciprocity is a psychological theory referring to responding to positive actions by another positive actions. This theory is functioning vice versa. Obama thinks that involving into Syrian conflict will result into more bloodshed and make the situation in the country even worse, at least involving for now.
To be clear, when something bad will happen in the Syria during the US involvement, all the bad things will be credited to the US, as mentioned in this paper before. Violence only begets violence. Obama is a one of the most powerful leaders in the world, but the government of the US may influence him. In this level of analysis is better to understand Obama as a normal person as everybody else is. His words and thoughts may influence life of thousand even millions of people all over the world. That is the power of great leaders.
His decision and attitude is pointing at the fact that he, as a person, is not yet convinced with his own thinking. He personally needs to hear more people talking about this conflict. It is a deep psychological understanding of the problem, but brings explanations to actions taken by the leaders. Now let’s approach to the state level of analysis. State level of analysis The levels of analysis are interconnected within each other. State level of analysis states that individuals within the state may influence the state actions on the international arena.
In the individual level is written that Obama may be influenced with the groups such as government, political parties or another interests group. This may lead to the influencing whole country in the international area. For example “Dennis Ross, who until November 2011 was Mr. Obama’s top adviser on the Middle East, now urges providing “lethal aid” to the Syrian rebels” (Rachman, 2013). There are many people and interest groups that may influence Obama and so the whole country. Another great example of state level analysis may be a different view of republicans. A growing chorus of Republican lawmakers are demanding that President Obama take some action in Syria so that they can attack whatever action he took in Syria” (Borowitz, 2013). Republicans are against Obama’s democracy and so are waiting for any bad movement from democratic side of the government to easily get more votes and better position in the government by making Obama’s decisions bad for the country. Furthermore, Obama’s bad decision will lead to democrats have better position and so the whole country would take another approach against different problems.
The last level of analysis for this paper is the international level. International level of analysis This is the most important level of analysis because it takes into consideration the interaction between states without paying attention to individuals or groups in the country. There are several countries involved in this conflict. Most involved ones seem to be Turkey as a neighbor of Syria, US, and also Russia or Israel. Turkey asked for help US. US seems to wait a little how will the situation crystalize and for now does not want to directly involve by helping any side in the Syria.
Turkey as a neighbor country with Syria see the great opportunity in US, as the US is the powerful country that may help them solve the bad conditions on their borders. Another international relations theory may be applicable here, theory of dominance. Since the US is considered as one of the most powerful countries in the world, the closest modern state to be defined as hegemonic one, it can work with their international attitude. It means that by waiting or not taking any action may influence other states to take an action on different fields.
Other countries will wait for the US to take a first step to start acting too. This level of analysis shows that countries and their actions are based on the actions of another countries in the international field. Nobody wants to be the bad one. Summary The Syrian civil war conflict is the most discussed topic nowadays. There are many opinions how to solve the bloody situations and bring the peace into the country. From my point of view most important factors/approaches when explaining what happened is to take a look at the problem from different angles. There is always more than one definition of the problem.
Go through the articles, collect information and analyze them by using any approach that fits your thinking. Never stop reading and exploring, there is always something more to think about when explaining what happened. To sum up this paper, I would like to say that in some parts of this paper may be visible my own attitude toward the conflict even though I tried to avoid being personal. There is much more to say to this topic. I recommend reading articles founded on the web because this is an international relation problem that may influence many people.