-
- Jin Liangxiang
- Senior Research Fellow
- Center for west Asian & African Studies
- Institute for International Strategic Studies
Apr 21 2014
China's Syria policy will stand the test of time
By Jin Liangxiang
In the middle of April, a delegation of the Syrian National Coalition headed by Ahmad Jarba visited Beijing, and was met with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi. This latest development once again signifies China's policy and role in the Syrian issue. Despite some modest dissatisfaction, China's policy will stand the test of time.
It is true that China's Syria policy used to be the target of criticism. China vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions, which might have led to external intervention into Syria's domestic affairs. China was dissatisfied not only by Syrian oppositions but also by regional actors who expected to see the demise of Bashar Assad's regime. But what determines good policy is whether it can stand the test of time rather than whether it is criticized. Good policy does not necessarily please all.
Though both China and Russia opposed military intervention, the start points of the two were different. Russia was actually acting more out of geopolitical interests. Looking at a map, Syria is actually two or three hours' flight away from Moscow. And Syria has long been a staunch ally of Russia as well. Without an alliance with Syria, Russia would have a much weaker role in the region.
China's Syria policy stems from its adherence to the principle of non-intervention. As is evident in history, external intervention has been a problem itself rather than a solution to a problem. China believes that military intervention itself and the anarchy as a result of it could cause much a more serious humanitarian crisis than the internal clashes. For instance, the casualties as a result of Qaddafi's persecution and repression could be counted in the tens of thousands, but the war launched by the West and the post-war anarchy could have produced hundreds of thousands of deaths. It is ironic that the former U.S. ambassador also fell as a victim of the post-war anarchy.
China also believes that external intervention can often be employed by the West or the most powerful as an instrument to achieve political purposes. It is widely accepted in the non-Western world that by changing Libya's regime, the West actually wanted to change its anti-West foreign policy.
In Syria's case, civil war has caused approximately 150 thousand casualties and millions of displaced refuges. But military actions from outside could cause even more deaths. And the West actually aims to gain geopolitical benefits through intervention. It is because of Bashar Assad's alliance with Iran rather than the authoritarian nature of the regime itself that the West wants to topple it. If not, why would the West not intervene in countries with a similar situation?
China's adherence to the principle of non-intervention is not in conflict with its concern for humanitarian causes. China has long been advocating a political solution via negotiation and dialogue, which it believes will reduce the humanitarian cost for the Syrian people in their political transformation.
The situation on the battlefield has proven that China is right. Fighting is no way out, but will cost more lives. It is least likely that the regime's forces could eliminate the opposition clearly in a predictable future even with its recent victories; it is even less likely that the opposition could break up the regime. It seems that the opposition is not only in the quagmire of internal conflicts but also facing pressures from both of the regime and al-Qaeda elements.
Unfortunately, the West, together with some regional countries, has been taking sides in the conflicts, which has greatly undermined the atmosphere for potential constructive negotiations, though the two conflicting sides were willing to negotiate at Geneva II.
In addition, China has also contributed humanitarian emergency aid of of $2 million to Syria through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 2012; in mid-January 2014, China provided material aid worth $3.3 million to Syria's relief effort via the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. These are the only two reported donations.
All in all, China has been fighting for the right solution to the Syrian crisis. Despite some dissatisfaction, China's positions have been recognized, as a political solution was listed in the joint statement of Geneva I as the path and was reiterated in Geneva II. In the future, it should receive more and more support.
Currently, though a political solution was accepted, at least on paper, there are still differences. The West wants a political solution without Bashar Assad. By that, the West intends to bring down Bashar Assad without intervention. But that certainly does not reflect the situation on the battlefield.
A final outcome might be based on a comparison of the strengths of various factions from the regime to different opposition forces, and in some way would have to reflect the strengths of various external actors from the West, Russia, Saudi Arabia to Iran.
But in order to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, external actors should push relevant parties to accept a negotiated solution based on a comparison of strengths.
It is true that China's Syria policy used to be the target of criticism. China vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions, which might have led to external intervention into Syria's domestic affairs. China was dissatisfied not only by Syrian oppositions but also by regional actors who expected to see the demise of Bashar Assad's regime. But what determines good policy is whether it can stand the test of time rather than whether it is criticized. Good policy does not necessarily please all.
Though both China and Russia opposed military intervention, the start points of the two were different. Russia was actually acting more out of geopolitical interests. Looking at a map, Syria is actually two or three hours' flight away from Moscow. And Syria has long been a staunch ally of Russia as well. Without an alliance with Syria, Russia would have a much weaker role in the region.
China's Syria policy stems from its adherence to the principle of non-intervention. As is evident in history, external intervention has been a problem itself rather than a solution to a problem. China believes that military intervention itself and the anarchy as a result of it could cause much a more serious humanitarian crisis than the internal clashes. For instance, the casualties as a result of Qaddafi's persecution and repression could be counted in the tens of thousands, but the war launched by the West and the post-war anarchy could have produced hundreds of thousands of deaths. It is ironic that the former U.S. ambassador also fell as a victim of the post-war anarchy.
China also believes that external intervention can often be employed by the West or the most powerful as an instrument to achieve political purposes. It is widely accepted in the non-Western world that by changing Libya's regime, the West actually wanted to change its anti-West foreign policy.
In Syria's case, civil war has caused approximately 150 thousand casualties and millions of displaced refuges. But military actions from outside could cause even more deaths. And the West actually aims to gain geopolitical benefits through intervention. It is because of Bashar Assad's alliance with Iran rather than the authoritarian nature of the regime itself that the West wants to topple it. If not, why would the West not intervene in countries with a similar situation?
China's adherence to the principle of non-intervention is not in conflict with its concern for humanitarian causes. China has long been advocating a political solution via negotiation and dialogue, which it believes will reduce the humanitarian cost for the Syrian people in their political transformation.
The situation on the battlefield has proven that China is right. Fighting is no way out, but will cost more lives. It is least likely that the regime's forces could eliminate the opposition clearly in a predictable future even with its recent victories; it is even less likely that the opposition could break up the regime. It seems that the opposition is not only in the quagmire of internal conflicts but also facing pressures from both of the regime and al-Qaeda elements.
Unfortunately, the West, together with some regional countries, has been taking sides in the conflicts, which has greatly undermined the atmosphere for potential constructive negotiations, though the two conflicting sides were willing to negotiate at Geneva II.
In addition, China has also contributed humanitarian emergency aid of of $2 million to Syria through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 2012; in mid-January 2014, China provided material aid worth $3.3 million to Syria's relief effort via the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. These are the only two reported donations.
All in all, China has been fighting for the right solution to the Syrian crisis. Despite some dissatisfaction, China's positions have been recognized, as a political solution was listed in the joint statement of Geneva I as the path and was reiterated in Geneva II. In the future, it should receive more and more support.
Currently, though a political solution was accepted, at least on paper, there are still differences. The West wants a political solution without Bashar Assad. By that, the West intends to bring down Bashar Assad without intervention. But that certainly does not reflect the situation on the battlefield.
A final outcome might be based on a comparison of the strengths of various factions from the regime to different opposition forces, and in some way would have to reflect the strengths of various external actors from the West, Russia, Saudi Arabia to Iran.
But in order to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, external actors should push relevant parties to accept a negotiated solution based on a comparison of strengths.
Source of documents：www.china.org.cn