R2P

The crisis in Syria is mounting with the spread of ISIS and more international actors entering the conflict, leaving millions of lives at risk. The number of refugees fleeing the region is record breaking. In the United States, numerous governors announced refusals to accept refugees due to the fear that terrorists may enter the country. The xenophobic policies of the United States and other Western nations worsen the crisis due to neglect of the root of the problem. Giving humanitarian aid and intervention to the region could ameliorate the refugee crisis. Humanitarian interventions, like that seen in Libya in 2011, aim to lessen the violence and deaths of civilians during civil war or crises. Under international law, states have a “Responsibility to Protect” innocent lives from civil war and humanitarian crisis. A quarter of a million Syrians already died with more estimated with a conditions worsening due to a lack of food.

According to scholar Alan Kuperman, there are three reasons why humanitarian intervention is not successful and thus not used. First, Kuperman argues timing is an issue, with most of the damage to civilians complete before invention can occur. In the case of Syria, this is not true yet. It is estimated that 13.5 million Syrians need aid, a substantial proportion of the country. Second, Kuperman argues that the intervention rewards combatants and encourages rebellion. In the case of the United States, rebels such as the Free Syrian Army would gain access to supplies and medical treatment. In the case of ISIS, entire cities are under the group’s control with clinics and supply lines thus eliminating the possibility of ISIS taking advantage of aid. Third, Kuperman explains that civilians are not necessarily targets of violence and thus R2P does not apply. Beginning in 2011, Assad used force against peaceful protests and now ISIS holds entire cities captive.

If Syria exhibits all three components, why is there no humanitarian intervention? With France, the United States, Russia and China involved in the Syrian conflict the United Nation’s can pass a resolution to authorize a military intervention to protect civilians. Instead, there is no humanitarian intervention simply because it is not in the major powers’ interest. The behavior of the major powers is grounded in structural realism, thus inhibiting a humanitarian response. According to Lawson, structural realist states give priority to its own wellbeing and aim to guard against attacks, thus the major powers do not have an incentive to respond to the humanitarian crisis, but focus on the power dynamics within Syria.

Russian and American policy in Syria is a prime example of structural realism since both states disregard the interests of the other. Russia supports the Assad regime, implementing air strikes against the rebels that the US supports. Neither nation’s policy is a departure from historical foreign policies.

In regards to the United States, Michael Hudson explains that foreign policy revolves around the idea that the Middle East is breeding grounds for terrorists. Due to the hypersensitivity to terrorism, the US focuses its efforts in Syria on diminishing the threat of ISIS through counterterrorism measures. The pillar of US policy focuses on regime change to support democratization and Israel while denouncing Iran and terrorism. Since Assad’s regime in Syria allied with Iran, the United States supports anti-Assad rebels to replace the authoritarian regime.

After the failure of the War in Iraq and inability of the Americans to effectively, state build it is not in US interest to intervene in any capacity with troops either militarily or humanitarianly. Ehteshami and Hinnebush use the state power position to explain foreign polices in which the states with greater resources are more likely to intervene, which in the case of the United States in not true. Domestic pressure within the US and within the Democratic Party hinder the US from providing troops on the ground along with a fear of failure and embarrassment on the international stage. Compared to Libya, the conflict in Syria is more complex with a larger number of interests and actors, thus making a humanitarian invention improbable.

Contrasting the wishes of the United States, Russia sells arms to the Assad regime, backing the authoritarian ruler throughout the conflict. According to Katz, one of Russia’s main goals is to capitalize on anti-American sentiments in the region. In the case of Syria, Russia does not capitalize but maintain one of two alliances in the region. The support of rebels undermines Russian security and relative position in the Middle East as the nation competes with the United States to gain influence. Russia seeks to improve its position overall in the region to protect itself but aims to improve its position relative to the United States globally in order to rebalance the balance of power against the hegemon. In the fight against ISIS, Ryan explains how Putin fears a transnational threat to Russian Muslims and the Russian regime.

The competing views contribute to the formation of a new cold war, in which both sides refuse to negotiate in order to block the other from dominance. In structural realism, states’ attitudes produce an arms race but no war. In the case of Syria, policies are prolonging conflict instead of solving it, allowing the status quo to continue. Even with the formation of a French and Russian coalition, the competition between the United States and Russia will not produce a lasting alliance. Russia seeks to firmly reestablish a bipolar world. According to Gause, the weakness of a state creates a vacuum to foreign powers, which is precisely the case in Syria with both nations attempting to fill the power void.

A humanitarian invention aims to improve the living conditions, thus making migrants less likely to flee if there are resources available. Intervention other than limited air strikes are in the interest of major nations such as the United States, Russia and EU member states due to the flood of refugees leaving the region. Unfortunately, the states will not cooperate due to their conflicting interests making a humanitarian intervention impossible.