 |
| Homes pounded by Syrian government forces are biting the dust in Homs |
This think
piece by Dr. Raghid el-Solh appears in Arabic today in the pan-Arab daily
al-Hayat. The writer is a published author and consultant on Arab and regional
affairs. He
holds a D.Phil. in Politics and International Relations from St. Antony’s
College at the University of Oxford.
The longer the Syria crisis and the greater the
violence and bloodshed, the broader will its international ramifications be and
the deeper the big powers’ involvement in it.
Internationalization of the Syria crisis exposes the
whole region to international conflict.
Lately, the tug-of-war over Syria seems to involve
two players: the U.S.-led NATO alliance, which backs the Syrian opposition, and
Russia, which supports the Syrian regime.
The Russian stand is pivotal. Moscow has ample cards
to play in Syria. Short of direct military intervention, such as deploying
warships to Latakia and supplying attack helicopters to Damascus, Moscow could exert
indirect pressure on Washington.
For instance, it could shut lines of communications
and supply routes being used by Washington to support American forces in
Afghanistan. This could put them under pressure from the Taliban.
But the state of play between Moscow and Washington
is not at the stage where Russia would consider using such assets, let alone
the fact that China shares the Russian stand on Syria.
Russia and China are aware the tug-of-war over Syria
is in reality a tussle for positions in the world order.
Unlike China, Russia is close to the Syrian theater
and can intervene directly in the region. Distant China asserts its role in
Syria and the Middle East differently. For instance:
§
Having opposed
Western military intervention and backed the Syria mission of UN-Arab League
envoy Kofi Annan, it has been openly critical of Washington’s Syria policy. When
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described as “despicable” the double
veto by Russia and China at the UN Security Council, China’s Xinhua News Agency
retorted by accusing the West of seeking to extend its hegemony over the
region. At the same time its state-run daily The People accused the U.S. of narcissism and arrogance.
§
By consolidating
ties with Moscow. The Syria issue was key to the rapprochement between China
and Russia in the context of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO),
particularly during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s June 5-7 visit to Beijing.
Since the visit, speculation has been rife about turning SCO into a Eurasian
NATO. Commenting on the visit, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the
two countries remain in lockstep over Syria, opposing foreign
intervention and forced regime change. He
said, "Russia
and China have common core interests. They hold similar stances on the ongoing
profound changes in the world and similar approaches to new challenges… Russia and China support building a multi-polar world, establishing a
more just and democratic global political and economic order, and enhancing the
UN’s central role in coordinating and resolving hot international issues.”
§
By enhancing Chinese capabilities. Though Beijing did not involve
itself fully in the Syria crisis, it went a step further by forcing the U.S. to
shift the place of conflict to East Asia. Economic growth in the world’s
second-largest economy has allowed Beijing to embark on a top-to-bottom modernization
of its overall military power. According to SIPRI (acronym for Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute), China’s defense budget quintupled between the years 2000
and 2012 to $160 billion. Although U.S. military spending is four times as much,
SIPRI and other think tanks estimate China will overtake the U.S. in military
spending by the year 2035.
How do these facts and
figures relate to the Syria issue?
American watchers of
Chinese-American relations say Beijing aspires to become Southeast Asia’s regional
hegemon, thus threatening vital U.S. security interests. This explains the
Obama Administration’s recent “Strategic Guidelines” rebalancing force
structure and investments toward the Asia Pacific region. The Obama guidelines
recall the general principles outlined in the 1992 document authored
by Paul Wolfowitz, then U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy. The Wolfowitz document
featured a pledge that the U.S. would act, by military means if necessary,
against any regional bloc threatening American interests.
James E. "Hoss" Cartwright,
the retired U.S. Marine Corps general who served as vice chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff until last August, said in May the new
Asia battle concept is covertly directed at China. “Air Sea Battle is
demonizing China,” he said, “and that is not in anybody’s best interest. And
we’re pivoting to the Pacific. It’s really a poor choice of words.”
The
tensions in Asia are now real. The U.S. is bent on beefing up its military
presence in the Asia Pacific region and on building an alliance to contain
China that would include India, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam.
China is bound to challenge this sooner or later.
As
the strategic rivalry between Washington and Beijing builds up and China’s
economic footprint widens across the globe, Chinese leaders could come to
consider the strategic and oil-rich Arab region vital to Chinese national interests.
