Justification of the US vs the Russian Stance on the Syrian Conflicts, Essay Example

Introduction

The Syrian conflicts that emanated in the year 2011 triggered a series of responses from several key countries within the international community panorama. The Syrian conflicts have drawn interventions from major countries with some supporting the course of conflicts within the county and others totally against the conflicts terming it as a crime against humanities. Two major countries in the international scene have strongly expressed their opinions in which they differ regarding the Syrian conflicts. The two countries are the US and Russia. The United states are on the opinion that the current conflicts in Syria are causing a number sufferings to the citizens of the country, more so the women, children and men who are suffering in the current regime (Cooper, 2012, July 17). Russia on the contrary is on the opinion that the Syrian conflicts are justified and that the decisions made by the current regime are valid and will offer viable options towards arrival to the country’s future dreams.

The conflicts represented above depicts a controversy in stance taken by both the US and Russia towards finding solution to the Syrian’s problems. Literally, the US stance seems to be more realistic and aims at ending the crisis, as compared to the Russian stance, which seems to propel the conflicts to higher levels. This research will support the US stance, and in the same perspective seek to justify that the stance taken by the US is right, and would provide the best choice towards ending the Russian conflicts as compared to the Russian stance. To achieve the above research objective, the study will take into account both the Russian and the US stance, make in depth analysis and then justify the viability of the US stance.

The Russian stance

Since the onset of the Syrian war in 2011, Russian has contributed significantly to several events that are currently unfolding in the Syrian scene. Russia and Syria have been close friends for quite a long time and this has made the Russian government support president Bashar al-Assad’s decision despite of whether they are a threat to humanity or not. The current crisis has led to the killing of over 9000 Russian citizens, a figure that is quite alarming. Despite this, Russian is consistently supporting the Bashar al-Assad’s regime and deeming the killings as a way that would quell the protesting groups and help the government gain control (Cooper, 2012, July 17).

In addition, Russia has fought against the positive interventions that are being introduced into the conflict scene to restore the country to its normal position. Russia highly resisted the current interventions by the United States to ring in its forces into Syrian on grounds that it would promulgate the conflicts further.

In spite of the plethora of accusations against Russian’s collusion with President Assad’s government in supporting and propagating the conflicts, the Russian government still had the audacity to point fingers to other western countries terming them as aiding the Syrian rebels.

Russia is on the opinion that adoption of the decisions raised forth by the United States and the United nations would cause the violence situation to grow from good to worse, a factor that would increase the number of killings in Syrian(Trenin, 2013). To date, Russia still supports the decision to let Syrians solve their problems internally terming it as the only fair way forward towards ending of the Syrian crisis. This decision has had dire effects on the interventions that have been proposed by the United Nations Security Council on phasing out the Assad’s regime, therefore, increasing even the levels of violence further.

The Russian support to the Assad’s government has also been witnessed with the provision of weapons and aircrafts to aid the current regime. Such weapons have been used by the government to quell down the protesters who have fought against the Assad’s regime (Greig, 2013). This provision of the weapons could also account for the over 9000 deaths of the Syrian citizens.

Rumors have it that the main reasons for which Russia provides weapons for the Syrian government is for its selfish interests. They are a seeing a market for their weapons and attempting to maintain its naval facility in Tartus; this justifies their support for the current Syrian regime to wipe out the rebelling citizens through killings (Ryan, 2012).

Considering the above stance, it quite evident that the Russian government is attempting to protect its interests in Syrian; such interests include the protection of its Middle East ally, securing market for its weapons and war crafts and finally securing its naval base in Tartus. With such interests out of place, Russia would not be well positioned to attain its world superpower position.

The United States Stance

The US, as mentioned earlier is among the countries whose interventions seem to be viable and capable of bringing valid solution to the Syrian situation. The US stance is that a stern action is taken against the Assad’s regime to bring an end to the conflicts (Sharp & Blanchard, 2012, July). According to the US, the conflicts and the deaths that have occurred in Syria have mounted to conflicts against humanity and such should be stopped. To back up these efforts, the US has proposed the adoption of the transitional regime, in which case the Assad’s regime would be wiped out (LaFranchi, 2013, May 6). During one of the UN meetings, the United States has often backed the recommendations to remove President Assad out of power in order to end the atrocities that are engulfing the nation. The US president Barrack Obama has also expressed his opinion that in case the government fails to implement the desired democratic reforms, then they would have no choice but to force it out of power.

The use of chemical weapons in fighting the civilians in Syria equally angered the US and made them make decisions that would lead to ending of Syrian government. Such weapons are used against innocent children; women as well as men who do not deserve to perish. The Obama administration is seeking to develop constructive measures that would end the crisis (Khan, 2012, July 30). In summary, the US stance involves elimination of the President Assad’s regime, ending of the chemical weapons use and bringing sanity within the country.

Justification of the US stance

Looking at the above stances analytically, it is evident that the United States stance is aimed at bringing long-term solution to the current conflicts in Syria. The Syrian situation depicts a rebellion of citizens against the government in place. A good government should seek to address the interest of its citizens, a factor that the Syrian government has totally failed to consider. In fact, the Assad’s regime has consistently engaged deadly weapons against the citizens hence resulting in severe deaths of innocent citizens including children. In lieu of these conflicts, Russia still supports the government by providing them weapons and preventing interventions from the western countries, which would possibly cause the Syrian crisis to end (Khan, 2012, July 30).

The US stance seeks to remove President Assad from power, a factor that would restore sanity into the nation. Ironically, President Assad’s regime seems to be holding many hopes for the Russian people since it would defend its interests both in the selling of the weapons as well as securing of its naval base. It is, therefore, evident that the main reasons for Russia support to the Syrian government is not to end the crisis but rather to secure its interests in the country and retain its major ally in the Middle East. In this regard, Russia has prevented all the necessary intervention by the other western countries like the US, terming such moves as dangerous and likely to trigger more conflicts in the nation.

The Russian stance is based on greed and protection of self-interests at the expense of death of innocent Syrian citizens. Such a stance would propagate the violence and even lead to more deaths of innocent citizens. This stance can, therefore, be considered null and void, incapable of restoring any form of sanity within the nation of Syria. The US stance, however, projects hope; it aims at removing President Assad from power, and letting the country have a democratic system where leaders of their choice rule the citizens. The consideration of the above argument justifies the US stance to take stern action against the Assad regime in efforts to end the Syrian crisis; in this, I rest my case.

References

Cooper, H. (2012, July 17). Syrian Opposition Group Warns: If the UN Won’t Act, ‘We Have Other Options’. The Christian Science Monitor, 6, 4.

Khan, A. (2012, July 30). Libya Definitely Affected and Continues Influencing Russias Position on Syrian Conflict, Russian PM Says. The Tripoli Post (Tripoli, Libya), p. 12.

LaFranchi, H. (2013, May 6). Syria Civil War: This Week Could Be Decisive for US Involvement. The Christian Science Monitor, 3, 10.

Greig, J. M. (2013). Intractable Syria? Insights from the Scholarly Literature on the Failure of Mediation. Pennsylvania State Journal of Law & International Affairs, 2, 48-182.

Ryan, C. (2012). The New Arab Cold War and the Struggle for Syria. Middle East Report, 262, 28-31.

Sharp, J. M., & Blanchard, C. M. (2012, July). Armed conflict in Syria: US and International Response. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.

Trenin, D. (2013). The Mythical Alliance: Russia’s Syria Policy. Carnegie Moscow Center.