Loss of control in Syria

Many could argue that most states in 2014 are failed, primarily because of what the 2012 Fragile State Index states. For a state to be failed is saying they lack economic development and political control, possess high morality and crime rates, and are amongst a civil war. Amongst the many states claimed failed, Syria possesses most of these qualities. Since 2012, there has been protests and military disputes between the Syrian military, people and ISIS rebels. The dictator, Bashar Al-Assad, has refused to step down and has helped defined this state as failed.

A failed state is considered weak, fragile and unstable. Here, Syria is all of the above. Even though they currently have a leader, Assad, he is not legitimate. As stated in Professor Shirk's "Legitimacy" slide, political legitimacy is where "citizens view leaders as normatively legitimate,"Assad does not have this from the people of Syria nor the people outside of Syria. Yes, he does have military power still and has not stepped down, but he has failed his people and his state, thus causing my argument of Syria as failed. If there were a strong government in place and military at hand, Syria would not be struggling in their economy, with mortality/crime rates, and with their lack of civil rights thus causing a civil war.

Because of this lack of political control, such countries as the United States have stepped in to aid in the civil war amongst Syria. Thus further proving Syria to be unstable and too weak to control their own countries civil war and the rebels inside. The U.S. has now started airstrikes in Syria to stop ISIS gain control of Syria's civil rights for them. A state that needs another state to intervene and gain back their civil rights and overall stability, to me, is deemed failed.

Although many argue that Syria is not considered one of the top failed states, as seen on the Fragile State Index, any state that happens to be failing at one of the criteria is failed. Of the criteria for a failed state, there is not one that isn't important in the success of a state, therefore I believe if a state is failing in one department, they are failing in general. As stated in the Fragile State Index, Syria scored high in things such as state legitimacy, human rights and security apparatus. But let's take a step back and look at when this index was created, 2012. It has been two years and a lot has happened causing Syria to be considered even more of a failed state today. I believe due to lack of control of people and no military tactics, legitimacy, as stated before, is no longer relevant for Syria. They lost that when Assad refused to step down. In regards to human rights, this is something that definitely has been diminished from this civil war causing nothing to be gained so far from it.

All in all, I deem Syria as a failed state. Whether it has been failed by their government or just failed in general, it is still failed. When a state needs intervention from outside states to control inside of their own, I believe this is the ultimate factor of loss of legitimacy, political control and lack of civil rights that have caused Syria to be failed.

Syria: A Failed State

            Over the past three years, the civil war in Syria has dominated the scope of international relations.  As the middle east is continually effected by conflicts, the Syrian civil war has stood out as being the most deadly, garnering the attention of powers in the region such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as the attention of the entire world. More recently the emergence of ISIS, as the major opponent of the Assad Regime and a power in the area, compiling physical territory in Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria, has clouded the Syrian Debate, further complicating a conflict that remains not fully understood.  However, by just analyzing the Syrian state itself in terms of its success and rank on the failed states index similar to the one published online by Foreign Policy Magazine, I believe Syria should fall near the very top of the list.

            Syria is a failed state. One could even argue that Syria before the civil war that began nearly three years ago was an example of a failed state, for the non democratically elected, dictatorship of Assad was in power controlling the Syrian people through domination and coercion. Syria relied upon its relationship to countries like Iran and Russia to supply it with arms and other resources. During the Civil War, Syria has become even more reliant on its allies, further isolating itself from western powers over its usage of chemical weapons, as it continues to attempt to survive this civil war.  When the civil war broke out, protesting and civil unrest quickly morphed into terrible violence.  Failing to meet the needs and aspirations of the citizens of Syria, the Syrian government failed in its primary purpose to provide for its citizens. Although the role of a state may differ in the opinions of analyst. In my opinion if a government is unable to respond to the will of the populace without violence, and has allowed social/political/economic conflicts within the nation to turn violent or unruly it has failed in its primary mission. As Syria struggles to emerge from this ordeal, the question must be asked what or who is Syria? The government I deemed illegitimate that slaughters the inhabitants of the nation of Syria, I would argue is not Syria, ISIS fighter are not Syria, only its natural inhabitants should be seen as Syria, and as they leave in the millions, and are murdered in the thousands, the state of Syria is not just a failure it  may no longer exist.

            Political corruption, economic stability, crime levels, normal factors in determining the level of instability (failure) with a nation, are no longer prevalent in Syria. The level of failure has reached the point that civilian death seems to be the only statistic coming out of Syria. As foreign policy magazine goes to reassess the current state of the world's nation, Syria should be near the very top. Normal factors of analysis, no longer prevalent in Syria should not cloud the formalization of Syria's score. Just as the United States failed to hold together the union in the mid 19th century, the American Civil War was a result of political/cultural failure within the nation's borders. Today in Syria the level of  violence, tragedy, and uncounterable foreign involvement further exemplifies the level of failure for the "government."

Is Syria a Failed State?

            The past two years have been filled with tragic stories of death, mass destruction and civil war in Syria.  The ruthless dictator Bashar Al-Assad has refused to step down from power despite protests and clashes between the Syrian military and rebel civilians.  Despite all of the terrible events plaguing Syria for these past two years, Syria is not a failed state.

            The Fragile State Index uses twelve different criteria to compile a final score ranking how failed a state may be.  The main criteria that Syria scored the highest on are refugees/IDP’s, group grievance, state legitimacy, human rights, security apparatus, and fractionalized elites.  However, they scored average scores on demographic pressures, human flight/brain drain, uneven economic development, poverty/economic decline and public services. 

These high scores are every indicator of civil war, as opposed to a failed state.  These characteristics are expected to be high when there is violent conflict in the state.  All these rankings do for Syria is reflect the fact that they are currently in a civil war.  A failed state encompasses high scores in all different categories, such as social, economic and political issues.  States that aren’t in civil war but are still considered to be failed states, such as the Congo and Somalia, have high scores on all of these criteria.  Syria, however, scores high on aspects related to violent conflict.  Their economic growth, although not good, is not at the level of other seriously failed states. 

Scores on the Fragile State Index can tell us a lot about a country.  We can learn about how effective the government is, certain social issues going on in the state and how the economy is doing.  Each characteristic leads to a certain description of the state, such as a failed state, a state in civil war, a state with a poor economy, a state with no rule of law or a developing state.  In this scenario, based on the certain areas that Syria scored particularly high on, I would classify Syria as a state in civil war as opposed to a failed state.

Somalia, for example, had a lowest individual criteria score of 8.4, meaning that every other criteria was above that and as high as 10.  Somalia’s score shows a wide array of issues that prove that there is no sort of political effectiveness.  Having a low spread of high scores shows that Somalia is truly a failed state.  Syria, however, scores particularly high on certain criteria that can lead us to conclude that the state is in civil war as opposed to being a failed state.  If we were looking for a truly failed state, we would see a different pattern and spread of scores on the Fragile State Index.

            You could say that a state in civil war is, by default, a failed state.  There clearly is no internal legitimacy in Syria, since a great deal of people want Assad to step down.  However, there is still an internationally recognized leader of Syria.  He still controls the military and represents the country on the international stage.  In my opinion, a failed state is one that has no internal or external legitimacy.  A political void, where there is an opportunity for anybody, any group or any party to take power in a state is what determines a failed state.  The government has thus become ineffective and there is nobody that can take control of any government function.  In the case of Syria, we don’t exactly see that.  Assad still has control of Syria’s military and weapons arsenal, and nobody has the power to take his position in government.  In this sense, Syria is not a failed state.  Although a state in civil war has similar characteristics to a failed state, there is a distinguishable difference between the two, as evident by the Fragile State Index.

            Not considering Syria a failed state does not diminish the atrocious violations of human rights, poor economic conditions and lack of rule of law currently taking place.  Each country must objectively look at any state in turmoil and evaluate foreign policy based on their individual national interest, concerns regarding regional challenges and a host of other issues that affect how an established state deals with a fragile state.  Just because Syria is in civil war doesn’t mean that it requires just as much international attention as a country such as Somalia, which tops the Fragile State Index. 

            Despite the turmoil plaguing Syria right now, the Fragile State Index would not classify it a failed state.  Although it scored particularly high on certain aspects, it did not have the wide spread of scores that a failed state would have.  Syria’s scores on the Fragile State Index are scores expected for a country going through a civil war, which are similar to those of a failed state, but certainly do have distinct differences.

US intervention in Syria

Whether or not a country should intervene in another nation’s conflict has always been a big debate. The United States is currently the biggest power in the world so we typically intervene when conflicts occur. The ongoing Syrian civil war has raised the question on how involved the United States should be to end the oppressive regime of Assad. Personally, I think the United States shouldn’t be more involved than they are now. A full-scale intervention shouldn’t take place since the US doesn’t know what they would want to achieve by intervening in Syria and a more diplomatic approach should be taken to resolve issues.

            In the Foreign Policy article that we read, it said why the US should intervene if there is no clear goal to achieve. That idea is true. The US shouldn’t intervene if they don’t know what they want from being involved. If the US abruptly intervenes, a war could be possible and the conflict could go on for years. After Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public isn’t keen on sending troops out or having the US be involved in foreign conflicts that don’t directly affect the US. We shouldn’t risk the lives of American soldiers if we aren’t completely sure what we want from intervening.

            The United States has done airstrikes with other nations against ISIS in Syria. With ISIS, they create an immediate threat to the international world.  The air strikes should continue to help fight against ISIS. With the civil unrest in Syria the issue can be resolved with diplomatic talks with Assad. If there is pressure from the United States and other big nations, Assad could reform his oppressive government. A diplomatic approach seems more reasonable then intervening completely with soldiers and weapons. A full-scale intervention isn’t needed but aid is offered to civilians. The aid should continue. The US does allocate funds for nonlethal aid that helps with food rations and other things.  

For now, it is better that the US doesn’t intervene completely with Syria. If the US were to intervene the conflict could continue for much longer and cause more danger for the people of Syria. If the United States and other nations work diplomatically for government reform in Syria, complete intervention can be avoided. The US should also work with neighboring countries of Syria like Jordan and Turkey to help with nation building in Syria. Overall, the US shouldn’t launch a full on intervention in Syria but continue with airstrikes to fight against ISIS. Also, the crisis in Syria should be something monitored and fixed by not only the US but other nations too.

Blog Post 2 China Emerging

China has a bustling economy and will continue to grow and eventually surpass the United States as the number one super power or hegemon in terms of economy and military power in the world within the next 50 years. The United States dependency on Chinese production of goods has become globally recognized, and will pose a problem to the U.S. current status quo in the long run. The United States owes China alone an estimated 1.3 trillion dollars, which is not an insurmountable debt but a substantial one nonetheless. I will argue that this is a result of America’s over-reliance on other country’s resources but more importantly it’s expectancy that a democratic foreign policy will always work in the U.S favor. Furthermore none of the surrounding states in Asia will be able to pose a significant enough obstacle to halt China’s progression.

           

The United States is well aware that China is emerging as a dominant world economy and as an upcoming military force. This is evident with the amount of U.S. troops that surround the immediate states within North East Asia. I agree with Mearsheimer’s view on how China’s military and economy will surpass Japan in the next decade or two. Even with China’s one child per household limit, China’s population far outweighs Russia and Japan, and will only continue growing. It is not a matter of whether China will eventually be the dominant force or not, but rather when will this event occur. With the U.S. far outspending any country when it comes to military, people would argue that no one could possibly pose a significant threat to the U.S. current standing. However I would like to point out the fact that with China’s current system of cheap labor, it is very possible for China to catch up and surpass the U.S. in terms of nuclear weapons possessed. Yes China relies heavily on the U.S. as a customer to sell their products to but that in no way negates the fact that as China produces more goods its growth continues to skyrocket. I would argue that the U.S. dependency on oil and the outsourcing of jobs for cheap labor will haunt us in the long run.                                                 

If you closely observe the U.S. foreign policies, it is obvious that the U.S. has no intentions of trying to force a democratic system of government in China or any state in North East Asia for that matter. The United Sates knows that even with its advanced military systems and European allies it would still be a foolhardy mission simply because of the repercussions it would have to face. The U.S. is already dealing with ISIS, and trying to establish credible democracy in the Middle-Eastern states. Also President Obama has sent 40,000 troops to Africa under the guise of dealing with the Ebola crisis. The purpose of references these two points is so people can understand that the U.S. has it’s plate is already full so to speak, and with an economy that has seen better days, it is unlikely that China’s progression is something that the U.S. can contain. Because the U.S. has a history of being frontrunners in the field of humanitarian work, the world’s dominant power now finds itself in an interesting position. The U.S. needs to decide whether their motives for continuing to dabble in other countries affair is worth allowing China to advance it’s progress and eventually overtake the number one spot.

Political Realism

According to foreign policy in a realist’s mind, it is how we get from “the way the world is” to “how the world should be.” It recent events, the United States and ISIS clearly both have their own versions of how the world is and should be. According to the U.S., the world's borders should be protected and  relationships between foreign countries, various religions and beliefs should be civil. To ISIS, it should be their extremist ideas and ways believed across the Middle East.

According to Morgenthau and the Six Principles of Political Realism “Political realism does not require, nor does it condone, indifference to political ideals and moral principles, but it requires indeed a sharp distinction between the desirable and the possible – between what is desirable everywhere and at all times and what is possible under the concrete circumstances of time and place.” The United States desires to have peace and under these circumstances of dealing with terrorist groups such as ISIS it is important for them to be dominant and efficient. ISIS believes their religious and political beliefs should dominate the Middle East and they will kill anyone in their way of that. 

In the past, the U.S. has dealt with terrorism in many different ways, from compromising for hostages to exploiting terrorist leaders, the U.S. has done it all. But against ISIS it is much different. ISIS, a group of extremists in the Middle East, is one of the toughest situations the U.S. has had to deal with in the last decade. As the Six Principles of Political Realism emphasizes, states are the rational actors when dealing with certain matters such as foreign policy. In this case, the U.S. and ISIS are these rational actors.

The United States is seemingly more powerful than any of the terrorist groups in the world, but because of the three realist theories, balance of power, security dilemma, and offense/defense they struggle with being rational and preventing war. Due to the security dilemma, “one state’s security is another states insecurity,” ISIS and the U.S. have been using more intense military actions such as U.S. air-striking ISIS in Syria and ISIS beheading people whom don’t believe in their extremist ideas. This demands both states to practice offense and defense, according to the realist theory. Although U.S. maintains a good balance of defense and offense, ISIS practices a more intense offense. Recently, this has caused the U.S. to play more on offense to maintain security internally and in ally countries.

In comparison, U.S. tends to be more reasonable than ISIS. The U.S. is outsourcing to other states for military support, training Syrian soldiers to protect their state from the inside as well as coming up with strategic plans of preventing a war with the extremists. ISIS on the other hand has not been very reasonable. They have refused any compromise or proposal the U.S. has offered. They focus more so on being strategic and using the media to broadcast their actions such as beheading non-believers to show what they are willing to do and scare people from not joining their cause. 

All in all, more than 50 European, Asian and Arab countries have joined forces with the United States to stop ISIS. Thus, further proving ISIS is seen as unreasonable with their foreign policy. While most advances of ISIS have been halted, US and their allied leaders know they have a long fight ahead of them to dislodge them. 

Unpacking the U.S.-ISIL Conflict

The topic of ISIL and what to do about them has captivated people all over the world.  It has been a source of fear, debate, concern and aggression.  It is important to understand your enemy in order to effectively harm them, and in my opinion, one of the main reasons the Western European Democracies are having a difficult understanding ISIL is because their beliefs are constructivist while those of the U.S. and its allies are a based on realism.

Since World War I, the U.S. has been fighting to insure that it remains the dominant world power thus allowing us to protect our interests.  Protection of our interests is the reason we fought the German’s in World War’s I and II, entered into a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, attempted to stop communism from spreading into Vietnam, placed sanctions on Iran, and have started an airstrike against ISIL.  The U.S. is reluctant to allow ISIL to gain more relative power.  We see this as a direct threat to our interests and security, rightfully so.  As ISIL gains more power, we watch our interests and those of our allies in the region lose power.  As realists, watching ISIL gain relative power is taken as a direct threat to our well being.

Realists are very state-centric.  As a government, realists like to deal with states and governments that are given legitimate authority from its citizens, as opposed to organizations with no legitimate power.  ISIL’s only real legitimate authority comes from its members itself.  Nobody who is conquered by ISIL wants to be ruled by them.  In this sense, they have no real legitimate authority, which is troublesome to realists.  This fundamental difference between realists and constructivists has caused a lot of violence and frustration when trying to deal with ISIL.  They are a group, just as gangs, organizations, corporations and charities.  They are influential, but have no real authority.  Constructivists believe that the main actors in international relations are NGO’s and other groups, as opposed to states.  Groups like Al Queada, ISIL and Boko Haram have certainly made the case for this, through their high level of influence and low level of legitimate authority.  In order to deal with them, we have to recognize ISIL as a threat, which gives them some sort of legitimacy.

ISIL’s fundamental struggle stems from its own identity.  Their individual identity is so strong they behead westerners and persecute people of other religions simply because they believe everybody should be aligned with them.  Their identity and their cause is so derived from their history.   As a result, their history dictates their goals and future plans.  These are all things that we Americans struggle with.  We obviously care about our history and to an extent it informs how we behave.  However, we don’t still have a grudge with the British and the French dating back to colonial days, and we have distanced ourselves from slavery, all actions that show some disconnect between our history and our current policies.  ISIL shows no such quality, which is one of the reason it has been so difficult for western countries to control them.  Most realists would care about their history, but not let it influence their decisions and actions to the extent displayed by ISIL.

The only area where ISIL and western countries find common ground is in their dedication to ideals and values.  We, as a democracy, are very passionate about our values and our democratic system.  ISIL, as a group, is very idealistic and acts based on their own values, despite how much we disagree with them.  This passion for our ideals is one of the only things that we can find common ground on.  Values are a very powerful driver of behavior, and have led to fighting throughout history.  Victory in war could potentially boil down to which side is more successful at spreading their own values.  ISIL becomes more influential as they spread their ideals around the world, but the democratic and humane vales that we have as a western society could temper their influence.

Aside from ISIL’s barbaric violations of human rights, western democracies are having difficulty with them because of certain qualities that are engrained into our identity.  In this case, realism clashes directly with constructivism, and that clash is part of what has prompted such a strong international response.