Abstract

Chemical weapons use was a red-line that Damascus-directed forces crossed in the current and ongoing Syrian civil conflict. Russia and the United States disagreed not only about whether the weapons had indeed been used, but also regarding whom to identify as the weapons use perpetrators. That the United States and Russia would find themselves diametrically opposed initially on policy and military prescriptions regarding Syria is generally and theoretically explained by those countries’ long-standing material and security interests in the region. Even a couple of years prior to this red-line moment—and as the early brewing civil conflict in Syria was raising the concerns of the international community—what action should be taken in Syria was the subject of considerable and heated public debate as well as name-calling between Russia and the United States at the United Nations. While the United States and Russia staked-out opposing positions on Syria on the basis of either material or national security reasoning, the Chinese interest in the dispute outcome was—and remains—less obvious or easily understood. In a previous United Nations–sanctioned action enabling intervention on Libya to oust Muammar Gaddafi, China did not veto the Security Council action … despite its significant material interests in that country. A short while later, at the outset of the Syrian stirrings and talk of United Nations action, China made clear that it would not enable a Security Council approach that could lead to intervention, either unilaterally by a third country or via a military coalition of state actors. This work uses a media critical discourse analysis approach to understand the official Chinese position in the case of Syria—a position that stands in contrast to its recent and prior intervention-tolerant foreign policy position on Libya at the end of the Gaddafi-era. One conclusion of this study is that China is still formulating its dynamic and seemingly disjointed foreign policy position in the Middle East at present, and that the promotion of the principles of Sovereignty over Responsibility to Protect is the current trump card in its now dominant anti-interventionist foreign policy posture.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.