Why does China support Syria's Assad?

[kalu_miah]

I was looking for material on this question on the web. So far I found these:

Bloggingheads.tv
Bloggingheads.tv

There is a "play entire video" button below.

I have not watched the video yet. But this is a question to Chinese friends in this forum, why does China support Syria's Assad? What is in it for China?

I can understand Indians fear a Sunni Muslim consolidation as they fear that Muslims will become united, so they always support a Shia-Sunni fight. I can understand Russia as it has a long people to people, defense and strategic relationship with Syria with a base in Tartus and many Russian wives for the Alawi and Christian elite. But why is China a stake holder?

Is it just a sovereignty and non-interference issue, as China fears that China could be subjected to the same kind of civil war, where Communist party is a small minority ruling over a very large majority of non-party members? But Chinese govt. have very high public support more than 80% if I remember correctly, so surely this cannot seriously be an issue for China.

So what is it then?

Is China not concerned that it is causing scratching of head, puzzlement, anger and loss of support among the 1.4 billion Sunni Muslim world most of whom are in friendly and partner nations, whereas even if all Shia's who support Assad are only about 200 million or less in number?

 

[ahfatzia]

Russia, China Accuse West of Exceeding UN Resolution, Making Libyan Crisis Worse


Having chosen neither to endorse nor block the Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya, Russia and China are continuing to snipe from the sidelines, voicing growing frustration over a mission they say has overstepped its mandate.

With NATO having assumed command of both enforcing the no-fly zone and the additional “civilian protection mission” – attacking Muammar Gaddafi’s forces on the ground – the operation is threatening a new rift between NATO and Moscow, which has long viewed the transatlantic alliance with suspicion.

Russia and NATO members were to meet in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss Libya and, according to Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, “to confirm the limits that the U.N. Security Council placed on the participants of the conflict.”

Security Council resolution 1973 authorized a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” short of foreign occupation to protect civilians under threat of attack by the Libyan regime. Russia and China did not veto the measure when it came to a vote on March 17, but joined non-permanent members India, Germany and Brazil in abstaining.

Full story> Russia, China Accuse West of Exceeding UN Resolution, Making Libyan Crisis Worse | CNSNews.com


As a result China lost billion dollars in investment and the lives of her citizens were in danger. That's the reason number one. Doing Russia a favor and assert herself in the international decision making processes and a few minor ones, perhaps.

 

[kalu_miah]

Russia, China Accuse West of Exceeding UN Resolution, Making Libyan Crisis Worse


Having chosen neither to endorse nor block the Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya, Russia and China are continuing to snipe from the sidelines, voicing growing frustration over a mission they say has overstepped its mandate.

With NATO having assumed command of both enforcing the no-fly zone and the additional “civilian protection mission” – attacking Muammar Gaddafi’s forces on the ground – the operation is threatening a new rift between NATO and Moscow, which has long viewed the transatlantic alliance with suspicion.

Russia and NATO members were to meet in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss Libya and, according to Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, “to confirm the limits that the U.N. Security Council placed on the participants of the conflict.”

Security Council resolution 1973 authorized a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” short of foreign occupation to protect civilians under threat of attack by the Libyan regime. Russia and China did not veto the measure when it came to a vote on March 17, but joined non-permanent members India, Germany and Brazil in abstaining.

Full story> Russia, China Accuse West of Exceeding UN Resolution, Making Libyan Crisis Worse | CNSNews.com


As a result China lost billion dollars in investment and the lives of her citizens were in danger. That's the reason number one. Doing Russia a favor and assert herself in the international decision making processes and a few minor ones, perhaps.

What about China's loss of good-will and credibility with 1.4 billion Sunni's most of whom despise Assad and want to see him removed from power? Do Chinese somehow think that it will have no repercussion for Chinese foreign policy and economic interest in these area's of the world?

As far as I know China has no significant investment in Syria or citizens living in Syria.

Now consider what happened in Libya. Because of initial Chinese and Russian opposition to anti-Gaddafi moves, I think Libyans are now giving priority to Western nations for future business that came forward to help them. So in a way this opposition hurt Chinese and Russian interest. Even Turkey was not happy about no-fly zone in Libya initially, but it changed position later, because it understood future implications.

I am sure China and Russia have their concerns in Syria that are entirely valid in their own mind and perspective, but I could not figure out yet what they are.

 

[ChinaToday]

What about China's loss of good-will and credibility with 1.4 billion Sunni's most of whom despise Assad and want to see him removed from power? Do Chinese somehow think that it will have no repercussion for Chinese foreign policy and economic interest in these area's of the world?

As far as I know China has no significant investment in Syria or citizens living in Syria.

Now consider what happened in Libya. Because of initial Chinese and Russian opposition to anti-Gaddafi moves, I think Libyans are now giving priority to Western nations for future business that came forward to help them. So in a way this opposition hurt Chinese and Russian interest. Even Turkey was not happy about no-fly zone in Libya initially, but it changed position later, because it understood future implications.

I am sure China and Russia have their concerns in Syria that are entirely valid in their own mind and perspective, but I could not figure out yet what they are.

i think is it something to do with our non interence policy, assad is the legistimate leader of syria as far as we are concerned, any regime change in syria has got to be done by the syrian people

 

[twocents]

China does not support Assad so much as it is opposed to regime change through foreign military intervention. The whole Libyan experience was a precious lesson for China. China decided to abstain from the UNSC vote on Libya last year out of deference to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. What happened afterwards was a clear breach of the UNSC mandate which merely provided for a No-Fly zone in Libya for humanitarian reasons. As the saying goes,"Fool me once, shame you; Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

[lkozhi]

China supports money. Assad still has money.

 

[ahfatzia]

What about China's loss of good-will and credibility with 1.4 billion Sunni's most of whom despise Assad and want to see him removed from power? Do Chinese somehow think that it will have no repercussion for Chinese foreign policy and economic interest in these area's of the world?

As far as I know China has no significant investment in Syria or citizens living in Syria.

Now consider what happened in Libya. Because of initial Chinese and Russian opposition to anti-Gaddafi moves, I think Libyans are now giving priority to Western nations for future business that came forward to help them. So in a way this opposition hurt Chinese and Russian interest. Even Turkey was not happy about no-fly zone in Libya initially, but it changed position later, because it understood future implications.

I am sure China and Russia have their concerns in Syria that are entirely valid in their own mind and perspective, but I could not figure out yet what they are.

It didn't exactly turned out that way although, I'm sure, there are some hard feelings among some segments of the Sunni community. As a whole I believe China's involvement in Syria is viewed positive for two reason: 1) stand up, along with Russia, against the US/NATO west gives the Arab world a hope of another polar if they decide to lean on, and 2) the Arab world welcomes and applause China's non intervention policy because its history of interventions by the west.

 

[Surenas]

China ranked as Syria's third-largest importer in 2010 and they view Syria as an important trading partner. Another reason for China's support for Syria is the potential impact of the Arab Spring on China's internal affairs.

 

[kalu_miah]

i think is it something to do with our non interence policy, assad is the legistimate leader of syria as far as we are concerned, any regime change in syria has got to be done by the syrian people

These issues have been covered before, but Assad did not allow election, which is what the peaceful protesters wanted. Then Assad started killing the peaceful protesters to stop the protests. An armed revolt would never start if Assad remained peaceful and not killed his own people. Most of the world except for few countries consider Assad no longer a legitimate ruler after he killed so many of his own people, before a single bullet was fired towards govt. security forces. The armed revolt started much later as a result of these killings.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

China does not support Assad so much as it is opposed to regime change through foreign military intervention. The whole Libyan experience was a precious lesson for China. China decided to abstain from the UNSC vote on Libya last year out of deference to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. What happened afterwards was a clear breach of the UNSC mandate which merely provided for a No-Fly zone in Libya for humanitarian reasons. As the saying goes,"Fool me once, shame you; Fool me twice, shame on me."

This is exactly right.

If the vast majority of the Syrian people truly hate Assad, then they will throw him out on their own without foreign intervention.

Nothing in the world can stop a true people's revolution. But only if it is a true people's revolution, not some foreign backed plan for regime change.

 

[Armstrong]

This is exactly right.

If the vast majority of the Syrian people truly hate Assad, then they will throw him out on their own without foreign intervention.

Nothing in the world, can stop a true people's revolution. But only if it is true a people's revolution, not some foreign backed plan for regime change.

Exactly ! The ground realities of whats happening over there are so blurred that we're literally in the dark here; however one thing that sticks out like a sore point is that 'When the US starts talking about intervention on an Humanitarian basis...you can bet dollars to donuts that thats definitely not the case' !

 

[BronzePlaque]

The recent massacres of hundreds of Syrian citizens in the towns of Houla and al-Qubair, many of them children, has focused the world’s attention on Russia, which has been charged with shielding the Bashar al-Assad regime from international pressure. Yet China also plays a crucial role and may be receptive to arguments that it should use its influence to persuade Assad’s forces to exercise restraint.

Russia has been singled out by Western critics for its intransigence on regime change and its continued arms sales to the Assad regime. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has chastised “very strong opposition” from Moscow that “makes it harder to put together an international coalition.” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has called for pressure on Russia, which he labeled America’s “number one geopolitical foe.”

The criticism is reasonable but overlooks the role of another great power with significant interests in Syria—China. In 2011, China ranked as Syria’s top trading partner, ahead of Russia. Exports totaling more than $2.4 billion included communications and electronic equipment, heavy machinery and other important goods. This growing trade was spurred by Assad’s inaugural visit to Beijing in 2004 and the subsequent creation of an influential Syrian-Chinese Business Council.

Perhaps more importantly, China has large stakes in Syria’s oil industry. The state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation holds shares in two of Syria’s largest oil firms and has signed multibillion-dollar deals to assist in exploration and development activities. Another PRC firm, Sinochem, owns a 50 percent stake in one of Syria’s largest oil fields. China has also stepped in as an buyer of Syrian crude in the aftermath of a European Union embargo in 2011.

To date, China has adopted a standoffish position, urging dialogue and "patience" even as the situation on the ground continues to worsen. This is regrettable but understandable. China opposes meddling in other states’ internal affairs on principle, arguing that sovereignty should be respected. It is also wary about upstaging Russia, with which Beijing is hoping to forge a closer strategic partnership.

China’s Interests in Intervention

But despite its current hands-off approach, there are reasons to believe that China may reconsider and use the influence it has at its disposal to facilitate stability in Syria.

First, China has interfered in other states’ domestic issues in the past. Its 2007 appeal to Sudan to admit United Nations peacekeepers to Darfur is one example. Another is its nudging of the Burmese junta toward reform. Indeed, China has already reached out to the Syrian opposition, hedging its risk that the current regime may collapse, and may intercede with Assad if it believes that doing so will help secure its trade and investments.

Second, China’s relations with Russia are not likely to be negatively impacted. The goal of an intervention would not be forceful regime change—which Moscow opposes—but rather better governance. China might, for instance, press Assad to carry out the terms of an agreement reached in Geneva recently, supported by Russia, that calls for an immediate ceasefire and an eventual political transition. Doing so would be in China's own interests and, provided it's done tactfully, would not offend Russia.

Third, taking an affirmative approach would benefit China’s standing in the Arab world. Arab states were dissatisfied with China’s veto of a strongly worded resolution related to Syria in the UN Security Council in February, and an intervention, however subtle, would help produce goodwill in the region. Needless to say, China would also improve its image as a “responsible stakeholder” in the West.

The United States should encourage China to see the benefits of doing more to solve the crisis in Syria. But Washington must tread carefully. With China’s leadership transition set to occur later this year, Beijing will be cautious about making decisions that appear to be the result of pressure from abroad. Washington should also distinguish between China’s government and its citizens, many of whom have gone online to speak out against their government's Syria policy.

How China uses its influence in Syria is an important indicator of the type of great power that the PRC aspires to be. It may will realize the normative, economic and political advantages of a strong, proactive approach. But if Beijing sits on the sidelines, doing nothing at all, the status quo will remain: China as a power that is not quite ready for prime time.

Commentary: Why China Would Intervene in Syria | The National Interest

 

[Sasquatch]

China does not support Assad so much as it is opposed to regime change through foreign military intervention. The whole Libyan experience was a precious lesson for China. China decided to abstain from the UNSC vote on Libya last year out of deference to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. What happened afterwards was a clear breach of the UNSC mandate which merely provided for a No-Fly zone in Libya for humanitarian reasons. As the saying goes,"Fool me once, shame you; Fool me twice, shame on me."

Agree with all the points.

I must also say that Syria is a proxy battle between the Gulf Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Turkey and the west against Iran, Russia, Hezbollah .

The loss of Syria is would be a loss for Iran cutting back Iranian Influence.

 

[darkhero]

What about China's loss of good-will and credibility with 1.4 billion Sunni's most of whom despise Assad and want to see him removed from power?

Do you think you can represent the 1.4 billion Muslims?

Do you think the 1.4 billion Sunni's really care Assad and Syria? Most of them probably have no idea what is happening there.

Do you think the rebels can save Syria? IMO, no, not at all. With the west behind them, they will make their country even worse.

And in my opinion, we support Assad for the reasons 1. support Russia. 2. support anti-US forces. We have our own interests.

 

[kalu_miah]

China does not support Assad so much as it is opposed to regime change through foreign military intervention. The whole Libyan experience was a precious lesson for China. China decided to abstain from the UNSC vote on Libya last year out of deference to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. What happened afterwards was a clear breach of the UNSC mandate which merely provided for a No-Fly zone in Libya for humanitarian reasons. As the saying goes,"Fool me once, shame you; Fool me twice, shame on me."

Would you support a foreign military intervention if people of Chinese ethnic origin in Burma or Indonesia were being massacred in anti-Chinese riots?

Would you support a foreign military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide that happened as the world looked on?