Why does China support Syria's Assad?

[Sasquatch]

China`s foreign policy is surely very pragmatic imho..Chinese support for Assad regime can be misread easily on several levels 1- Is it a sign of deepening ties between Russia and China? 2-Is it because of Chinese leaders’ deep connection to Bashar al-Assad? Neither of them are true..China has its own interests at heart..Imho Chinese thinking is clear; If they don’t draw the line on Syria, then Western powers next step is Iran, and then Central Asia, and then they are on Chinese backdoor. Thats why China will keep her support to Assad and will only change policy when the regime change will be inevitable

Very good points. Also the fall of Assad means it would give Turkey more influence in Syria, what is your opinion about the Kurds who have their own ambitions in creating their own state ? having both an Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan will embolden them for Iranian and Turkish Kurdish regions.

 

[UnChosen]

Easiest explanation is that there's no evidence that there will be any benefit from foreign intervention other than being able to say that a dictator is dead and oil companies get richer.

In Libya's case, all it did was that power was transferred from Gaddafi to the rebel, who have not shown any sign that they're going to govern for the benefit of the people. The very first news after the rebel got hold of power was that several European countries will now get lots of oil and that the Chinese contracts are "under review".

No talk of establishing a fund for the innocent casualties of the war, no talk about reestablishing all of the public welfare established under Gaddafi. For all I know, the only thing that is happening is that oil money is coming in and then just "disappear" into the coffers of the now ruling rebels.

Black African and other minorities in Libya began to be discriminated against. China/Russia lost investments. Ordinary people in Western countries had billions of tax money siphoned away for these wars without one cent in return.

The only people benefited are the oil companies and weapon manufacturers...

 

[kalu_miah]

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.

This point of view I agree with. It is definitely a proxy battle. But there is something about being on the right side and being on the wrong side.

Since 1979 Iran has been ruled by a regime that believe's in pan-Shia ideology that empowered and organized Shia Muslims in many parts of the globe including in Arab world. They supported some Sunni groups also, such as Hamas. Hezbollah is one facet of this broad pan-shia strategy. I do not disagree with it. I see nothing wrong with Shia Muslims helping other fellow shia Muslims.

Sunni Muslims do not have a movement with such wide support. Salafi extremist idea spread by some Gulf nations specially some Saudi private initiatives are despised by many Sunni's as it caused a lot of problems (extremism, terrorism etc.) around the world. Muslim Brotherhood without the violent part and more moderate forms of it have more broad support among Sunni Muslims, but even an Arab or Egyptian led effort does not have wide support among non-Arab Sunni Muslims.

Non-Arab Sunni Muslims detest this Shia-Sunni fight in the Arab world because it is bad for Muslim unity among 1.6 billion Muslims. And as far as I can see this Shia-Sunni fight in the Arab world is being instigated by non-Arab Iran to extend its influence in the region. So if we look at it this way, Iran is actually the main party that is guilty here, that is supporting an indefensible regime of Assad, because of pan-shia geo-strategic balance in the Levant. Hezbollah is of course drawn in, because without Assad, the logistics is broken, also Hezbollah's position in Lebanon is threatened with a Sunni majority ruled Syria.

Britain and France have created the current nation states with Sykes-Picot agreement and Arab spring is now working to take the region back to its natural balance:
Sykes

Iran got a temporary boost due to Bush's idiotic policy of Invasion of Iraq which handed Iran a strategic victory by bringing a Shia ruled Iraq, but this shia-supremacy is against the natural balance of the region, as Sunni Muslims are majority in this Arab region.

GCC countries feel threatened by Iran's instigation of Arab Shia population, although I hope someday they move away from monarchy when the time is right. Turkey was not interested in this conflict at all, it was forced on them, they had no choice but to support the rebels, after Assad killed so many innocent people and so many refugees spilled over in their land, not to mention the Kurdish problem that is raising its head.

Overall, I think China and Russia are both interfering in a region that they do not understand this region very well and its wider implications among Sunni Muslims. As I mentioned much earlier in this forum, I feel that both country's current Syrian policy is a strategic blunder.

Arab Spring is in many ways threatening for the West and Israel, but they embraced it, because they understood that they have no way to stop this force of history and by being on the right side, they will reap more benefit. China and Russia I am afraid will come out as losers due to faulty foreign policy. In my opinion both of these countries need to question their strategic analysts who are making these decisions in Moscow and Beijing and need to have better intelligence on the ground. Failed policy is always very costly.

 

[BronzePlaque]

Very good points. Also the fall of Assad means it would give Turkey more influence in Syria, what is your opinion about the Kurds who have their own ambitions in creating their own state ? having both an Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan will embolden them for Iranian and Turkish Kurdish regions.

The Kurdish opposition in Syria(Northern Syria) is split into two major groups: KNC and PYD..While KNC is working with Barzani(The President of Northern Iraqi Kurdistan Autonomous Region), PYD is working with PKK So its highly unlikely for these 2 groups to unite..They have different agendas..But that doesnt mean, the situation in Syria doesnt concern Turkey at all..This is a danger for every country in the region including Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria..So hopefully, this unstable state in Syria will come to an end soon..ME Region can not handle another conflict

 

[kalu_miah]

That already happened in Indonesia, they were massacring their own Indonesian citizens of Chinese ethnic descent.

Our duty is to Chinese citizens, not Indonesian citizens. We may take a moral stand against it but we certainly would not and did not call for NATO to come and do one of their regular regime-change jobs.

Interesting response. I do not think however China will sit idle if Chinese are killed in large scale riots that go out of control in any part of the world, like things are now in Syria.

Now, consider this, lets say Assad have fallen and now the Sunni rebels start killing and massacre of Alawi's and expelling Christians from Syria, do you think a foreign military intervention would be justified?

If I understand your point of view, you are saying that human life has no value, national sovereignty must be protected, regardless of the number of lives lost and the circumstances. Lets say I am a dictator/ruler of country x and I have 1000 people in my country. I have 100 people in my army and I decide to kill off the 900 others who are revolting. So according to your opinion, this should be ok and no one should intervene to stop this massacre.

 

[Sasquatch]

This point of view I agree with. It is definitely a proxy battle. But there is something about being on the right side and being on the wrong side.

Since 1979 Iran has been ruled by a regime that believe's in pan-Shia ideology that empowered and organized Shia Muslims in many parts of the globe including in Arab world. They supported some Sunni groups also, such as Hamas. Hezbollah is one facet of this broad pan-shia strategy. I do not disagree with it. I see nothing wrong with Shia Muslims helping other fellow shia Muslims.

Sunni Muslims do not have a movement with such wide support. Salafi extremist idea spread by some Gulf nations specially some Saudi private initiatives are despised by many Sunni's as it caused a lot of problems (extremism, terrorism etc.) around the world. Muslim Brotherhood without the violent part and more moderate forms of it have more broad support among Sunni Muslims, but even an Arab or Egyptian led effort does not have wide support among non-Arab Sunni Muslims.

Non-Arab Sunni Muslims detest this Shia-Sunni fight in the Arab world because it is bad for Muslim unity among 1.6 billion Muslims. And as far as I can see this Shia-Sunni fight in the Arab world is being instigated by non-Arab Iran to extend its influence in the region. So if we look at it this way, Iran is actually the main party that is guilty here, that is supporting an indefensible regime of Assad, because of pan-shia geo-strategic balance in the Levant. Hezbollah is of course drawn in, because without Assad, the logistics is broken, also Hezbollah's position in Lebanon is threatened with a Sunni majority ruled Syria.

Britain and France have created the current nation states with Sykes-Picot agreement and Arab spring is now working to take the region back to its natural balance:
Sykes

Iran got a temporary boost due to Bush's idiotic policy of Invasion of Iraq which handed Iran a strategic victory by bringing a Shia ruled Iraq, but this shia-supremacy is against the natural balance of the region, as Sunni Muslims are majority in this Arab region.

GCC countries feel threatened by Iran's instigation of Arab Shia population, although I hope someday they move away from monarchy when the time is right. Turkey was not interested in this conflict at all, it was forced on them, they had no choice but to support the rebels, after Assad killed so many innocent people and so many refugees spilled over in their land, not to mention the Kurdish problem that is raising its head.

Overall, I think China and Russia are both interfering in a region that they do not understand this region very well and its wider implications among Sunni Muslims. As I mentioned much earlier in this forum, I feel that both country's current Syrian policy is a strategic blunder.

Arab Spring is in many ways threatening for the West and Israel, but they embraced it, because they understood that they have no way to stop this force of history and by being on the right side, they will reap more benefit. China and Russia I am afraid will come out as losers due to faulty foreign policy. In my opinion both of these countries need to question their strategic analysts who are making these decisions in Moscow and Beijing and need to have better intelligence on the ground. Failed policy is always very costly.

Wrong and Right is how you just View, , But if you think China and Russia are interfering in Syria then would you say that Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are interfering in Iraq as of now mainly due to the Pro Shiite Government and backing the Sunni tribesmen and keeping Iraq fractured. Both the Russian and Chinese veto were in line with the Syrian government including Russia's current backing but the Saudi-Qatar support in Iraq was not in line with the government so it's just a matter of opinion on what Interference is.The Gulf States fear the fall of their monarchy's this is why they see Iran as a bigger threat then Israel does and the reason why they have been secretly asking for the US to attack Iran. If Assad falls then China will do the same as it did with Libya embrace the new government on the other hand Russia seems Intent on keeping it's Naval Base.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Interesting response. I do not think however China will sit idle if Chinese are killed in large scale riots that go out of control in any part of the world, like things are now in Syria.

Now, consider this, lets say Assad have fallen and now the Sunni rebels start killing and massacre of Alawi's and expelling Christians from Syria, do you think a foreign military intervention would be justified?

If I understand your point of view, you are saying that human life has no value, national sovereignty must be protected, regardless of the number of lives lost and the circumstances. Lets say I am a dictator/ruler of country x and I have 1000 people in my country. I have 100 people in my army and I decide to kill off the 900 others who are revolting. So according to your opinion, this should be ok and no one should intervene to stop this massacre.

Tell me, who has killed the most Muslims in the world in the past decade?

It's the USA right? In Iraq alone there have been an estimated 1 million dead civilians.

So how are you protesting against the USA, by paying taxes there?

Syria comes nowhere close. And you yourself have said that you view it as a purely Sunni-Shia issue, which is completely different from a Western nation coming in and bombing everything in sight.

 

[kalu_miah]

because you deliberately framed the question wrong: there is no sunni-shiite fight except one that is instigated by saudi monarchists who fear persian power. and the disgusting saudis only did it to protect their only monarchy and prove themselves to their jew and anglo-saxon overlords. chinese are not picking side with shiites in a fictive struggle against sunnis - virtually none of the chinese muslims are shiite, i believe - it is about china and russia drawing a line and telling anglo-saxons to call off their saudi dogs.

I would say that Shia-sunni fight is being instigated in Arab world by a non-Arab Iran, that is the source of this problem. China and Russia have chosen a wrong conflict to take a jab at anglo-saxons, if this is really true, because the victims are not anglo-saxons at all. Obama is sitting on his behind and doing nothing and some people are saying that the West inaction means that they want both fighting sides to kill each other as much as possible.

 

[Sasquatch]

Interesting response. I do not think however China will sit idle if Chinese are killed in large scale riots that go out of control in any part of the world, like things are now in Syria.

Now, consider this, lets say Assad have fallen and now the Sunni rebels start killing and massacre of Alawi's and expelling Christians from Syria, do you think a foreign military intervention would be justified?

If I understand your point of view, you are saying that human life has no value, national sovereignty must be protected, regardless of the number of lives lost and the circumstances. Lets say I am a dictator/ruler of country x and I have 1000 people in my country. I have 100 people in my army and I decide to kill off the 900 others who are revolting. So according to your opinion, this should be ok and no one should intervene to stop this massacre.

If Chinese were killed in Large scale riots it would hurt relations with whatever country.However China would not be calling for foreign intervention it goes against one of the principles of our Foreign policy.

Most of assads backers would flee for exile but it's not our Opinion what does and does not deserve foreign intervention as your previous example Rwanda or Iraq when the Christians were fleeing.

Incorrect your example of Chinese Citizens being killed in a foreign country the problem is they our not our citizens regardless of how many ties we have with them we cannot simply just call for foreign intervention and your example is not accurate with Syria lets say if China were to stand aside then you have Russia and Iran which will both do what it takes to protect their Assets in Syria. The bottom line is our Opinion will not change anything in the real world it is more complex then that.

 

[xuxu1457]

China didn't surport any side in Syria, just think the problem of Syria should be solved by people of Syria, too many outside hands will make worse, against out power put hands in Syria not means surport Assad or Opposition, just want they solve their own problem by themselves

 

[kalu_miah]

No, but it would certainly hurt relations as far as it goes, If ethnic Chinese rebels decided to try and overthrow a government in a foreign country by all means pound them.

No, but then again if it doesn't have natural or strategic assets then much of the world would not as in Rwanda's case, Syria is a major strategic asset.

Agree on the first part, but with due respect, I disagree on the second part. My opinion is that the UN should invoke responsibility to protect R2P and intervene to stop a genocide in progress regardless of strategic value. Rwanda should not happen again.

 

[Sasquatch]

Agree on the first part, but with due respect, I disagree on the second part. My opinion is that the UN should invoke responsibility to protect R2P and intervene to stop a genocide in progress regardless of strategic value. Rwanda should not happen again.

The Current UN mission has been a failure, if you want to solve it find a solution that is both acceptable with Russia and Iran and Assad will be out of the picture. Outside intervention would be rejected, the future of Syria lies on whoever wins it's civil war.

 

[kalu_miah]

China, more precisely, CCP, is afraid of western intervention into its internal affairs. It always fears that someday the same story will happen in its country: the Chinese people revolt to overthrow the CCP, and West will support the Chinese people.
[The story is similar for VCP]

That's why it's against the western intervention in Syria, but that does not mean it supports a certain as Assad..

It could be true partly, but the fear, if there is any, is over blown as CCP still have high popular support among Chinese people and Han Chinese nationalism will come to the rescue in any difficult situation.

I just don't like to see our future leading nation in Asia making blunders, hope my Chinese friends can understand.

Good to interact, after long time.

 

[kalu_miah]

The Current UN mission has been a failure, if you want to solve it find a solution that is both acceptable with Russia and Iran and Assad will be out of the picture. Outside intervention would be rejected, the future of Syria lies on whoever wins it's civil war.

Agreed. The civil war will be won by the rebels as I predicted in March 2011 when Assad started shooting the protesters.

The main problem is Iran, Russia will fall in line when Iran changes its mind.

The bigger problem now is that the rebels cannot unite, too many extremist's sneaked in and there is US election. To top it off, Obama is one hell of a fence sitter, he cannot decide. Lets see who wins the election, if Romney wins then the war will be over soon. He is a businessman and he will not dilly dally for sure, he already said so in his speech.

 

[kalu_miah]

Wrong and Right is how you just View, , But if you think China and Russia are interfering in Syria then would you say that Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are interfering in Iraq as of now mainly due to the Pro Shiite Government and backing the Sunni tribesmen and keeping Iraq fractured. Both the Russian and Chinese veto were in line with the Syrian government including Russia's current backing but the Saudi-Qatar support in Iraq was not in line with the government so it's just a matter of opinion on what Interference is.The Gulf States fear the fall of their monarchy's this is why they see Iran as a bigger threat then Israel does and the reason why they have been secretly asking for the US to attack Iran. If Assad falls then China will do the same as it did with Libya embrace the new government on the other hand Russia seems Intent on keeping it's Naval Base.

Gulf states fall of monarchy is going to happen sooner or later, I will not defend their actions. They are doing what they can for their survival, it is natural. At least they are not killing large numbers of people, if they ever do that, they will also fall.

But if you have seen my previous post, these states were created due to Sykes Picot which created instability in my opinion. Unless the region integrate again in a GCC+, the instabilities will remain.

Both China and Russia will have no choice but to work with new Syrian regime, but by supporting Assad now, I think they lost some score with not just Syrians but the wider Sunni Muslim world. I just wondered about Chinese reasoning behind this stand, why lose so much and to gain what exactly.