What role has China played in promoting a political solution to the Syrian question and what impact would civil war have on the Middle East?
To learn the answers to these and other Syria questions, we spoke to Wu Bingbing, Deputy Director and Associate Professor of the Department of Arabic Language and Culture and Head of the Institute of Arab-Islamic Culture Studies at Peking University, and Director of the China-Arab and China-Iran Friendship Associations.
What kind of a role has China played in promoting a political solution to the Syrian question?
Concerning the Syrian question, I think there are two sides to be considered. On one side there are the demands of the people, including the aspiration for a good and decent life, and the demand for a better political system. China has supported these demands. But, on the other hand there are many other countries and external forces trying to interfere and impose a regime change in Syria. They totally ignore the reality in Syria, and China is strongly against that.
Since the end of 2010, when changes started happening in the Arab world, external intervention has become more and more obvious, and the consequences of this intervention are not good. That is why China has consistently promoted a political solution and the use of peaceful means for resolving the situation. A military solution would leave many problems in its wake. For example, if weapons were to be distributed to civilians, this would intensify the clashes and conflicts among different military factions, and it would also be very difficult to dissolve the different kinds of armed groups once they are set up. In addition, a war would claim even more civilian lives.
Therefore, military means are not good, and I think a political solution needs to be found to settle this question. A political solution is still possible between the Syrian regime and opposition factions, and if both parties are able to sit down and engage in talks, they can find grounds for a better future for Syria.
You are an expert on Middle East, and Islamic history and culture. You have also published the book The Rise of Modern Shia Islamism. How would you interpret the relationship between the Arab Spring and the turmoil in Syria, as well as the disputes between Shia and Sunni factions?
There have always been struggles between different religious factions in the Middle East. Starting from the early days of Islam there have been differences between the Shia and the Sunni factions, and conflicts and confrontations have occurred throughout history. But today these conflicts between religious factions have escalated to a new level due to certain political interests. For example, it is often said that the Hezbollah in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and the Palestinian Hamas form a so-called “Shia Crescent” as a safeguard against the Sunnis.
However, in the nineties these same countries were identified as “rogue states,” in the sense that they were considered as endangering the interests of Western nations in the Middle East. Until now, these countries have not succumbed to Western pressure, and therefore Western powers have put a new label on them, again, to make it seem as if these countries created conflicts with neighboring nations only because of sectarian disputes. This way, Western countries can somehow place themselves outside of the actual situation. In my opinion, Western nations are artificially, and for political reasons, labeling nations and organizations that are opposing them.
For example, from 1980 to 1988, during the war between Iran and Iraq, 60 percent of the Iraqi people and 90 percent of Iranians were Shias. Yet, these countries were at war for eight years, but was it a Shia faction fighting against a Shia faction? Syria has many sectarian conflicts, and so does Bahrain, but the international media does not report much about the situation in Bahrain. So, my point is that the Syrian regime keeps a certain distance from Western nations and also maintains close relations with Iran, and Western powers wish to use this opportunity to put more pressure on Syria. I think this in one essential aspect of the Syrian situation.
Another aspect is that many of the Syrian elite are Alawites, but in addition to the Alawi faction, which stands for 12 percent of the whole Syrian population, 4 percent of other Shia factions support the Syrian regime. This means that up to 16 percent of the Syrian Shia population supports the regime. In addition, there are the Syrian Christians, 10 percent of the population, who also support the regime. So, 26 percent of the religious factions are more or less pro-regime.
Many of the middle-class Syrians living in cities are Sunnis, but in the current political system they have political rights and their interests are being met. Therefore the Sunnis living in cities are also relatively supportive of the current regime. If we adopt this approach, it is obvious that half, or even more than half of the Syrian population supports the existing regime. It would be an overstatement to say that the conflict between the government and the opposition is between religious factions. That would be denying the reality in Syria and ignoring the impact of international relations on the Middle Eastern area.
Observers have said that Western powers’ desire to initiate a civil war in Syria was an external factor causing the turmoil there. Do you agree with this opinion? If a civil war broke out in Syria, what impact would it have on the Middle East?
As I pointed out earlier, the Syrian government does have some support internally, that is one aspect. Another aspect is that currently most of the military power in Syria is commanded by the regime, and the government can control the country to a certain extent. It is very difficult to say if the opposition could gain a strong stance as a political or military power.
From this perspective, the Syrian regime holds still a relatively strong position internally, and is able to keep the situation in Syria under control. At the moment, the Syrian opposition is quite split up and not that strong. Under this framework, some Western countries superficially support the opposition parties, as if wanting to help them change the Syrian regime. In reality, they are purposely using external force to change the current situation in Syria. But, changing the regime does not mean that the social, economic, cultural or demographic structures beneath will change.
For those who support the Syrian regime, the new order could jeopardize their interests, and so they do not wish to give up their dominant position. So, expressing superficial support for the Syrian opposition and encouraging it would only mean taking another step towards civil war, and in the end it is the Syrian civilians who will suffer the most. A civil war would last long, there would be many civilian casualties, and the situation in Syria would get even more chaotic. Peoples’ living standards would decline and the humanitarian crisis would deepen and become more serious.
In addition, this type of conflict would certainly spread to neighboring countries. For example, there are already many refugees who have fled to Turkey. In northern Lebanon, we have also begun to see religious conflicts escalating in the Tripoli area. This is a consequence of the crisis in Syria. It is very difficult for neighboring nations to avoid the impact.
The borders between countries are not made of iron walls, and people can move from one place to another. So, if there is a civil war in Syria, it is not only the Syrian civilians who will suffer, but also the neighboring countries would be affected. In that case, a new regional problem could emerge centered within the entire Western Asian region. If a civil war breaks out in Syria, it is very difficult to predict the outcome.
Are you optimistic that the Syrian crisis can be settled through the use of peaceful means?
From a Chinese perspective I think there is hope for a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis. Since the United Nations Monitoring Mission to Syria was launched, a ceasefire has been imposed to a certain extent, and even though the ceasefire is a fragile one, the situation is still better than before.
If all parties really wish to ease the suffering of Syrian civilians and avoid humanitarian disasters, they should support Annan’s six-point plan and promote the ending of violence. When the violence stops, parties should engage in talks without any preconditions or predetermined results. If the opposition and regime can really sit down to negotiate and reach an agreement, I believe a better future for Syria can be achieved.