The idea that men never do good unless necessity drives them to do it1 has persisted through the

centuries alongside the theory of realism. This world-view stands in stark contrast to liberalism and has remained at the forefront of international relations theory, influencing men of every era. Realist theory is notoriously harsh in its description of international affairs and has encompassed its central views into five tenets: 1. States, rather than individuals or groups, are the major actors of international relations. 2. States make rational decisions in line with their interests and capabilities because if they acted irrationally, they would be punished by anarchy and the international community. 3. States make decisions and actions based on the threats associated with anarchy. 4. Anarchy creates the condition of conflict and competition, thus states will fail to cooperate even though common interests may be present and states will choose to focus on maintaining high levels of power and security. 5. International organizations do not have the ability to create significant levels of cooperation.2 Though numerous other theories attempt to explain the relationships among nations, realism can best explain actions taken throughout the world including the current inability to stop the Syrian Civil War from progressing. Despite the heavy involvement of international organizations, the Syrian uprising is far from a state of peace. This is due primarily to the fact that some member states within their body are more interested in answering the needs of their own national interest, creating an internal environment of inherent division. Tradition of Realist Theory

W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, Political Realism in International Relations, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013): 3.
2

Joseph Grieco, Robert Powell and Duncan Snidal, The Relative -Gains Problem for International Cooperation, The American Political Science Review (1993): 728.

In order to understand realism, it is vital to understand that realists believe that the world lacks a central government and thus operate under a state of anarchy. There are governments within state borders that enforce and create the laws of their own land and support the idea of a national community, however on a global level, no such authority exists. Some may argue that the United Nations comes close to assuming this position but their efforts have repeatedly shown that their ability to enforce international law is inconsistent and flimsy.3 Anarchy dictates that states must always focus on building their own power and security because this condition allows competition and distrust to flourish. The prominent thinker, Thomas Hobbes, embraced by the realist family and namesake of Hobbesian Anarchy, said that during the time that men live without a common power to keep them in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such is a war of every man against every man.4 War as Thomas Hobbes described, is not a war in the typical sense of one country fighting another but is rather, the competition men have amongst each other to become the most powerful and secure individual. Realists utilize this idea in regards to states and claim that this is the reason why states should not rely on cooperation or moral principles. Their best choice will always be that which is to the benefit of national interest. When one decides upon action that supports national interest, it is said by realists that they are thinking rationally. This rational thought process is a core part of Hans Morgenthaus

Joseph Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History (New Jersey: Pearson, 2012): 196.
4

Michael Williams, Hobbes and international relations: a reconsideration, International Organization (1996): 216.

theory that claims decision makers who think rationally consider numerous solutions and perform a cost-benefit analysis of each solution under consideration.5 This theory assumes though, that states are the most important actors in international politics and it is their action, whether rational or irrational, that has the biggest impact. Neorealists often discuss the concept of complex interdependence which is characterized by the ability of international and non-governmental organizations to sway the decisions states make, however as we will see in the case of realism, their efforts only have an effect if the state wishes to cooperate.6 Cooperation is the antithesis of what realist theorists recommend that a state do and one of the main reasons liberals and realists differ so greatly. Liberals delightfully contend that many states have similar interests and should thus be able to find a middle ground that allows them to utilize interdependence as a way of growing together. Kenneth Waltz counters this idea by asserting that anarchy hinders cooperation because states cant risk their national security by allowing another to gain more than they do and become a potential threat.7 Anarchy allows states to cheat although they may have signed legal documents, agreed to international laws or remained a constant ally for decades. This means that states should never place full trust in another or even emphasize working together because ones friend could turn into a more powerful enemy.

W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, 4. W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, 3. Kenneth Waltz, Structural Realism after the Cold War, International Security (2000): 5.

6 7

Rather than focus on promoting cooperation, realists suggest that states actively maintain their security since trusting another could prove to be fatal. Balance of power is often the safest route, which entails a group of states fighting against the strongest state to ensure that no one gains enough power to control or threaten them all. In contrast, bandwagoning is typically advised against. With this, a state will join the strongest state in hopes that they will have protection and the opportunity to gain strength, but they risk being turned on and losing all of their allies. According to Hobbes, this appetite for power that states continuously act on is a direct result of the individuals desire for power that has translated to the state. In his social contract Leviathan, his characterization of humans includes the quality of a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceases only in death.8 This lust for power increases competition and makes the world a dangerous place because he goes on the say that all humans are equal in that they have the ability to kill another. One may have enormous physical strength but another may be mentally sharp and develop ideas such as poison, to kill his enemies. Realists contend that because there is an innate fear, desire for power, and need for security, moral principles have no place international relations. E.H. Carr and Niccolo Machiavelli both denied that morality was applicable to the decisions of states and Carr firmly believed that morality is defined by those states that enjoy the most power. He claims that principles of morality have relevance within the nations that accept or created them, but there are no universal agreements as to what can be considered ethical. Machiavelli took a different approach and asserted that there is evil in the world but the state has no higher duty than of
8

W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, 3.

maintaining itself.9 Whether the players involved in the Syrian Civil War are consciously aware, this idea permeates the affairs among international organizations, Syria and Russia. Organizations that are actively involved in the situation may hope to find a resolution but the state of Russia energizes the Assad regime because Russian leaders would rather focus on their national interest than do what some may consider morally ethical. International Organizations International law has become an increasingly prominent focus within international relations, especially with the development of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations (UN) during the 20th century. With the goal of promoting cooperation and avoiding conflict through the use of tools such as treaties and diplomacy, member nations of organizations are expected to adhere to standards of behavior. The number of international organizations and treaties has grown substantially over the past century and liberals in particular find this remarkable, even inspiring, that states are willing to forfeit a portion of their sovereignty for these campaigns. In reality, however, punishments and threats are often not strong enough to dissuade a guilty party from acting against international law. Although their desire to enforce international standards of human rights and punish dangerous individuals may be noble, the international organizations charged with these duties are essentially incapable of doing so.10 As exemplified in the case of the Syrian Civil War, the United Nations, European Union, and League of Arab States have weakly condemned and

W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, 6. Pierre N. Leval, The Long Arm of International Law, Foreign Affairs (2013): 16.

10

sanctioned Syria in an embarrassing display of failure. Inherent problems within the international organizations themselves, particularly the United Nations, are the reason they are unable to act effectively. As the civil war continues into its third consecutive year, the idea of peace remains a distant concept because nations within these organizations act with their own national interest in mind. When the restlessness of the Arab world first spread into Syria in March 2011, UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, and President Barack Obama urged the Syrian government to show restraint against protesters and verbally condemned their attempt to repress and intimidate them.11 The second week of May finally brought stronger measures in the form a European Union-enforced sanction. Thirteen top officials associated with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had their assets frozen while the men themselves were added to a European nofly list. Ironically, President Assad was absent from this list because certain nations, including Estonia, feared the possibility of retaliation.12 A week later, Assad was at last the focus of sanctions by the United States, and they hoped this would persuade the unpopular President to stop his security forces from physically harming pro-democracy demonstrators but unsurprisingly, this too failed to bring a state of peace.13 The months that followed brought dozens more sanctions, bans on importing Syrian oil, restrictions on business between European

11

Katherine Marsh, Tom Finn and Martin Chulov, Syria protests continue amid increased international condemnation of regime, The Guardian, 26 March 2011.
12

Ian Traynor, EU slaps arms embargo on Syria but spares President Bashar al -Assad, The Guardian, 9 May 2011.
13

Ewen MacAskill, Syria's president, Bashar al -Assad, becomes US target for sanctions, The Guardian, 18 May 2011.

and Syrian officials, as well as the suspension of Syria from the Arab League of States. 14 Such minimal punishment has been largely ignored and the violence from both parties has grown drastically. According to Valerie Amos, Emergency Relief Coordinator for the UN Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the situation is getting worse.15 Human Rights Watch reported that the Syrian government has resorted to launching ballistic missiles, using cluster bombs, indiscriminate shooting of civilians, torture, arbitrary detention, and forced disappearances.16 At this point in the crisis, schools, hospitals, homes and entire cities have been reduced to dust and rubble. UNICEF found that there are over two million refugees and, of those, more than 800,000 are children. Like adults, children are exposed to grave human rights violations including killing and maiming, sexual violence, torture, arbitrary detention, recruitment and use by armed forcesand exposure to explosive remnants of war. Their lives hover on such a delicate precipice that UNICEF has repeatedly expressed their concern that these children could become a lost generation.17 These stark violations of international law have been evident since the uprising began and stand as a reminder that although international organizations are exerting a great amount of effort, the crisis continues to intensify.

14

Reuters in Sopot, EU bans imports of Syrian oil, The Guardian, 2 September 2011.

15

UN News, Interview with Valerie Amos, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, UN News Centre, 28 March 2013.
16

Tom Malinowski, Testimony of Tom Malinowski Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Syrias Humanitarian Crisis, Human Rights Watch, 2 April 2013.
17

UNICEF, Syrias Chidren: A lost generation? United Nations Chidrens Fund, March 2013.

In August 2011, five months after the rebellion began, the United Nations created a formal list of fifty high-standing Syrian officials who they believed should face the ICC through referral by the UN Security Council. These men had reportedly engaged in torture, child abuse, firing upon civilians, and executing civilians without a trial.18 To date, the Security Council has yet to refer any of these men, including Assad, to face allegations of crimes against humanity. Human Rights Watch has called the Security Council shameful in their inability to act with swift decisiveness, particularly in reference to an additional request of the same nature. On January 14, 2013, two years after the initial request, 58 member nations insisted that the Council refer those responsible for multiple attacks upon Syrian civilians to the ICC so that they may finally be prosecuted, but this request is still pending.19 The devastating problems within Syria are internationally known and nearly unanimously condemned but the failure to act in a concise and swift way is developing into a mockery. The satirical newspaper The Onion wrote a letter as if they were Bashar al-Assad himself and have succinctly summarized how little the international community has done to end this brutal war. Assad begins by discussing the death toll of 70,000 people and the use of his military in carrying out many of the killings. He goes on to state: Ive even been on television talking about all the people Ive killed. And instead of being assassinated after my interview, I go back to my palace in Damascus, Syriaa location whose coordinates are available to every foreign government with ballistic missilesand enjoy the evening like Im just a regular person. Because Im able to
18 19

Ian Black, Syrian leaders should face justice at ICC, UN says, The Guardian, 18 February 2013. Richard Dicker, Holding the Security Council to Account on Syria, Human Rights Watch, 29 January 2013.

continue doing this, I can only conclude that killing nearly 100,000 people is an acceptable thing. After all, no onehas done much more than verbally condemn my actions.(Onion)20 International organizations have shown strong interest in trying Syrian officials, including Bashar Al-Assad, at the International Criminal Court, and have repeatedly put forth efforts to create a peace-oriented resolution but member nations respond with their own interests in mind. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Russia has the ability to veto draft resolutions brought to the floor and has utilized this right multiple times in reference to Syria.21 It is clear that Russia is taking action based solely on their national interest. Russian Influence Syria has had ties with Russia since the 1950s when they were still the Soviet Union. Although their relationship has been tumultuous at times, Russia remains a supporter of President Assad because if he is ousted, the future government of Syria may be of no benefit to the future of Russia. During the 1950s, Syria had a semi-influential but short-lived communist party and later supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan although many of its neighboring countries were displeased. After 2005, Syria allowed Russia to develop naval facilities at Tartus, which they had used during the Cold War, and Russian oil companies, such as Tatneft, partnered with their petroleum industry. Syria has also received a great deal of weapons from Russia since its days as the Soviet Union and this relationship is fueling the civil war in Syria despite
20 21

The Onion, Hi, In The Past 2 Years, You Have Allowed Me To Kill 70,000 People, The Onion, 25 March 2013.

Rick Gladstone, Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions, The New York Times, 19 July 2012.

international outcry. According to Human Rights Watch, Syria received 78% of their weaponry from Russia between 2007 and 2012, which is five times the amount that they received during the five-year time period just prior to 2007. Russia remains a key source of weapons, especially through their company Rosobornexport. Since 2008, it is estimated that Syria has purchased 700 surface-to-air missiles to be used with 36 Pantsyr-S1 mobile air-defense systems, 24 MiG-29 fighter aircraft, 300 air-to-air missiles and a host of others that Human Rights Watch expresses deep concern over.22 Russia has earned billions of dollars from engaging in such transactions and has no intention of losing money that could be garnered.23 Around the time the uprising began, Syria signed a contract with Russia agreeing to purchase weapons including surface to air missile systems and armored rocket complexes.24 As violence within the country escalated, some of the international community began pressuring Russia to cut off their supplies. Russia reacted by saying that their main priority is to find a peaceful solution as soon as possible but later claimed it is necessary for Syria to abide by the contract regardless of when it was signed. Furthermore, Russian official Ruslan Pukhov, stated, "Syria is the only country in the Middle Eastwhere we can exercise certain tangible influence. The loss of Syria will mean we will have no influence in this region at all.25 They fear that if Assad is removed from power, the control of Syria will lie in the hands of a Western-style, democratic government or a regime run by radical Islamists, and neither are what Russia desires. Through the use of their power to veto draft resolutions brought to the floor by the Security
22 23 24 25

Tom Malinowski, 2013. BBC News, Why Russia is standing by Syrias Assad, BBC News, 15 June 2012. Steve Rosenberg, Why Russia sells Syria arms, BBC News, 29 June 2012. Ibid.

10

Council they at least have the ability to keep the Western nations from instilling their ideals within the Syria leadership and gain a profit by selling weapons to the Assad regime.26 Conclusion The realist tradition contends that the world is ruled by anarchy. Cooperation and morality are rarely useful under this condition and thus, national interest and power should always be the main focus of the state. These realist ideals permeate the Syrian Civil War and are seen through the actions of Russia and the Syrian government. By continuing to sell weapons to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, Russia maintains power over the Middle East and makes a profit while doing so. As Russia continues to fight against nations within the bodies of international organizations, especially the United Nations, they create an environment of dissolution that impedes any effort set forth to find a peaceful resolution to the violent civil war that seeps through the state of Syria.

26

Mark Katz, The Moscow-Damascus alliance: A tangled tale, CNN, 28 May 2012.

11

Works Cited BBC News. Why Russia is standing by Syrias Assad. BBC News. 15 June 2012. Black, Ian. Syrian leaders should face justice at ICC, UN says. The Guardian. 18 February 2013. Dicker, Richard. Holding the Security Council to Account on Syria. Human Rights Watch. 29 January 2013. Gladstone, Rick. Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions. The New York Times. 19 July 2012. Grieco, Joseph, Robert Powell, and Duncan Snidal, The Relative-Gains Problem for International Cooperation, The American Political Science Review (1993): 729. Katz, Mark. The Moscow-Damascus alliance: A tangled tale. CNN. 28 May 2012. Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. Political Realism in International Relations. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013). Leval, Pierre N. The Long Arm of International Law. Foreign Affairs (2013): 16-21. MacAskill, Ewen. Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, becomes US target for sanctions. The Guardian. 18 May 2011. Malinowski, Tom. Testimony of Tom Malinowski Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Syrias Humanitarian Crisis. Human Rights Watch. 2 April 2013. Marsh, Katherine, Tom Finn, and Martin Chulov. Syria protests continue amid increased international condemnation of regime. The Guardian. 26 March 2011. Nye, Joseph, and David Welch. Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History (New Jersey: Pearson, 2012). Reuters in Sopot. EU bans imports of Syrian oil. The Guardian. 2 September 2011. Rosenberg, Steve. Why Russia sells Syria arms. BBC News. 29 June 2012. The Onion. Hi, In The Past 2 Years, You Have Allowed Me To Kill 70,000 People. The Onion. 25 March 2013. Traynor, Ian. EU slaps arms embargo on Syria but spares President Bashar al-Assad. The Guardian. 9 May 2011
12

UN News. Interview with Valerie Amos, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. UN News Centre. 28 March 2013. UNICEF. Syrias Chidren: A lost generation? United Nations Chidrens Fund. March 2013. Waltz, Kenneth. Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security (2000): 5-41. Williams, Michael. Hobbes and international relations: a reconsideration. International Organization (1996): 213-236.

13