China’s Position on Syria Issue
Abstract
For the longest time in history, only a few issues globally have attracted the attention that the crisis in Syria continues to get. The Syrian crisis has been the subject of vigorous debates in both academia and international community. Similar to Libya that resulted from the Arab spring, the Syrian people have witnessed one of the world’s bloody civil war. The United Nations has been in the forefront of trying to seek a lasting solution of the conflict that has left many killed and wounded. For many countries across the world, the response has been influenced by many factors. Among the countries that are perceived to be opponents of intervention are China and Russia. On the other hand, many Western countries are advocates of intervention into the Syrian crisis. The purpose of the research paper was examining the diplomatic motivations of the Chinese response to the Syrian crisis. Largely, China has insisted on the principle of non-intervention as it seeks to protect its domestic affairs. The report has provided a detailed and in-depth explanation of why China opted for a non-intervention policy in regards to the Syrian crisis. Among the factors explored include the overall influence of the United States in a unipolar international system.
Research Question
What is China’s approach to the Syrian crisis? What were the motives behind China’s reactions?

Introduction
The unending conflict in Syria has been damaging to both people and property as the stability and peace of the Middle East has been negatively impacted. Consequently, debates have emerged in the past recent years on how the Syrian crisis should be resolved. The Syrian crisis has resulted in a serious humanitarian disaster. The research paper has been organized into different sections including a background of the Arab spring, the Syrian crisis, and China’s reaction to the crisis. Thereafter, the theoretical framework provides for classical realism, neo-realism and neo-classical realism. Finally, to analyze the response of China, the neo-classical theory has been applied through systemic, domestic, and the security dilemma that surrounds the conflict in Syria.
Background
How and where Arabic Spring Started
The Arabic Spring started in Africa in Tunisia in the late 2010. According to Manfreda (2017), the Arab Spring because of the self-immolation of a street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi attracted the attention of the public and sparked widespread anti-government protest in Sidi Bouiz town. Starting 2011, the Arab Spring crisis involved spread to countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Manfreda (2017) explains the development of the Arab Spring crisis highlighting some of the key reasons that that led to the crisis breakout. According to Manfreda (2017, the crisis broke out after the civilian; Mohamed Bouazizi was burned alive while selling fruits in the streets. The act sparked the first protest against the government in Tunisia, which also later spread across different Arabic nations. The uprising spread across North Africa in Egypt to the Middle East in Syria and Iraq. The case of Iraq has been special because the uprising turned into violence. In attempt to deal with the problem, the Syrian government deployed military attacks against its opposition. A civil war emerged, which resulted in the death of thousands of Syrian citizens. More than 2 million civilians have lost their lives because of this uprising that turned into civil war. By 2013, the United Nations estimated that over 90,000 civilians have been killed in the war (Rodgers et al., 2016). However, by August 2015, the figure had gone up to 250,000 based on the UN estimations (Rodgers et al., 2016). Today, the conflict in Syria is no longer a battle between the uprising activists and the government, but it has turned into a battle zone where the regional and world powers struggle to gain control. The emergence of the jihadist group such as Islamic State (IS) has propelled the crisis into a deep dimension (Rodgers et al., 2016).

The Syrian Crisis
The Syrian war, also known as Syrian uprising, has been an ongoing-armed conflict for more than five years now. In Syria, the situation has escalated to be far worse than the other uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. According to Aljazeera (2018), the Syrian uprising started because of lack of freedom and economic woes that drove the public’s resentment of the government. Nonetheless, the harsh crackdown on the protesters may have inflamed the already angered public, which gave birth to an armed conflict between the government and the angry public. However, historically, Syrian crisis started following the emergence of Arab Spring in Tunisia in 2011, which aimed at toppling the Tunisian president. Months later, the uprising spread to the North Africa, in Egypt to be precise. As Aljazeera (2018) reported, the uprising from Egypt and Tunisia gave hope to the Syrian pro-democracy activists who started a peaceful demonstration against the government.
Syrian protests started on 15 March 2011 as peaceful demonstrations showing solidarity and support of the Arab Spring like the other Arabic nations (Lucas, 2016). Similar to other Arab countries where the protesters were demanding the resignation of their presidents, the Syrian pro-democracy activists also held demonstrations seeking President Bashar al-Assad to quit. Conversely, the situation deteriorated following the arrest and detention of the 15 pro-Arab spring boys. The conflict started after the arrest of 15 boys who were showing support for the Arab spring using Graffiti (Aljazeera, 2018). The situation would escalate further with the involvement of the Syrian army. Gilsinan (2015) explains that Syria’s conflict has evolved from a peaceful demonstration against the President Bashar’s regime that started in 2011 to a violent insurgency that has attracted attention of both international and regional powers. The Syrian people might have reached the armed level when the military defectors on July 2011 announced the formation of Free Syrian Army (Aljazeera, 2018). With time, the crisis was getting worse than before, especially with the support provided to the rebels by other governments like Russia and Iran as well as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
By 2013, Syrian government had lost control over 60% of the country to the rebels (Chivers et al., 2013). As a result, in 2013, the Syrian government used chemical weapons against the rebels an act that attracted the attention of the international community (BBC, 2013). Even though the Syrian government reportedly surrendered its chemical weapon use on civilians, it adopted another strategy that includes using other weapons escalating the crisis further and the rebels were getting more motives to fight. By 2014, one of the insurgent groups, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant had acquired control of much Syrian land; thus, becoming the most powerful opposing group. The Syrian crisis has even become worse with the involvement of the international and regional countries. On 24th November 2015, Turkey’s involvement through gunning down the Russian plane led to an event that created diplomatic confrontation between different countries involved in the Syrian crisis. As Musarurwa et al. (2016) explain, up to date more than 17 attempts have been made to try to resolve the Syrian crisis, but nothing has been achieved so far.
The situation in Syria today is horrifying as the civil war turned into an international conflict which is characterized by the existence of various parties or players including, government forces, rebel groups, extremists or terrorist groups such as IS, foreign fighters as well as the international powers and coalitions such as the United Nations. Each of these parties has played a role in either reducing the war or escalating the already bad situation to worse. Regional and international or world powers have continued to show their might in the battle zone in Syria. The conflict between the regional powers and world powers has continued to display itself in the response to the Syrian crisis. China, as one of the regional leaders, has constantly opposed the international resolutions to impose sanctions in Syria. The figure I below provides for the areas in Syria where there are conflicts.

Figure 1 Syria: Mapping the Conflict
Source: Sharp & Blanchard (2013)
China’s Reactions to Syrian Crisis
One of China’s reactions to the Syrian crisis was the vote against the UN resolutions together with its allies to prevent United Nations from imposing sanctions on Syria. Nichols (2017) explains how China and its ally Russia have constantly objected imposing sanctions on Syria over the accusations of chemical weapon use by the Syrian government on its citizens. According to Nichols (2017), China supported Russian to cast its sixth vote on Syria citing that the resolutions proposed by the United Nations would affect or harm the ongoing UN-led peace talks between different conflicting parties in Syria. Nichols (2017) argues that nine council members voted in favor of Russia objection, which was supported by China. According to the United Nations (2017), with the “no vote” from the nine out of fifteen permanent members of the Security Council, the United Nations could not act to impose Syria’s sanctions on using chemical weapons. According to United Nations report (2017), this means that the sanction resolution could not be adopted. However, as Nicholas (2017) explains, it was the sixth time China and allies objected any sanctions imposed on Syria despite the civil war escalating higher in the country and many innocent civilians losing their lives in the process. The author argues that China’s objection to Syria’s sanction resolutions have not been genuine.
China’s several attempts to intervene or block out the resolutions by the international powers to minimize the death level in Syria where the government launches attacks on innocent civilians is not for nothing. The Syrian crisis has attracted several debates from politicians and academics who try to understand the response by various regional and world powers. However, China’s response to the situation has sparked another line of discussion as to whether China is genuine regarding the situation in Syria or there is some benefit its gets from the ongoing civil crisis. Different authors have examined the reasons or motives behind China’s response to this matter. Kounalakis (2016) argues that the chemical weapon use in Syria was a redline that the government’s response to the opposition crossed. While other international stakeholders grow their concerns over the situation in Syria, China has been unmoved by the alarming death rate caused by the Syrian government against its own people (Blanchard, 2013). Mu (2014) explains the motives behind China’s constant objections to any resolution to solve the Syrian crisis citing economic benefits or interest as one of the key reasons the nation continues to make anomalous decisions. According to Mu (2014), even though there is no major relationship between China and Syria, the Chinese economy has relied on the Syrian products and markets for many years.
The relationship between the two countries has not been public, but one cannot deny the existence of interests between the two nations. Even though the previous jarring voting at the UN Security Council has been viewed differently, nothing makes sense as the benefits that China sees in Syria under the administration of President Bashar-al-Assad remain largely unknown. Nonetheless, Schiavenza (2013) argues that China may lack a serious relationship with the Syrian at the national level however, at the personal level it is more than just benefits. The author argues that China views the current president Bashar al-Assad as essential part of Syria’s future. Zhou (2017) also explains the complicated relationship between the two countries. According to Zhou (2017), the relationship between China and Syria may have started back in 2004 when President Assad first visited Beijing four years after he took office. In their meeting, President Assad described China as a close friend and that China was welcomed to invest and trade in Syria.
The same sentiments are shared by other academics who think that China’s objection to the intervention against Syria has been based on by the historic commitment to President Assad. Ramani (2016) argues that China looks at the Syrian crisis as an opportunity to enhance and improve its normative agenda that propels China in the developing world. According to Ramani (2016), China has maintained its economic and security partnership with the Syrian administration for many years. Ramani (2016) further states that since the war broke out in Syria in 2011, China has upheld its stand of non-interference. Chaziza (2017) also supports the argument regarding China’s motive to objecting all the international resolutions in Syria citing that the Chinese Middle East policy enhances relations on economy and energy. According to the author, Chinese approach to the Middle East crisis has been very different with the Western approach.
China advocates dealing with the regional conflict and security threats through the diplomatic approach; for instance, negotiation, cooperation and conflict management instead of conflict resolutions. Even though China has relied on its non-interference policy principle to explain the reasons why it does not support the Syrian militarization and conflict resolution approach, people think that it is beyond the policy principle. Many authors argue that China has economic interest in Syria following the historic relationship between the two countries. Mu (2014) explains the economic benefits that China has ripped from Syria in the past recent years. According to Mu (2014), China exported and imported goods worth $2.4 billion and $26 million from Syria respectively. By 2011, China had established over 30 companies in Syria with more than 100 Chinese workers in that country. In an attempt to become the world economy, China seeks to keep its relationship with the Middle East countries intact to continue ripping the benefits that come with the good relations. Even though the interpretations to China’s anomalous response to Syrian crisis has been misinterpreted or interpreted differently, the academic perspective can provide a comprehensive review on this approach.
China has constantly opposed any military action against Syria. Schiavenza (2013) argues that the international powers like the United States expressed their concerns over Syria’s use of chemical weapons on its citizens, but China was unmoved. Any attempts by the international community to intervene using the military have received constant opposition from the Chinese government. According to Schiavenza (2013), even though China has no military relationship with Syria over the past recent years the country has come out condemning any military action against the Syrian government. China has relied on various international policies to condemn the military action against the Syrian government. As Stone, a Sky News correspondent in Beijing explains, the Chinese government has no interest in allowing the international powers take military action against Syria. According to Stone (2018), China has always stood from the “no intervention” perspective in the international affairs, but it breaks that policy whenever they see it suitable to them. Stone (2018) cites various instances where China has claimed not to intervene or meddle with the international or other countries’ affairs but later appeared to support a different thing. One of those instances includes the Syrian situation where the Chinese government refuted the military action by the United States, France, and the UK against the Syrian government citing that the external military actions are one of the principles that the United Nations stands against (Stone, 2018). Elgebeily (2017) also explains that China’s foreign policy of non-intervention is selective as it has struck a shrewd balance in application.
China’s approach to Syria’s intervention and resolution strategies has not been entirely genuine. Even though the Chinese government has been relying on some reasons that may appear authentic, it does not depict the legitimacy to end the civil war. According to Elgebeily (2017), the Chinese government’s actions to oppose any strike or military action as well as sanction resolutions have been based on the benefits that it gets from Syria and its allies. Zhou (2017) also explains that the Chinese’ position on Syria has not been entirely clear since the Syrian crisis emerged over six years ago. The author argues that China’s approach that includes teaming up with the allies such as Russia to vote all the proposals by the United Nations to sanction the Syrian government. However, China has managed to engage in its approach in a smarter way. Zhou (2017) explains that unlike Russia that chose to engage or intervene in Syria’s crisis by launching an air strike, China has tried to intervene from a distance point. Zhou (2017) explains that China has tried to distance itself from conflict. China has emphasized that the Syrian fate is determined by the Syrian people and opposed the interference by the international powers or western powers.
In summary, the above literature examines the start of the Arab uprising, the Syrian crisis and China’s response to the Syrian crisis. The main literature revolves around two main China’s reactions to Syrian crisis; for instance, six times blocking UN resolutions to impose sanctions on Syria and non-intervention policy principle. Each of these approaches has been explained in detailed and the motives highlighted and discussed. The key motive highlighted in this discussion is economic benefit, which China has strived to maintain since President Assad assumed power in 2000. However, it may not be clear still why China has consistently stood against resolutions to either sanction the Syrian government or military action against Syria by the Western countries. Nevertheless, what is clear is the crisis that exists in Syria, it is real and evident based on the statistics provided by the United Nations regarding the number of deaths recorded since the war erupted in 2011. There is evidence that if nothing is done quickly, the situation will escalate beyond control and the international community’s or powers will not be able to control. Therefore, despite the reasons or differences in interests, every country should strive to work towards keeping Syria a better place that the locals can feel comfortable and proud of. As it is now, the Syrian people are running away from their country because it is no longer habitable. Every country needs to put aside their individual differences and work towards creating a peaceful and secure society whether in the Middle East, Asia, or Western regions.
Theoretical Framework
China’s Position on Syria’s Issue
The concept of realism focuses on national interest, military power, and the state functions in world politics (Dueck, 2014). Realism as a theory is diverse but narrows down to the fact that world politics is necessary during conflict. The figure 2 below provides for the main concepts of realism. Classical realists base their school of thought on human nature, structural neo-realists focus on the anarchic state structure while neo-classical realists combine two different domestic variables (Elman & Jensen, 2018). In other words, the concept of realism has different perspectives especially concerning the action that states should take in navigating world politics; this varies between offensive and defensive realism (Kostagiannis, 2017).

Figure 2 Main concepts of realism
Source Author (2018)
Classical Realism
The classical realism school of thought insists that human nature drives individuals and states to behave in a manner that prioritizes interests over relevant ideologies (Lebow, 2013). According to classical realists, absence of central authority that maintains peace could be problematic since humans are naturally driven to pursue power and this could motivate humans towards violence. Classical realism is based on the assumption that international and domestic relations are similar and ethics plays a major role in the community in both contexts. Lebow (2013) believes that changes in identities and discourses can change the human nature and this may lead to hegemonic war.
Ozkan & Cetin (2016) state that from an international perspective, states always want to gain more power. Hence, China’s unwillingness to intervene in the situation in Syria indicates that their aim is to gain more power by gaining from the conflict instead. Power here refers to the social construct which is measures relatively against an individual or state’s standing among others. Therefore, if a state gains more power, the other states are bound to suffer from related consequences (Lebow, 2013). Usually, powerful states attempt to modify the other states in a manner that preserves their interests and standing and sometimes this may make it necessary for them to participate in warfare so that they can prevent the other states from preceding their needs.
Classical realism also assumes that the states act rationally and this makes its behavior predictable especially if the distribution and nature of power is understood (Waltz, 2008). However, once a state pursues dominance, security and glory it may result in violent mannerisms and lack of trust of in other international partners. The main reason is that states consist of groups of individuals that reflect a natural human inclination to engage in violence so that their needs are met. Concerning the Syrian crisis, China decided to pounce on the opportunity that presented itself in the policy that Russia formulated for Syria so that they could counterbalance against the United States (Mu, 2014).
Structural Neo-Realism
The concept of structural neo-realism tries to explain the continual patterns of the state interaction and behavior within an international system (Ripsman et al., 2016). Structural realists believe that human nature is not associated with the desire of a state to pursue power. The theory describes the need for power as architecture of an international system (Keskin & Braun, 2016). Waltz (2008) believes that if a system lacks higher authority that overpowers the other great powers then there is probability that they will attack one another. Hence, each state has to have enough power to shield itself from any attacks. In essence, the greater powers have no choice but to compete amongst themselves for power if they want to survive (Tang, 2010).
Structural neo realism ignores the differences in regime and culture because an international system formulates similar incentives especially among the ones with great powers. In this case, China compromised with other major countries during the contemporary order and decided to cooperate with the international efforts that were focused on limiting the order’s disruption (Mu, 2014). The autocratic or democratic stance of a state does not matter specifically regarding its actions against the other states. Furthermore, the individual who conducts the foreign policy of the state does not matter. Therefore, structural realism insinuates that each state is similar to the other except for their differences in the level of power that they hold (Ross & Sleat, 2014).
Structural realists believe that states want supremacy because the ones with great power have a major role that they play in the world politics which means that they operate within an anarchic state system (Tang, 2010). Anarchy refers to the ordering principle, in other words, no central authority is established which presides over the other states (Waltz, 2008). The theory also assumes that the states act rationally which means that they have the ability to formulate effective strategies which maximize prospects for survival. However, structural realists point out that states could still go to war depending on any aspect meaning that there is no right theory which can pinpoint factors that may lead to war (Rossi & Sleat, 2014).
China chose to follow the United States in order to become the regional hegemony from an international perspective. First, China opted to convince Syria’s political sides to accept their proposal with the aim of ending the violence and foster cooperation between the two. Nonetheless, the diplomatic intervention attempt was ineffective but China tried to eliminate high tension in Syria’s political environment (Mu, 2014).
Neo Classical Realism
Neo classical realism originated from studies focusing on foreign policy specifically regarding the international system structure as well as domestic factors and the complex interactions that take place amongst themselves (Ripsman et al., 2016). The theory aims at identifying how power distribution within the international community, its subjective structures and motivations work towards sharing foreign policies. Following this, the neo classical theory does not agree with the notion that neo realism presents where it assumes that systematic pressures inherently affect mannerisms of states. The neo classical theory states that systematic effects influence the behavior of a state depending on its relative power as well as the internal factors within the anarchical system (Sperling, 2015).
Neo classical realism considers different intervening factors so that it can offer an understanding of foreign policies of various countries. Therefore, the theory studies the influence of power while analyzing foreign policy and its effect on decision-making. Furthermore, the relative power or capability of the state is examined in relation with the other states. Neoclassical realists in real sense seek for the systematic analysis through examining each state’s power and the decision makers’ attitudes towards situations (Dueck, 2014). The theory combines both systematic and micro factors so that it can offer enhanced understanding of the countries’ foreign policies (Dueck, 2014).
The power of a country within an international system is considered real despite uncertainties as to how the key decision makers may interpret the reality. Ultimately, it depends on how they want to mobilize their resources so that they can attain the objectives of foreign policy (Keskin & Braun, 2016). Neo classical realism reconsiders the importance of the factors that affect the outcomes of foreign policy. Each state has to conceive and implement foreign policy and at the same time respond to the international system’s limited choices. Additionally, they have to mobilize their domestic resources while concurrently maximizing on their capability to meet the internal pressures (Firoozabadi & Ashkezari, 2016).
Similar to the other forms of realisms, neo classic realists insist that the local and intervening variables function as the joining elements between dependent variable (outcomes and foreign policy) and independent variable (relative power). Such factors like domestic group interests, attitudes of decision makers and state interests are responsible for shaping a state’s foreign policy. As a result, the foreign policy theory seeks to elaborate on what states look for so that they can reach into foreign policy (Dueck, 2014). In other words, the capabilities of a state indirectly influence their behavior due to systematic pressures and limitations that operate through the intervening unit level variables. The unit level variable include the decision maker’s attitude and the structure of the state which operate as the connecting factors which shape the foreign policy (Sperling, 2015).
In the case of China’s role on the Syrian conflict, the systematic factors included its attitude towards the crisis in Syria, the interactions carried out between powers as well as relevant stakeholders. China contributed to three UNSC vetoes in different stages of the Syrian crisis which offered varying explanations. However, the vetoed resolutions had similarities to the other Western countries. China did not have the ability to challenge the United States directly in the international platform but since the international community did not have a consensus, China took the opportunity to manipulate diplomatic power which was tackling the international issue (Mu, 2014). China decided to act in collaboration with Russia as a way of expressing dissatisfaction with the interventions instigated by the other Western powers; in this case, China obstructed international action for its benefit.
The neo classical realism theory clearly explores the intervening and independent variations which explains the non-intervention policy that was instigated by China. In other words, the concept of realism has different perspectives especially concerning the action that states should take in navigating conflicts such as the Syrian crisis; this can be divided between offensive and defensive realism. Combining the domestic and systematic factors that form the basis of the crisis in Syria determines non-intervention by China in Syria an aspect that has made decision makers to formulate diplomatic efforts focusing on alleviating tensions within Syria and the rest of the Middle East region (Mu, 2014). From a theoretical perspective, the non-intervention policy by China as well as intervention attempts carried out in Syria may lead to the neo-classical realism development. However, the theory cannot offer reasonable explanations on the situation. The non-intervention directive can form the basis of the theoretical paradigm because China has a peculiar status within the international community.
Application of theory to practice
The school of thought applicable in the current research as depicted above is neo-classical realism as it best fits to explain China’s response to the Syrian crisis. According to neo-classical realism, the grand strategies undertaken by nations are individually rather than recurrent patterns. Thus, the actions of states in international system like in Syria can be explained through distribution of power abilities and the misperception and perception of systemic pressures, the intention of other nations and domestic variables such as societal factors, elites, and state institutions which affect the freedom and power of action of the individuals making decisions on foreign policy.
Systemic factors
In application of neo-classical realism, the focus is mainly on the systemic factors that mean the initial point is determines the effects the international system has on the way behavior of nations (Mu, 2014). Systemic factors refer to the issues inherent in the entire system instead of individual, specific, and isolated aspects. In the case of how China responds to the Syrian crisis, it can be attributed to the unipolar system where the United States has been in dominance of global issues for a long time. In international relations, polarity is the way power is distributed whereas unipolarity refers to the unfair distribution of power in such a manner that a single state exercises most of the economic, cultural, and military influence. In other words, in a unipolar system, one superpower dominates. The response of China can be merely attributed to the United States dominance in world affairs including the Syrian crisis. After the end of the cold, the rivalry between nations that had existed for decades ended. Therefore, there was no longer the West Vs. East conflict which made the United States emerge as the sole dominating power in the universal politics (Lundestad, & Jakobsen, 2011). In the Syrian crisis, for a long time the United States has contemplated military interventions but the public opinion on this aspect has majorly influence the current response. Since the beginning of the 2011 Syrian crisis, the Obama administration announced the intention of not sending troops to the war prone country. Thus, the approach adopted by the United States is seen to influence how other nations such as China intervene because of unipolarity. Structural realists have criticized unipolarity as being unstable because it promotes multipolarity in that other nations will be motivated to break the hegemony. Nonetheless, while the United States can restrain the brakeage, it would only be in the short-term and eventually the power will be weakened which will be a consequence of dominating other nations. The dominance of the United States across the globe has come at a cost and has limited the country’s economic growth. For China, its non-military intervention will largely remain as long as the United States that supports the same remains a dominant superpower in world affairs.
Secondly, in the last three decades, China has demonstrated a rational foreign policy and hence the response towards the Syrian crisis. Over the years, China has shown an independent foreign policy of peace that seeks to foster an international environment that is conducive to peaceful coexistence and development of states. The rational action of states acts and perceives on information from situational context and making decisions that maximize predetermined goals and utility (Snyder, Bruck & Sapin, 2002). According to the rational actor model, the state’s national security and goals are significant in determination of the policy choices. Following this, the action of the state are influenced more by the international politics which makes domestic politics irrelevant. What this means is that the response of China in the Syrian crisis is more influenced by cost and benefit analysis with the need of maximizing utility. For a long time, the Chinese foreign policy has been underpinned by specific principles. According to the United Nations (2014) the foreign policy of China has been guided by mutual non-aggression, mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-interference with the internal affairs of nations, peaceful coexistence and equality and mutual benefit. Practically, these principles have been significant in shaping China’s good neighbor relations which is aimed at prevention of external instability. China’s core foreign objectives can be summarized to be sustainable social and economic development, territorial integrity and domestic political stability (Jakobson, 2013). In practice like in the case of Syria, China has learnt from experience and seeks to develop a policy that emphasizes mutual benefits when things are done together.
Finally, the material capability of China that has increased due to the continued economic growth can explain the country’s response to the Syrian crisis. There is a link between the country’s economic growth and its participation in international matters as well as nationalism. The economic transformation of China has been phenomenon considering that in 1978 it was among the poorest nations in the globe. Today China is the largest exporter of goods and manufacturing economy. As a result, the nation is ranked to have a second tier power in international systems. Based on the above analysis of the systemic factors, it is quite evident that China is resistance of the unipolar system by first, pragmatically accommodating the US hegemony. Secondly, due to the continued economic growth, the nation contests the legitimacy of the US hegemony often by newspaper criticism and official reports and through voting against the United States.
Domestic factors
The non-intervention approach towards the Syrian crisis adopted by China can also be attributed to the country’s domestic factors. For the longest time, domestic issues have shaped the foreign policy of China. Majorly, the significant objective of Chinese foreign policy is ensuring domestic political stability. The decisive goal is ensuring that the socialist system and the one-party rule survive as it is dependent on having a political environment which is stable. In broad terms, the assumption of realism is that the main goal of nations is survival (Mu, 2014). The survival of the regime and the domestic political stability are reliant on a combination of nationalism and continued growth of the economy. The assertiveness of Beijing in defending the country’s core interests fails to be accompanied by a broader vision of a global power that is rising and hence shields it from getting involved in greater international responsibilities. While the nation is in search of the rightful place in the 21st century, the Chinese government has been reluctant in meeting expectations for playing the lead role of an accomplished nation. The core interests of the country have become non-negotiable for the survival of the nation as evident from the many publications and speeches of various leaders. While Chinese scholars have cautioned against being specific on the country’s core interests, the top Chinese government leaders have made it clear that territorial integrity and sovereignty are the critical interests that the nation seeks to pursue. At the same time, the need to protect regime survival in addition to national security has seen more Chinese leaders be cautious when dealing with international matters such as the Syrian crisis. Providing that the Chinese political system is largely authoritarian, survival of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime becomes the core interest mainly because a combination with foreign issues and domestic challenges would cause massive threats to the CCP regime.
The second domestic factor influencing the response of China towards the Syrian crisis is the need to sustain economic development. Currently, more than half of the country’s natural resources are imported. For example, most of the crude oil is imported from the Middle East while a third is imported from African nations (Mu, 2014). Consequently, the country has developed a high affinity for more natural resources and energy. The continued demand for the nation’s development sustainability development has been critical in shaping the Chinese foreign policy in particular towards countries with rich resources. The development of a country is an indispensable method to sustain the survival of the regime. The high-speed economic growth that China has exhibited over the years is supported by merchandise exports and energy sources. Thus, the need to prevent the economy propels the Chinese government to adopt the non-intervention policy against the Syrian crisis.
Finally, as a means of enforcing control, the country’s political value of unity has been significant in achieving a unified territory. For China to be assured of physical control over Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia, it has been determined to hinder any support from separatist movements in the region. Xinjiang is a provincial level, region that is autonomous of China being the largest administrative division. Xinjiang has the Aksai Chin which a region disputed by China but also claimed by India. The Xinjiang conflict is a separatist conflict that is ongoing between separatists movements that claim ownership and the Chinese government. Apart from the conflict caused by boundaries, there is also friction caused by ethnicity. On the other hand, Tibet is an autonomous region governed by the Chinese government in the west and east. The region declared its own independence causing continued conflicts as dissent groups in exile to remain largely active. Finally, Inner Mongolia is also an autonomous Chinese region located in the north of the nation and has remained to be in conflict similar to Xinjiang, Tibet but not in the same magnitude. An image of these three autonomous regions is shown below in figure 3. External intervention in Syria would provide an opportunity to empower the dissident groups an aspect that could become a threat to the security of the nation (Mu, 2014). Thus, the Chinese leaders have been aware of and sensitive to these domestic challenges and often denounce the words and actions advocating for these areas to get independence. In other words, the need for political stability in marginal and ethnic areas has become a driving factor in the non-intervention policy that China adopts.

Figure 3 Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia regions
Source: Tour-Beijing.Com
The security dilemma
One of the factors that influenced China in adopting the non-intervention policy against Syria is the security dilemma. The Syrian opposition has a strong connection with various terrorist organizations and as a result, China sought to develop a policy that would not affect it. Th global terrorist network Al-Qaeda, as well as other Islamic terrorist groups, supports the opposition in Syria and have largely been involved in fighting the Assad government. According to Zenn (2013b), some central Asian jihadists that are present in Syria have publicized the activities they are involved in the Eastern Mediterranean and Iraq. Since 2009, China has been involved in a number of confrontations with different groups in Xinjiang after there were violent riots in the capital Xinjiang Uyghur that is an autonomous region. The riots lead to about 200 Han and Uyghur Chinese being killed and this followed a claim by the Chinese government that Eastern Turkistan Terrorists (ETT) had been directly involved in the organization of the riots. Most of the counter-terrorism activities that China does are targeted at the ETT in particular after the discovery of the connection between al-Qaeda and the separatist movements operating locally. In the July of 2011 when there were Xinjiang bombings, the separatists from Uyghur planted a flag with Arabic writings instead of their usual flag that resembles Turkey’s flag (Lin, 2013). According to the Syrian ambassador to China, approximately 30 Uyghurs had been trained on military operations in Pakistan and later proceeded to Turkey with the aim of fighting for anti-government rebels. The Chinese government has been quoted stating that Uyghur militants have been fighting the Assad regime and confirmed that one of them had been arrested after sneaking in China to carry out violent attacks. Consequently, the militant returning from Syria with an ill motive had touched on the core interests of the country which is stability. Thus, China is concerned that if the Assad regime is replaced by Islamist regime, there is the possibility of extremism spreading across Asia and in China.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a different theory could give dissimilar explanations of why China has chosen a non-intervention policy against the Syrian crisis. The present article has relied on neo-classical realism in analyzing the Chinese response to the Syrian crisis. In doing so, it has enriched how neo-classical realism is empirically applied in addition to deepening an understanding of the country’s foreign policy and non-intervention policy. A combination of domestic factors, security challenges, and systemic factors that underlies the crisis in Syria determines the non-intervention policy. Considering the unipolar international community, China is unable to directly confront the United States despite challenging its legitimacy. The experience of China in Libya motivated it to the present response in Syria as the country seeks to achieve domestic stability.
As a reflection of the changing Chinese policy, China early 2018 deployed its troops to help the Assad regime to fight the Chinese Uyghurs who fight alongside radical Muslim organizations in the country. Among the responsibilities the Chinese military is taking is to train Syrian forces on the utilization of intelligence gathering, field machine, logistics, and Chinese made weapons. Nevertheless, while this is a show of assertiveness by the Chinese government, the main aim is protecting domestic stability amid reports that Uyghurs continue to re-enter China. The Chinese government has found it challenging in restoring peace in Xinjiang province where Uyghur separatists are found. The decision to help Assad could have been made after the realization that measures that are more assertive were necessary to deal with the increased terrorist attacks in some parts of China.

References
Aljazeera. April 14, 2018. Syria’s Civil war explained from the beginning. Aljazeera News. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-explained-160505084119966.html
BBC. September 7, 2013. Obama: US cannot ignore Syria chemical weapons. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23999066
Belfrage, C., & Hauf, F. (2017). The gentle art of retroduction: Critical realism, cultural political economy and critical grounded theory. Organization Studies, 38(2), 251-271. Available at: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3003012/1/Submitted%20paper.pdf
Blanchard, B. (August 28, 2013). China could not intervene in Syria even if it wanted to. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/china-couldnt-intervene-in-syria-even-if-it-wanted-to-2013-8?IR=T
Chaziza, M. (2017). China’s Middle East Policy: The ISIS Factor. Middle East Policy Council. Retrieved from https://www.mepc.org/journal/chinas-middle-east-policy-isis-factor
Chivers, C. J., Schmitt, E., &Mazzetti, M. June 21, 2013. In Turnabout, Syria Rebels Get Libyan Weapons. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world/africa/in-a-turnabout-syria-rebels-get-libyan-weapons.html
Dueck, C. (2014). Neoclassical realism and the national interest. The Realism Reader, 272. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IfYABAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA272&dq=Neoclassical+realism+and+the+national+interest:+presidents,+domestic+politics,+and+major+military+interventions&ots=MuSoPeKd9L&sig=nssoVrnP6QH9Z4782j39vdMJEjY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Neoclassical%20realism%20and%20the%20national%20interest%3A%20presidents%2C%20domestic%20politics%2C%20and%20major%20military%20interventions&f=false
Elgebeily, S. A. (April 30, 2017). How China’s foreign policy of non-intervention is all about selective action. Insight & Opinion. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2091502/how-chinas-foreign-policy-non-intervention-all-about
Elman, C., & Jensen, M. A. (2018). Realisms. In Security Studies (pp. 17-32). Routledge. Retrieved from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/38635299/International_relations_theory_for_21st_century.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1530197569&Signature=RRm2PRTfFy3aDeD2Ko8Ehz5RElo%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DInternational_Relations_Theory_for_the_T.pdf#page=22
Firoozabadi, J. D., & Ashkezari, M. Z. (2016). Neo-classical Realism in International Relations. Asian Social Science, 12(6), 95. Retrieved from: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/56775/32110
Gilsinan, K. October 29, 2015. The Confused Person’s Guide to the Syrian Civil War.The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/syrian-civil-war-guide-isis/410746/
Jakobson, L.(2013). “China’s Foreign Policy Dilemma.” Lowy Institute for International Policy. Retrieved June 15 2018, from http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/chinas-foreignpolicy-dilemma
Keskin, T., & Braun, C. N. (2016). When a Sleeping Giant Wakes–A Neoclassical Realist Analysis of China’s Expanding Ties in the Middle East. Sociology of Islam, 4(1-2), 1-26. Retrieved from: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/22131418-00402009
Kostagiannis, K. (2017). Realist Thought and the Nation-State: Power Politics in the Age of Nationalism. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from: http://thuvienso.bvu.edu.vn/bitstream/TVDHBRVT/18341/1/978-3-319-59629-7.pdf
Kounalakis, M. (2016). China’s position on international intervention: A media and journalism critical discourse analysis of its case for “Sovereignty” versus “Responsibility to Protect” principles in Syria. Global Media and China, 1(3), 149-167. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2059436416654918
Lebow, R. N. (2013). Classical Realism. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 59-76. Retrieved from: https://www.amazon.com/International-Relations-Theories-Discipline-Diversity/dp/0198707568
Lin, C. (2013, December 14). Why China supports Assad: Asian jihad hits Syria. Retrieved June 15 2018, from Transatlanti Cademy: http://www.transatlanticacademy.org/node/611
Lucas, S., 2016.A Beginner’s Guide to Syria’s Civil War. Political Insight, 7(1), pp.12-15. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2041905816637453?journalCode=plia
Lundestad, Eirik B. & Tor G. Jakobsen (2011) “Modern Conflicts: World Systems and Wars in Three Different Military Eras” in Tor G. Jakobsen (ed.) War: An Introduction to Theories and Research on Collective Violence. Hauppage, NY: Nova Publishers: 227–233. Retrieved from: http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/02/05/a-unipolar-world-systems-and-wars-in-three-different-military-eras/
Manfreda, P. (May 3, 2017). How the Arab Spring Started. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/how-the-arab-spring-started-2353633
Mu, R. (2014). Interpreting China’s (non-) intervention policy to the Syrian crisis: A neoclassical realist analysis. Journal of Ritsumeikan International Study, 27, 1. Retrieved from: http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/cg/ir/college/bulletin/Vol.27-1/27_1_12_Ren.pdf
Musarurwa, H., Kaye, S.B. and Campus, B.C.M.S., 2016. Unpacking the Syrian crisis: A literature review. Information Management and Business Review (ISSN 2220-3796), 8(6), pp.32-38. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310515530_Unpacking_the_Syrian_Crisis_A_Literature_Review
Nichols, M. (February 28, 2017). Russia, China block U.N sanction on Syria over has attacks. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-chemicalweapons/russia-china-block-u-n-sanctions-on-syria-over-gas-attacks-idUSKBN167232
Ozkan, E., & Cetin, H. C. (2016). The Realist and Liberal Positions on the Role of International Organizations in Maintaining World Order. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 12(17). Retrieved from: https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/7627/7352
Ramani, S. (September 22, 2016). China’s Syria Agenda. The Diplomat. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/chinas-syria-agenda/
Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W., & Lobell, S. E. (2016). Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SODeDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Ripsman,+N.+M.,+Taliaferro,+J.+W.,+%26+Lobell,+S.+E.+(2016).+Neoclassical+realist+theory+of+international+politics.+Oxford+University+Press.&ots=FMG-Ag01b6&sig=_J9WPJSsfd1u5rIEyWhycsoF3hg
Rodgers, L., Gritten, D., Offer, J., & Asare, P. (March 11, 2016). Syria: The story of the conflict. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868
Rossi, E., & Sleat, M. (2014). Realism in normative political theory. Philosophy Compass, 9(10), 689-701. Retrieve from: https://philpapers.org/archive/ROSRIN.pdf
Schiavenza, M. (August 29, 2013). Why China will oppose any strike on Syria. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/08/why-china-will-oppose-any-strike-on-syria/279191/
Sharp, J. M., & Blanchard, C. M. (2013). Armed conflict in Syria: US and International response. Current Politics and Economics of the Middle East, 4(3), 403. Retrieved from: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA584842
Sleat, M. (2016). Realism, liberalism and non-ideal theory or, are there two ways to do realistic political theory? Political Studies, 64(1), 27-41. Retrieved from: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/95210/3/WRRO_95210.pdf
Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W., & Sapin, B. (2002). Decision-making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics. In Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Revisited) (pp. 21-152). Palgrave Macmillan US. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230107526_2
Sperling, J. (2015). 4 Neo-classical realism and alliance politics. Theorising NATO: New Perspectives on the Atlantic Alliance, 61. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=r3j4CgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA61&dq=4+Neo-classical+realism+and+alliance+politics.+Theorising+NATO:+New+Perspectives+on+the+Atlantic+Alliance&ots=64HI5ETEpr&sig=FrksBhRvhMp1-Y6Zb4d1tVB4Plg
Stone, M. (2018).Syria: Why China is against Intervention. Sky News. Retrieved from https://news.sky.com/story/syria-why-china-is-against-intervention-10435941
Tang, S. (2010). A theory of security strategy for our time: Defensive realism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from: https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Security-Strategy-Our-Time/dp/1349384593
United Nations. (February 28, 2017). Russia, China block Security Council action on use of chemical weapons in Syria. United Nations News. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/02/552362-russia-china-block-security-council-action-use-chemical-weapons-syria
United Nations. 2014. “Agreement between the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China on trade and intercourse between Tibet region of China and India. Retrieved June 15 2018, from https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20299/v299.pdf
Waltz, K. N. (2008). Realism and international politics. New York: Routledge. Retrieved from: https://www.amazon.com/Realism-International-Politics-Kenneth-Waltz/dp/0415954789
Zenn, J. (2013b, October 29). Afghan and Syrian links to central Asian Jihadism. The Jamestown Foundation. Eurasia Daily Monitor