UK's failed foreign policy - Syria

Over the years I have found myself growing further to the stance of non-interventionism, researching civil wars and regional conflicts across history has taught me that often interfering in another countries internal or regional affairs often ends up to be a wasted effort and can also cause major problems further down the line, examples of Afghanistan, Iran and Nicaragua spring to mind.

This policy of non-interventionism puts me at odds with the increasingly aggressive foreign policy of the United Kingdom, of course the UK has always been partially aggressive but during the Cold War it kept within it's own sphere of influence (Former Empire) only interfering in places like Yemen and Oman when they were facing a clear danger from extremist insurgents or acting in self-defence in the case of Argentine aggression over the Falkland Islands. The United States were the one playing diplomatic and military chess with the Soviet Union with United Kingdom and other powers on both sides playing a minor supporting role, sadly this policy has changed

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent political, social and economic collapse in Russia created a tsunami of change not just in Europe but across the wider world, although Russia maintained it's seat on the security council it's leadership was Pro-Western and was facing more pressing internal issues to deal with then the  UNSC. The Chinese were also facing issues around economic reform and the return of Hong Kong province and could easily be persuaded to abstain on certain issues especially without the support of their former Soviet comrades.

Although the resolution permitting military action in Libya was allowed to pass through the UNSC, the passage of any similar bill aimed towards foreign intervention in Syria is practically impossible. United Russia (the ruling party in Russia) was severely damaged in the recent State Duma elections partially for it's inaction over Libya. Syria is also a key Russian ally in the region and on top of purchasing billions of Russian weapons and provides a key naval base for Russian naval patrols in the region the Syrian regime is also a key stabilizer of the Iranian regime and keep a relative close eye on various insurgent groups that if unwatched could not just threaten the region but also support Russian insurgents in the troubled Russian provinces of Dagestan and Chechnya

Tartus Naval Base

In my opinion the United Kingdom's policy on Syria seems to have been effected by emotions rather then logic, although the Syrian regimes use of the military to crack down on protesters has been excessive and criminal the United Kingdom acted too rapidly to close it's embassy and cut off all diplomatic ties with the Syrian regime even as far as calling it illegitimate. International pressure from countries like Russia and China have led to the Syrian regime writing and allowing the people to vote on a new constitution and although the constitution fails on several key areas it's a step in the right direction. International organizations like the Red Cross and it's local affiliation the Syrian Red Crescent have also been negotiating with the Syrian regime in order to bring humanitarian supplies into Homs and allow seriously wounded civilians to leave the city for more complicated medical treatment another step in the right direction for a diplomatic solution to this crisis.

Syrian Arab Red Crescent ambulances

People and government officials from various nations have been calling for various governments to arm the Free Syrian Army so it can fight against the Syrian regime however those that know even recent history would know that option is fraught with danger. The Syrian Military has surrounded the city with armour, artillery and heavy mortars in a siege formation, arming the Free Syrian people even with the most advanced light weapons and mortars would not provide them with the adequate fire-power to break the siege. The situation reminds me of the siege of Sarajevo when the Bosnian Defence Force was completely surrounded in a siege by forces of the Republic of Srpska and unable to break out because they lacked heavy weaponry of any kind, the siege of Sarjevo lasted for four years and cost the lives of 10,000 civilians and was only stopped after direct military intervention from NATO under the allowance of the United Nations, arming the rebels could create this scenario which would spell disaster for the people of Homs especially with no United Nations resolution allowing the use of military assets to alleviate the siege.

In my opinion only a concerted diplomatic effort with China, Russia, the Arab League and even Iran can create an environment for democratic and constitutional reform that will end the violent crackdown in Syria. The United Kingdom and NATO/EU powers however seem to have completely forgotten that diplomacy is even an option and considering any movement towards UN sanctioned military intervention will be blocked by Russia and China unless some Hama scale massacre is carried out that shifts public opinion towards allowing intervention. It seems likely then that the Syrian people will continue to suffer for many months if not years as the Syrian security services continue to attempt to quell the unrest and the impact of the economic sanctions is felt on the economy.

UK's failed foreign policy - Iran

In my opinion the foreign policy of the United Kingdom has been a massive and long-standing failure that has declined the UK's standing in the international community, wasted billions of dollars in both trade and military spending and cost the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people.

The reasons for this failure is quite clear to me, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and other Western NATO countries have had nothing to stop them in the UN security council, China could be easily bribed and were building up their regional strength and Russia were suffering from contempt leadership in the form of Yeltsin and a ruined economy, underfunded infrastructure and a dangerously unstable region in the form of Dagestan and Chechnya and so had very little political interest in the United Nations.

Unchecked by other powers a dangerous environment was created that led to the military intervention in the Former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan but led to the failure of the international community to act in crisis spots like Rwanda. Iran has also suffered from this unchecked action in the form of economic sanctions designed to target it's apparent nuclear weapons program, all which have failed miserably in their actual intent unless they sought to drive the Islamic Republic further into isolation and give larger support to the current status quo (hybrid/flawed democracy)

Just at the start of this war Leon Panetta made a startling revelation (most likely by accident) and went off the propaganda line by remarking that the Islamic Republic of Iran was not actively seeking to research a nuclear weapon, something which the Iranian Government have been claiming for years a claim which had been blasted as false propaganda turns out to be completely true. If Leon Panetta and the intelligence agencies he controls can state that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons program then what is all the fuss and sanctions about? Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979 the West was actively assisting Iran in it's nuclear energy program as it meant they would have access to a greater supply of oil from the country.

Leon Panetta

The answer to that question lies in the country that has been assisting the Iranian Republic in restarting it's nuclear energy program and the country that seeks to benefit from a stronger Iran. It seems that the efforts to cease Iran's nuclear energy stems from both American pettiness at the Government that kicked it's second largest ally in the region and a wish to see Russian influence in the region dwindled to zero (especially with Pro-Russian and Iranian ally Syria seeming to be next to go)

Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant

That's what angers me. Instead of formulating our own foreign policy that actually stems around international law in which case all sanctions from the United Kingdom would be dropped in return for greater transparency in it's nuclear energy program the United Kingdom lazily steals the same aggressive and war-mongering stance from the American Government and refuses to listen to diplomacy and reason, a key tool which could actually solve this crisis to the advantage of the the United Kingdom both in trade deals, cheaper oil and regional security.