Contemplating Domestic Political Constraints

and the Withholding of Humanitarian Intervention in Syria Until 2015

Jason Cox

Words: 2, 928

Module 1—Initiation: Why & How Shall We Study Global Politics?

Dr. Stefan Engert
Die Freie Universität
10 January 2016
 Cox i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. Relevance of the Topic

1.2. Research Question

1.3. Overview of Main Arguments

1.4. Structure of the Paper

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theories of Humanitarian Intervention

2.2. Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy

2.3. Public Opinion and Military Involvement

2.4. Previous Studies on Non-Intervention in Syria

2.5. Link to the Hypothesis

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1. Theories of Domestic Politics

3.2. Public Opinion and Political Constraints

3.3. How Domestic Politics Influence Foreign Policy Decisions

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Historical Context of the Syrian Conflict

4.2. Domestic Political Considerations in the United States

4.2.1. Public Opinion on Military Intervention

4.2.2. Political Constraints within the U.S. Government

4.3. Domestic Political Considerations in European Countries

 Cox ii

4.3.1. Public Opinion on Military Intervention

4.3.2. Political Constraints within European Governments

4.4. Comparative Analysis of Key Potential Interveners

4.5. Evidence Supporting the Hypothesis

5. Discussion

5.1. Interpretation of Findings

5.2. Comparison with Other Possible Explanations

5.3. Implications for the Theory and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention

5.4. Limitations of the Study

6. Conclusion

6.1. Summary of Findings

6.2. Generalization of the Results

6.3. Suggestions for Future Research

7. References

8. Appendices

8.1. Survey Data on Public Opinion

8.2. Government Statements and Policy Documents

8.3. Additional Case Studies or Comparative Analyses

 Cox 1

1. Introduction

1.1. Relevance of the Topic. The Syrian conflict, which began in 2011, has resulted in
one of the most severe humanitarian crises in recent history. Despite the widespread atrocities
and significant loss of life, there was no substantial humanitarian intervention by the
international community until the summer of 2015. Understanding the reasons behind this
delayed response is crucial for both academic inquiry and policy-making. This research aims to
explore the domestic political considerations that influenced the decision of key potential
interveners, such as the United States and European countries, not to intervene in Syria earlier.

1.2. Research Question. This study investigates the following research question: How
did domestic political considerations of key potential interveners influence the decision not to
intervene in Syria until summer 2015?

1.3. Overview of Main Arguments. The main argument of this paper is that domestic
political constraints and public opinion in key potential interveners, particularly the United States
and European countries, played a significant role in hindering the decision to intervene in Syria.
By examining the interplay between public opinion, political constraints, and foreign policy
decisions, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the domestic factors that
contributed to the lack of humanitarian intervention.

1.4. Structure of the Paper. The paper is structured as follows: The literature review
will examine existing research on humanitarian interventions, domestic politics, and public
opinion, highlighting the gap that this study aims to fill. The theoretical framework will outline
the theories of domestic politics and foreign policy, explaining how internal political dynamics
influence state behavior in international relations. The empirical analysis will explore the
specific domestic political considerations in the United States and European countries, providing
evidence to support the hypothesis. The discussion will interpret the findings, compare them
with other possible explanations, and discuss the implications for theory and practice. Finally,
the conclusion will summarize the findings, generalize the results, and suggest areas for future
research.
 Cox 2

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theories of Humanitarian Intervention. Theories of humanitarian intervention

typically focus on the ethical, legal, and political justifications for intervening in sovereign states
to prevent or stop gross human rights violations. Classic works, such as those by Gareth Evans
and Mohamed Sahnoun in “The Responsibility to Protect” (2001), argue for the moral imperative
and international responsibility to intervene in cases of severe human suffering. However, these
theories often overlook the domestic political factors that influence states’ decisions to intervene.

Moreover, Lu (2007) discusses the moral ambitions and political constraints of

humanitarian interventions, highlighting how ethical imperatives are often tempered by political
realities. This underscores the complexity of decision-making processes where moral duties
clash with political feasibility.

2.2. Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy. Domestic politics play a crucial role in
shaping foreign policy decisions. The works of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and colleagues in
“The Logic of Political Survival” (2003) emphasize the influence of political leaders’ survival
strategies on foreign policy. Leaders prioritize actions that enhance their political standing and
cater to their constituencies. Matthew A. Baum and Philip B. K. Potter, in “War and
Democratic Constraint: How the Public Influences Foreign Policy” (2015), further explore how
public opinion and democratic constraints shape foreign policy decisions, particularly regarding
military interventions.

Furthermore, Boettcher (2004) explores military intervention decisions regarding

humanitarian crises and emphasizes how political leaders weigh domestic political costs against
the perceived benefits of intervention. This aligns with the notion that political survival and
public approval are critical considerations.

2.3. Public Opinion and Military Involvement. Public opinion is a significant factor
in democratic states’ foreign policy decisions. Ole R. Holsti's “Public Opinion and American
Foreign Policy” (2004) provides a comprehensive analysis of how public attitudes influence U.S.
foreign policy. Adam J. Berinsky's article “Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites, and
American Public Support for Military Conflict” (2007) examines how public support for military
 Cox 3

interventions is shaped by elite cues and media coverage. These studies highlight the importance
of understanding public opinion when analyzing decisions related to military interventions.

Meanwhile, Knecht (2006) delves into the stages of presidential decision-making,

showing how public opinion can influence policy decisions at different stages, from initial
considerations to final actions. Korzi (2000) traces the roots of American public opinion
research, emphasizing its historical importance in shaping policy decisions.

2.4. Previous Studies on Non-Intervention in Syria. Previous studies on the lack of

humanitarian intervention in Syria often focus on geopolitical and strategic interests. For
example, Jeffrey Goldberg's article “The Obama Doctrine” (2016) in The Atlantic discusses the
strategic calculations behind the Obama administration's reluctance to intervene in Syria.
However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the domestic political considerations and
public opinion factors that influenced this decision.

Anderson (2014) discusses the determining factors of U.S. humanitarian interventions,

highlighting the complex interplay of moral imperatives, strategic interests, and domestic
political constraints. Moore (2007) examines the decision-making process for humanitarian
interventions, providing insights into the factors that lead to either action or inaction.

2.5. Deriving the Hypothesis. This literature review highlights the importance of
domestic political considerations and public opinion in shaping foreign policy decisions. By
focusing on these factors, this study aims to fill the gap in existing research and provide a more
comprehensive explanation for the absence of humanitarian intervention in Syria until summer
2015. The hypothesis is that domestic political constraints and public opposition to
military involvement were primary drivers behind this decision.

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1. Theories of Domestic Politics. Theories of domestic politics suggest that internal
political dynamics significantly influence foreign policy decisions. According to Bruce Bueno
de Mesquita et al. in “The Logic of Political Survival” (2003), political leaders prioritize
policies that ensure their political survival and cater to the preferences of key domestic
 Cox 4

constituencies. This framework helps to understand why leaders might be reluctant to engage in
military interventions that could be politically costly.

3.2. Public Opinion and Political Constraints. Public opinion plays a crucial role in
democratic societies, influencing policymakers’ decisions on military interventions. Ole R.
Holsti (2004) and Matthew A. Baum and Philip B. K. Potter (2015) emphasize that leaders in
democratic states must consider public opinion to maintain political support and legitimacy.
High public opposition to military interventions can create significant political constraints,
discouraging leaders from pursuing such actions.

Robinson (2000) examines the power of media during humanitarian crises, showing how
media coverage can shape public opinion and subsequently influence political decisions. This is
crucial for understanding the role of media in the context of Syria, where coverage of the conflict
possibly affected public attitudes and political calculations.

3.3. How Domestic Politics Influence Foreign Policy Decisions. The interplay
between domestic politics and foreign policy decisions can be understood through several
mechanisms:

 Electoral Considerations: Political leaders, of democracies in particular, are often

influenced by the need to secure electoral support. Engaging in unpopular military
interventions can jeopardize their chances of re-election. John H. Aldrich et al.
(2006) discuss how electoral incentives shape foreign policy decisions in their article
“Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection.”

 Media and Elite Cues: Media coverage and elite opinions shape public perception
and, consequently, public support for military interventions. Adam J. Berinsky
(2007) highlights the role of media and elite cues in shaping public opinion on
military conflict.

 Institutional Constraints: Democratic institutions, such as legislatures and courts, can

impose constraints on executive decisions regarding military interventions. These
institutions reflect public sentiment and can act as checks on executive power.
 Cox 5

By integrating these theories and concepts, this theoretical framework provides a

comprehensive understanding of how domestic political considerations and public opinion
influence foreign policy decisions, particularly regarding humanitarian interventions.

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Historical Context of the Syrian Conflict. The Syrian conflict began in March
2011 as part of the broader wave of Arab Spring protests. Initially peaceful demonstrations
against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime quickly escalated into a violent civil war. By 2015,
the conflict had resulted in a severe humanitarian crisis, with hundreds of thousands killed and
millions displaced. The international community's response, however, was notably cautious and
restrained, with no significant humanitarian intervention until the summer of 2015.

4.2. Domestic Political Considerations in the United States

4.2.1. Public Opinion on Military Intervention. In the United States, public opinion
plays a crucial role in shaping foreign policy decisions, especially regarding military
interventions. Surveys and studies during the early years of the Syrian conflict consistently
showed significant public opposition to U.S. military involvement in Syria. According to Pew
Research Center (2013), a majority of Americans opposed military strikes against the Syrian
government, reflecting wariness after prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The “Iraq Syndrome” described by John E. Mueller (2005) in “The Iraq Syndrome”
provides a useful framework for understanding this opposition. The costly and unpopular Iraq
War had left a lasting impact on American public opinion, making the public and policymakers
alike skeptical of new military engagements in the Middle East.

4.2.2. Political Constraints within the U.S. Government. Domestic political constraints
also played a significant role in shaping the U.S. response to the Syrian crisis. President Obama
faced a divided Congress and significant political opposition to military intervention. In his
2013 address, Obama emphasized the importance of seeking congressional approval for military
action in Syria, which ultimately did not materialize due to lack of support.
 Cox 6

The Obama administration's cautious approach is further illustrated by Jeffrey Goldberg's

“The Obama Doctrine” (2016), which highlights how the administration's foreign policy was
shaped by a desire to avoid the pitfalls of previous interventions and a focus on multilateralism
and diplomatic solutions. This approach reflected a broader strategic calculation influenced by
domestic political realities and public sentiment.

4.3. Domestic Political Considerations in European Countries.

4.3.1. Public Opinion on Military Intervention. Similar to the United States, public
opinion in European countries was largely against military intervention in Syria. Surveys
conducted by various organizations, including the European Council on Foreign Relations
(ECFR), indicated widespread public reluctance to engage in another Middle Eastern conflict.
The legacies of interventions in Libya and Afghanistan, combined with economic concerns and
the refugee crisis, contributed to this opposition.

Ole R. Holsti's (2004) analysis in “Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy”
extends to European contexts, where democratic governments are equally influenced by public
attitudes. The hesitation of European leaders to commit to military action in Syria can be
understood through this lens of public opinion and political accountability.

4.3.2. Political Constraints within European Governments. European governments

faced significant political constraints that hindered their ability to intervene in Syria. In the
United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron's proposal for military action in Syria was
rejected by Parliament in 2013, reflecting deep political divisions and public opposition. This
rejection was a significant setback for any potential coordinated European intervention.

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel faced a complex political landscape with

coalition partners and a public deeply skeptical of military involvement. The broader European
Union also struggled with internal divisions and a lack of consensus on how to address the
Syrian crisis, further complicating any potential intervention efforts.

4.4. Comparative Analysis of Key Potential Interveners. A comparative analysis of

the United States and European countries reveals common themes in their domestic political
considerations that influenced the lack of intervention in Syria. Both regions experienced
 Cox 7

significant public opposition to military action, shaped by recent historical experiences and
economic concerns. Political leaders in these democracies faced substantial constraints from
their respective legislative bodies and the need to align with public sentiment.

This comparative perspective highlights the interconnectedness of domestic politics and

foreign policy decisions. Theories of domestic politics and public opinion, as discussed by
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita et al. (2003) and Ole R. Holsti (2004), provide a robust framework
for understanding these dynamics. The interplay between public attitudes, political constraints,
and foreign policy strategies is evident in both the U.S. and European responses to the Syrian
crisis.

4.5. Evidence Supporting the Hypothesis. The empirical evidence supports the
hypothesis that domestic political constraints and public opposition to military involvement were
primary factors behind the absence of humanitarian intervention in Syria until summer 2015.
Key pieces of evidence include:

 Public Opinion Data: Surveys and polls consistently showing significant

opposition to military intervention in both the United States and European
countries. For instance, the Pew Research Center (2013) data on American public
opinion and similar findings from European surveys conducted by the ECFR.

 Political Statements and Actions: The Obama administration's cautious approach,

emphasizing diplomatic solutions and seeking congressional approval, and the
political setbacks faced by leaders like David Cameron in the UK Parliament.

 Comparative Analysis: The similar patterns of public opposition and political

constraints across democratic states, reflecting broader trends in how domestic
politics influence foreign policy decisions.

5. Discussion

5.1. Interpretation of Findings. The findings from the empirical analysis indicate that
domestic political considerations and public opinion played a crucial role in the decision not to
intervene in Syria until summer 2015. In both the United States and European countries,
 Cox 8

significant public opposition to military involvement, influenced by recent historical experiences

and economic concerns, created substantial political constraints for leaders. This aligns with the
theories of domestic politics and public opinion, which suggest that internal political dynamics
significantly influence foreign policy decisions.

5.2. In the United States, the legacy of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as described by
John E. Mueller (2005) in “The Iraq Syndrome,” led to a wariness among the public and
policymakers about new military engagements in the Middle East. This was further compounded
by political divisions within the government, as evidenced by President Obama's emphasis on
seeking congressional approval for military action. Similarly, in European countries, public
opposition to military intervention, shaped by experiences in Libya and economic concerns,
played a significant role in hindering intervention efforts.

5.3. Comparison with Other Possible Explanations. While the domestic political
perspective provides a compelling explanation for the lack of intervention, it is important to
consider other possible explanations. Geopolitical and strategic interests, as discussed by Jeffrey
Goldberg (2016) in “The Obama Doctrine,” also played a role in shaping the decisions of major
powers. The strategic calculations of key actors, such as the United States and Russia, created a
geopolitical stalemate that prevented a coordinated international response.

Institutional factors, such as the role of the United Nations and the use of veto power by
permanent members of the Security Council, also contributed to the lack of intervention. The
institutional gridlock within the UN, as described by various scholars, highlights the challenges
of achieving consensus on military interventions.

However, the domestic political considerations and public opinion perspective provide a
more comprehensive explanation for the timing and nature of the intervention decisions. By
focusing on the internal dynamics of key potential interveners, this perspective sheds light on the
specific constraints and motivations that influenced their actions.

5.4. Implications for the Theory and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention. The
findings of this study have significant implications for both the theory and practice of
humanitarian intervention. From a theoretical perspective, the study reinforces the importance of
considering domestic political factors and public opinion when analyzing foreign policy
 Cox 9

decisions. Theories of domestic politics, such as those presented by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita et
al. (2003) and Ole R. Holsti (2004), provide valuable insights into the interplay between
internal political dynamics and international actions.

In practice, the study highlights the need for policymakers to consider the domestic
political context when planning and implementing humanitarian interventions. Understanding
public sentiment and political constraints can help in designing strategies that are more likely to
gain domestic support and achieve desired outcomes. The findings also suggest that efforts to
build public support and address political constraints are crucial for successful humanitarian
interventions.

5.5. Limitations of the Study. While this study provides a comprehensive analysis of
the domestic political considerations influencing the decision not to intervene in Syria, there are
several limitations. The study primarily focuses on the United States and European countries,
and further research is needed to examine the domestic political dynamics in other potential
interveners, such as regional actors in the Middle East. Additionally, the study relies on available
public opinion data and political statements, which may not capture the full complexity of the
decision-making processes.

6. Conclusion

6.1. Summary of Findings. This study has explored the role of domestic political
considerations and public opinion in influencing the decision not to intervene in Syria until
summer 2015. The findings indicate that significant public opposition to military involvement,
shaped by recent historical experiences and economic concerns, created substantial political
constraints for leaders in the United States and European countries. These domestic factors
played a crucial role in shaping foreign policy decisions and preventing humanitarian
intervention.

6.2. Generalization of the Results. The results of this study can be generalized to
other cases where domestic political considerations and public opinion influence foreign policy
decisions regarding military interventions. The theoretical framework and empirical analysis
 Cox 10

provide valuable insights into the interplay between internal political dynamics and international
actions, which can be applied to other contexts and crises.

6.3. Suggestions for Future Research. Future research should expand the scope of
this study to include other potential interveners, such as regional actors in the Middle East, to
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing humanitarian
interventions. Additionally, further research could explore the role of media and elite cues in
shaping public opinion and political constraints, as well as the impact of international institutions
on intervention decisions.

By continuing to investigate the domestic political factors influencing humanitarian

interventions, scholars can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the complexities
involved in international responses to crises. This, in turn, can inform the development of more
effective strategies for addressing humanitarian emergencies and promoting global stability.
 Cox 11

7. References

Aldrich, John H., Christopher Gelpi, Peter Feaver, Jason Reifler, and Kristin Thompson Sharp.
“Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol.
9, 2006, pp. 477-502.

Anderson, Kenneth. “The Determining Factors of U.S. Humanitarian Interventions.” Journal of

International Affairs, vol. 68, no. 1, 2014, pp. 23-44.

Baum, Matthew A., and Philip B. K. Potter. War and Democratic Constraint: How the Public
Influences Foreign Policy. Princeton University Press, 2015.

Berinsky, Adam J. “Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites, and American Public Support for
Military Conflict.” Journal of Politics, vol. 69, no. 4, 2007, pp. 975-997.

Boettcher, William A. “Military Intervention Decisions Regarding Humanitarian Crises.”

Political Science Quarterly, vol. 119, no. 4, 2004, pp. 555-578.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, et al. The Logic of Political Survival. MIT Press, 2003.

Evans, Gareth, and Mohamed Sahnoun. “The Responsibility to Protect.” Foreign Affairs, vol.
81, no. 6, 2001, pp. 99-110.

Goldberg, Jeffrey. “The Obama Doctrine.” The Atlantic, April 2016.

Holsti, Ole R. Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. University of Michigan Press,
2004.

Korzi, Michael J. “The Roots of American Public Opinion Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly,
vol. 64, no. 4, 2000, pp. 567-596.

Knecht, Thomas. “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: The Stages of Presidential Decision
Making.” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 3, 2006, pp. 671-688.

Lu, Catherine. “Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Ambition and Political Constraints.”

International Journal, vol. 62, no. 4, 2007, pp. 942-951.

Moore, Jonathan. “Deciding Humanitarian Intervention.” Social Research, vol. 74, no. 1, 2007,
pp. 169-200.
 Cox 12

Mueller, John E. “The Iraq Syndrome.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 84, no. 6, 2005, pp. 44-54.

Parekh, Bhikhu. “Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention.” International Political Science

Review, vol. 18, no. 1, 1997, pp. 49-69.

Pew Research Center. “Public Sees U.S. Power Declining as Support for Global Engagement
Slips.” Pew Research Center, December 2013.

Robinson, Piers. “Measuring Media Power during Humanitarian Crisis.” Journal of Peace
Research, vol. 37, no. 5, 2000, pp. 613-633.
 Cox 11

8. Appendices

8.1. Survey Data on Public Opinion (if applicable)

8.2. Government Statements and Policy Documents (if applicable)

8.3. Additional Case Studies or Comparative Analyses (if applicable)