نشریه مطالعات سیاست خارجی تهران
پیاپی 5 (تابستان 1396)

The strategic situation of the Persian Gulf region and its oil and gas resources has tempted the United States of America to choose this region as one of its targets and to exploit the fortunes of the region to serve American capitalist companies. With the second Gulf war, the US could legitimize its military presence in the region by signing contracts with six members of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council; it could also make these countries to a viable market for arms trade. Having aided the US in its interventionist policies, leaders of rich Arab countries of the Persian Gulf are now facing budget deficit. American government’s militarization policy of the Persian Gulf oil, as an unchangeable strategy, has wasted Arab countries’ fortunes and, as a result, these countries are deprived of the means to develop their societies and establish security in areas of income, hygiene, education and other living needs of their people.

The strategic situation of the Persian Gulf region and its oil and gas resources has tempted the United States of America to choose this region as one of its targets and to exploit the fortunes of the region to serve American capitalist companies. With the second Gulf war, the US could legitimize its military presence in the region by signing contracts with six members of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council; it could also make these countries to a viable market for arms trade. Having aided the US in its interventionist policies, leaders of rich Arab countries of the Persian Gulf are now facing budget deficit. American government’s militarization policy of the Persian Gulf oil, as an unchangeable strategy, has wasted Arab countries’ fortunes and, as a result, these countries are deprived of the means to develop their societies and establish security in areas of income, hygiene, education and other living needs of their people.

China’s strategies for presence and role-playing in Asia will be shaped according to the US approaches and behavior. There has also been ample discussion in recent years regarding America’s military strategies transformation after the US and its allies’ military presence in West Asia, also known as Middle East, under the guise of fighting terrorist groups. Considering current situation and Trump White House’s positions, China is likely to favor an “interaction strategy” over the alternatives. This strategy allows China to share the power with the US. By sharing interests in common environments, China will decrease mutual challenges and manage current competitions.

American foreign policy is a complex and multi-layered issue normally shaped as a result of a long process in the form of bureaucratic competitions inside the political structure. In foreign policy studies, the role of a broker is usually analyzed inside such a process and in interaction with other forces and factors. One of the important US national security and foreign policy decisions during the presidency of Barack Obama (201216-) was Iran Nuclear Deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Barjam) as the result of nuclear talks between Iran and P51+. Despite Obama government’s internal consensus over nuclear talks with Iran, there were oppositions to the nuclear talks and Barjam which continued in different forms and arguments. Nuclear talks with Iran had started before Obama in George Bush’s presidency. This brings up the question of “what is the republicans and some American structural forces’ main reason of opposing nuclear talks and Barjam?” This article suggests the shift in “balance of power” and regional conditions after Barjam to Iran’s interest as the main reason of these oppositions. This hypothesis sheds light on the US main reasons of opposition to Iran nuclear program and their attempts to sabotage nuclear talks and Barjam.

By proposing solution to Syria’s current crisis, The US and Western countries seek to fulfill their strategic theories in West Asia for which they have long planned and mobilized their clandestine means. These countries resorted to different strategies in order to accomplish their goals in West Asia region, including using proxy terrorist groups which are active under different names. Western countries are trying to persuade Syria to accept a solution which is realized by terrorist groups based in Syria. They claim that Syria’s acceptance of this solution is the first step for them in order to stop supporting these terrorist groups. The final goal they are trying to achieve by this solution is to stop Syria from being the ring connected to the resistance axle and make it into a country which is politically, militarily and economically dependent on the West. A West-dependent Syria means that it no longer has a historical role in supporting the Palestine ideal, resistance in Lebanon and opposing the Zionist project, and it also means that Syria’s relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the ever growing East axle (Russia and China) and national independence forces will be terminated. “The Day After” project (a cooperative movement by members of the Syrian opposition) is one of these Western solutions.

On May 24, 2016, Lebanese daily newspaper “Al-Akhbar” reported that Russia had finished drafting a constitution for Syria. Al-Akhbar pointed that this draft constitution is agreed upon by both Washington and Moscow and continued that: according to US-Russia agreement and in line with the execution of the UN resolution 22542015/, the two parties agreed on a timetable for drafting the constitution and on a framework for political transition by August 2016. This agreement was made by the International Syria Support Group in November 2015 with the following terms: 1) establishing a credible, inclusive and nonsectarian governance; 2) setting a schedule and process for drafting new constitution; 3) free and fair elections pursuant to the new constitution under the US supervision within 18 months. This report attracted different reactions from the Syrians most of whom couldn’t accept any countries’ intervention in their constitution draft without any exception. Pursuant of this issue, Russia denied its role in drafting the constitution and maintained that: “what the media issued as Russia drafting Syria new constitution is nothing but the Carter Center document. A document drafted after fifteen rounds of discussion with different Syrian diplomats and arrangements with the UN and de Mistura’s office. Moscow restated that Russia had no role in drafting new constitution and said “Moscow respects Syria’s sovereignty”; however, Russia distributed copies of the aforementioned draft on December 23 and 24, 2017 among the Syrian participants in Astana Talks. Basically, no country can claim that their constitution is the result of the intellectual and organizational experience of that country alone. For instance, Constitution of the United States of America (drafted in 1789) which is the world’s oldest constitution is not the result of just Thomas Jefferson and John Dickenson’s thoughts, but the French Montesquieu (16891755-) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Geneva, 1712- 78) had a tremendous impact on it. Therefore, making use of other countries’ experience as a model and exchanging views with them is recommended in the following cases: 1) drafting the constitution, especially cases regarding the “structural content of the constitution”, i.e. the content related to division of powers and their relations in regards to the extent they are independent and in cooperation with one another; 2) establishing a constitutional court and a constitutional council whose main authority is the supervision over the right execution of the constitution and prevention of crossing the boundaries set by the constitution for the powers, especially the boundaries of human rights and constitutional freedoms for each person. But it is the responsibility of the scholars of the same country to introduce and determine all the identity factors (with any extent of originality and authenticity) based on their intellectual history in the constitution. The present article aims at analyzing the conspicuous items in Syria’s draft constitution by Russia and answers the question of whether we can call this draft Syria’s constitution or not. We then examine the fact that how this draft has drawn Syria’s identity and structure and make use of contrastive analysis as a scientific

first, we examine important parts of this draft and then we contrast these parts with Syria’s constitutional articles (drafted in 2012). We also examine the agreement between the political and legal aspects of this draft (since the constitution means a comprehensive legal understanding of political phenomena) by comparing this draft with other countries’ constitutions. We, finally, examine how much this draft is adjusted to Syrian society’s intellectual structure and answer the following questions: 1. Can this draft maintain the unity of the present institutions in Syria? 2. Considering that the foundation of the constitution is to reconcile power and freedom, can this draft answer Syrian citizens’ concerns regarding their basic rights and freedoms. The general plan for the present research is as follows: - Introduction 1. Is Russia’s draft constitution for Syria technically a constitution draft? (what we mean by “technically” is 1. Regarding the concept of the constitution and the conventional methods of drafting it; 2. Regarding the legal nature of drafting a constitution 2. This Russia’s draft viewpoint of Syrian identity 3. This Russia’s draft viewpoint of Syria structure 4. This draft’s view as regards to the position of the president between the legislative and executive powers 5. This drafts view as regards to the position of Prime Minister 6. This drafts view with respect to the legislative power - onclusion