US Balancing Strategy in the Security Council in the face of Democracy in West Asia

After the transition to democracy began in 2010 in the West Asian region, it did not take long for the wave of democratization to reach Syria and Bahrain. Expectations from the UN Security Council for peace and security increased as the ground for peace was restored and human rights abuses were widespread. In such circumstances, the United States, as one of the most influential permanent members of the Council, has taken a questionable stance on the developments in Syria and Bahrain, which has been the subject of this article. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to answer the question, what considerations and motives have led to such a contradictory orientation and behavior by the US government?

In order to achieve this goal and provide an answer to the question, analytical-comparative research method has been used, relying on documentary and library data.

The findings of the study indicate that with the follow-up and support of the United States, so far 21 recommendations for the reduction of violence in Syria have been approved by the Security Council. The United States has also engaged in active diplomacy to pass binding resolutions on Chapter VII of the Charter, including a deadline, sanctions and military intervention, and has drafted eight resolutions, but in the case of Bahrain, it has even proposed a non-binding resolution in the Council. Has not given.

While the United States has made great efforts in the Security Council to put pressure on the Syrian government, it has not considered any mechanism to limit Al Khalifa through the Security Council; As a result, the priority of US strategic interests over democratic and human rights considerations in pursuing a balancing strategy in West Asia has led to this contradictory performance in the Security Council.