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
Chemical weapons use was a red-line that Damascus-directed forces crossed in the current and ongoing Syrian civil conflict. Russia and the United States disagreed not only about whether the weapons had indeed been used, but also regarding whom to identify as the weapons use perpetrators. That the Un...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Global media and China 2016-09, Vol.1 (3), p.149-167 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 167 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 149 |
container_title | Global media and China |
container_volume | 1 |
creator | Kounalakis, Markos |
description | Chemical weapons use was a red-line that Damascus-directed forces crossed in the current and ongoing Syrian civil conflict. Russia and the United States disagreed not only about whether the weapons had indeed been used, but also regarding whom to identify as the weapons use perpetrators. That the United States and Russia would find themselves diametrically opposed initially on policy and military prescriptions regarding Syria is generally and theoretically explained by those countries’ long-standing material and security interests in the region. Even a couple of years prior to this red-line moment—and as the early brewing civil conflict in Syria was raising the concerns of the international community—what action should be taken in Syria was the subject of considerable and heated public debate as well as name-calling between Russia and the United States at the United Nations. While the United States and Russia staked-out opposing positions on Syria on the basis of either material or national security reasoning, the Chinese interest in the dispute outcome was—and remains—less obvious or easily understood. In a previous United Nations–sanctioned action enabling intervention on Libya to oust Muammar Gaddafi, China did not veto the Security Council action … despite its significant material interests in that country. A short while later, at the outset of the Syrian stirrings and talk of United Nations action, China made clear that it would not enable a Security Council approach that could lead to intervention, either unilaterally by a third country or via a military coalition of state actors. This work uses a media critical discourse analysis approach to understand the official Chinese position in the case of Syria—a position that stands in contrast to its recent and prior intervention-tolerant foreign policy position on Libya at the end of the Gaddafi-era. One conclusion of this study is that China is still formulating its dynamic and seemingly disjointed foreign policy position in the Middle East at present, and that the promotion of the principles of Sovereignty over Responsibility to Protect is the current trump card in its now dominant anti-interventionist foreign policy posture. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/2059436416654918 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2519937197</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_2059436416654918</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2519937197</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2668-d158eebdc6e0e0195d1994b2995eb18aa9af408bf0a8b0e5f44b6edcb42cafe33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kdtKxDAQhosoKLr3Xga8riZteoh3sniCBcXDdUnT6RrpJjWTFXq3ryHow_gq-ySmrCgIQiD5J9__M8NE0SGjx4wVxUlCM8HTnLM8z7hg5Va0N5ZinhbJ9s8757vRBPGZUsrKokhSsRd9Tp-0kevVG5LeovbaGhKONh6ckaOU3Ua9ghnlKTkjC2i0JNI05NkuA9ZpXBDlglsFutGoQhkhELIbUCOxLdEeiZKh2FpH1qv3e_sKDvTc-GG9-iBB4BLHjzvA3hrUte60H4i35NZZD8qPWO-0UbrvAENT5H5wWh5EO63sECbf9370eHH-ML2KZzeX19OzWaySPC_jhmUlQN2oHChQJrKGCcHrRIgMalZKKWTLaVm3VJY1hazlvM6hUTVPlGwhTfejo01u7-zLEtBX38NjlWQhKy2YKAJFN5RyFtFBW4WWF9INFaPVuKvq766CJd5YUM7hN_Rf_gudbZ5Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2519937197</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>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</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Kounalakis, Markos</creator><creatorcontrib>Kounalakis, Markos</creatorcontrib><description>Chemical weapons use was a red-line that Damascus-directed forces crossed in the current and ongoing Syrian civil conflict. Russia and the United States disagreed not only about whether the weapons had indeed been used, but also regarding whom to identify as the weapons use perpetrators. That the United States and Russia would find themselves diametrically opposed initially on policy and military prescriptions regarding Syria is generally and theoretically explained by those countries’ long-standing material and security interests in the region. Even a couple of years prior to this red-line moment—and as the early brewing civil conflict in Syria was raising the concerns of the international community—what action should be taken in Syria was the subject of considerable and heated public debate as well as name-calling between Russia and the United States at the United Nations. While the United States and Russia staked-out opposing positions on Syria on the basis of either material or national security reasoning, the Chinese interest in the dispute outcome was—and remains—less obvious or easily understood. In a previous United Nations–sanctioned action enabling intervention on Libya to oust Muammar Gaddafi, China did not veto the Security Council action … despite its significant material interests in that country. A short while later, at the outset of the Syrian stirrings and talk of United Nations action, China made clear that it would not enable a Security Council approach that could lead to intervention, either unilaterally by a third country or via a military coalition of state actors. This work uses a media critical discourse analysis approach to understand the official Chinese position in the case of Syria—a position that stands in contrast to its recent and prior intervention-tolerant foreign policy position on Libya at the end of the Gaddafi-era. One conclusion of this study is that China is still formulating its dynamic and seemingly disjointed foreign policy position in the Middle East at present, and that the promotion of the principles of Sovereignty over Responsibility to Protect is the current trump card in its now dominant anti-interventionist foreign policy posture.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2059-4364</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2059-4372</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/2059436416654918</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Action ; Armed forces ; Biological & chemical weapons ; Conflict ; Critical theory ; Discourse analysis ; Foreign policy ; Interests ; International community ; International conflict ; Intervention ; Journalism ; Mass media ; Military intervention ; Military policy ; National security ; Perpetrators ; Prescription drugs ; Regional security ; Sovereignty ; State ; Unilateralism ; Vetoes</subject><ispartof>Global media and China, 2016-09, Vol.1 (3), p.149-167</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2016. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2668-d158eebdc6e0e0195d1994b2995eb18aa9af408bf0a8b0e5f44b6edcb42cafe33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2668-d158eebdc6e0e0195d1994b2995eb18aa9af408bf0a8b0e5f44b6edcb42cafe33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2059436416654918$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2059436416654918$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,12824,21945,27321,27830,27901,27902,33751,44921,45309</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kounalakis, Markos</creatorcontrib><title>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</title><title>Global media and China</title><description>Chemical weapons use was a red-line that Damascus-directed forces crossed in the current and ongoing Syrian civil conflict. Russia and the United States disagreed not only about whether the weapons had indeed been used, but also regarding whom to identify as the weapons use perpetrators. That the United States and Russia would find themselves diametrically opposed initially on policy and military prescriptions regarding Syria is generally and theoretically explained by those countries’ long-standing material and security interests in the region. Even a couple of years prior to this red-line moment—and as the early brewing civil conflict in Syria was raising the concerns of the international community—what action should be taken in Syria was the subject of considerable and heated public debate as well as name-calling between Russia and the United States at the United Nations. While the United States and Russia staked-out opposing positions on Syria on the basis of either material or national security reasoning, the Chinese interest in the dispute outcome was—and remains—less obvious or easily understood. In a previous United Nations–sanctioned action enabling intervention on Libya to oust Muammar Gaddafi, China did not veto the Security Council action … despite its significant material interests in that country. A short while later, at the outset of the Syrian stirrings and talk of United Nations action, China made clear that it would not enable a Security Council approach that could lead to intervention, either unilaterally by a third country or via a military coalition of state actors. This work uses a media critical discourse analysis approach to understand the official Chinese position in the case of Syria—a position that stands in contrast to its recent and prior intervention-tolerant foreign policy position on Libya at the end of the Gaddafi-era. One conclusion of this study is that China is still formulating its dynamic and seemingly disjointed foreign policy position in the Middle East at present, and that the promotion of the principles of Sovereignty over Responsibility to Protect is the current trump card in its now dominant anti-interventionist foreign policy posture.</description><subject>Action</subject><subject>Armed forces</subject><subject>Biological & chemical weapons</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Critical theory</subject><subject>Discourse analysis</subject><subject>Foreign policy</subject><subject>Interests</subject><subject>International community</subject><subject>International conflict</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Journalism</subject><subject>Mass media</subject><subject>Military intervention</subject><subject>Military policy</subject><subject>National security</subject><subject>Perpetrators</subject><subject>Prescription drugs</subject><subject>Regional security</subject><subject>Sovereignty</subject><subject>State</subject><subject>Unilateralism</subject><subject>Vetoes</subject><issn>2059-4364</issn><issn>2059-4372</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kdtKxDAQhosoKLr3Xga8riZteoh3sniCBcXDdUnT6RrpJjWTFXq3ryHow_gq-ySmrCgIQiD5J9__M8NE0SGjx4wVxUlCM8HTnLM8z7hg5Va0N5ZinhbJ9s8757vRBPGZUsrKokhSsRd9Tp-0kevVG5LeovbaGhKONh6ckaOU3Ua9ghnlKTkjC2i0JNI05NkuA9ZpXBDlglsFutGoQhkhELIbUCOxLdEeiZKh2FpH1qv3e_sKDvTc-GG9-iBB4BLHjzvA3hrUte60H4i35NZZD8qPWO-0UbrvAENT5H5wWh5EO63sECbf9370eHH-ML2KZzeX19OzWaySPC_jhmUlQN2oHChQJrKGCcHrRIgMalZKKWTLaVm3VJY1hazlvM6hUTVPlGwhTfejo01u7-zLEtBX38NjlWQhKy2YKAJFN5RyFtFBW4WWF9INFaPVuKvq766CJd5YUM7hN_Rf_gudbZ5Y</recordid><startdate>201609</startdate><enddate>201609</enddate><creator>Kounalakis, Markos</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201609</creationdate><title>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</title><author>Kounalakis, Markos</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2668-d158eebdc6e0e0195d1994b2995eb18aa9af408bf0a8b0e5f44b6edcb42cafe33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Action</topic><topic>Armed forces</topic><topic>Biological & chemical weapons</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Critical theory</topic><topic>Discourse analysis</topic><topic>Foreign policy</topic><topic>Interests</topic><topic>International community</topic><topic>International conflict</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Journalism</topic><topic>Mass media</topic><topic>Military intervention</topic><topic>Military policy</topic><topic>National security</topic><topic>Perpetrators</topic><topic>Prescription drugs</topic><topic>Regional security</topic><topic>Sovereignty</topic><topic>State</topic><topic>Unilateralism</topic><topic>Vetoes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kounalakis, Markos</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Global media and China</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kounalakis, Markos</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>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</atitle><jtitle>Global media and China</jtitle><date>2016-09</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>1</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>149</spage><epage>167</epage><pages>149-167</pages><issn>2059-4364</issn><eissn>2059-4372</eissn><abstract>Chemical weapons use was a red-line that Damascus-directed forces crossed in the current and ongoing Syrian civil conflict. Russia and the United States disagreed not only about whether the weapons had indeed been used, but also regarding whom to identify as the weapons use perpetrators. That the United States and Russia would find themselves diametrically opposed initially on policy and military prescriptions regarding Syria is generally and theoretically explained by those countries’ long-standing material and security interests in the region. Even a couple of years prior to this red-line moment—and as the early brewing civil conflict in Syria was raising the concerns of the international community—what action should be taken in Syria was the subject of considerable and heated public debate as well as name-calling between Russia and the United States at the United Nations. While the United States and Russia staked-out opposing positions on Syria on the basis of either material or national security reasoning, the Chinese interest in the dispute outcome was—and remains—less obvious or easily understood. In a previous United Nations–sanctioned action enabling intervention on Libya to oust Muammar Gaddafi, China did not veto the Security Council action … despite its significant material interests in that country. A short while later, at the outset of the Syrian stirrings and talk of United Nations action, China made clear that it would not enable a Security Council approach that could lead to intervention, either unilaterally by a third country or via a military coalition of state actors. This work uses a media critical discourse analysis approach to understand the official Chinese position in the case of Syria—a position that stands in contrast to its recent and prior intervention-tolerant foreign policy position on Libya at the end of the Gaddafi-era. One conclusion of this study is that China is still formulating its dynamic and seemingly disjointed foreign policy position in the Middle East at present, and that the promotion of the principles of Sovereignty over Responsibility to Protect is the current trump card in its now dominant anti-interventionist foreign policy posture.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/2059436416654918</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2059-4364 |
ispartof | Global media and China, 2016-09, Vol.1 (3), p.149-167 |
issn | 2059-4364 2059-4372 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2519937197 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Sociological Abstracts |
subjects | Action Armed forces Biological & chemical weapons Conflict Critical theory Discourse analysis Foreign policy Interests International community International conflict Intervention Journalism Mass media Military intervention Military policy National security Perpetrators Prescription drugs Regional security Sovereignty State Unilateralism Vetoes |
title | 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 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T15%3A49%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=China%E2%80%99s%20position%20on%20international%20intervention:%20A%20media%20and%20journalism%20critical%20discourse%20analysis%20of%20its%20case%20for%20%E2%80%9CSovereignty%E2%80%9D%20versus%20%E2%80%9CResponsibility%20to%20Protect%E2%80%9D%20principles%20in%20Syria&rft.jtitle=Global%20media%20and%20China&rft.au=Kounalakis,%20Markos&rft.date=2016-09&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=149&rft.epage=167&rft.pages=149-167&rft.issn=2059-4364&rft.eissn=2059-4372&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/2059436416654918&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2519937197%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2519937197&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_2059436416654918&rfr_iscdi=true |