Turmoil, no matter what type it is, pushes one to think of the main component of the state, for states rarely remain far from the foreign interference, when confronted with crises. The question of violation of sovereignty not only formed an issue within  the Syrian matter, but it provided a political and cultural challenge for the Syrian society that has been faced by predicting the risk of partition since the early days of the crisis, while “political schemes” had observers, “separation forces” and other terms.

Concerns over Syrian sovereignty and unity of her territories was a common factor between pro-government supporters and wide segments of the domestic opposition. The difference between the two parties’ interpretations of sovereignty conditions during the crisis did not cause a stark contrast with regards to this issue, for the dreadful Libyan scenario was the strongest element to pull attention. And despite of the repeated use of veto in the Security Council by Russia and China against resolutions that allow military intervention in Syria, which prompted the opposition abroad to take a hostile attitude towards them, the violation of sovereignty has taken a variety of forms. Here we could notice the following:

• First: the National Council was clear from the start that the overthrow of the regime could only be achieved through a scenario that carries some kind of intervention, or perhaps gradual intervention.
• Second: political steps, like Arab and foreign observers, created a disparity in attitudes, although these “steps” can be described as unfinished business, they did end at a certain point, after that new steps, which do not rely on what has been achieved, would be taken.
• Third: violation of sovereignty meant “direct military intervention” for the majority, while the political opposition has different opinions with regards to interpreting of  the ” violation process.” They regarded the regime’s dependence on Russia, China and Iran as a  kind of outside intervention and a breach of sovereignty that cannot be justified, and considered these countries to be complicit in killing Syrians, for they supported the regime.
• Fourth: Symbols of sovereignty were subject to direct violations. The protest movement quickly replaced the Syrian flag, without a real justification, and the media campaigns focused on the personality of the president, the national army and the official television. Moreover, titles appeared that were headed directly towards national symbols, like the free army, and this coincided with campaigns that questioned the political history of Syria. All that took place while the movement of the U.S. ambassador went in contradiction with all the rules of diplomacy, dictations towards the resignation of the president, the enforcement of a buffer zone, the justification of the presence of militants, of Arab and foreign nationalities, who fought in the opposition ranks, and the targeting of strategic sites that are related with the front with Israel.

The concern of ”sovereignty” has turned into different fears after more than twenty months of  the crisis, for the issue of the civil war did not remain only within statements of Europeans officials, but moved towards the battles that are taking place in Syrian territories. On the other hand, some believe that the unity of the Syrian territories in the present moment is infiltrated by the armed outposts, no matter how small, as there has been a transition since the start of the crisis from a country with a prominent regional role, to fears of a partition.

Over the Syrian crisis, Syrian sovereignty goes back to the starting point at which the state appeared. There is a society that pressurises drawn political boundaries, and there is a crises arch at the middle of which Syria is situated. It is at the centre of historical pressure masses (Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt), besides ”a geographical margin” that forms a centre of economic gravity (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait) which tries to polorise the regional policy, and finally there is the axis of the conflict with” Israel“, which can be regarded as ” the international standard“ for the balance of the region and regulating its roles. This complexity would probably forcefully impose itself may inside any political power  in Syria and, during the current crisis, it raises questions about “the existence of the state” of Syria under the reshuffling of regional balances.

Moreover, the difficult question in light of the economic ruin that took place due to the crisis, wouldn’t the subject of sovereignty become more complicated at a time when we would need aid and support that we may have to pay for with part of our sovereignty and independence?