The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has reaped international attention with its policies of terror and subjugation. The group, considered a terrorist organization by the United Nations (due to human rights abuses and war crimes such as ethnic cleansing), aims to submit all Muslims to its rule. Whose fault is it that ISIS was able to take advantage of the situation in Iraq and Syria and fester onto the world stage? Two countries besides Iraq and Syria are to blame for the rise of ISIS: the U.S. and China. Each played a profound role in the formation of ISIS: the United States’ foreign policy during the Iraq war created the conditions necessary for ISIS to form. China’s heavy involvement in the Middle East fueled the fire through its sizeable investments and its negative policies toward its own Muslims.
 

 Many argue that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, due to his policies of oppression,  is the person at fault for provoking resentment throughout Iraq and enabling ISIS to develop and sweep across the land at breakneck pace. Though Maliki’s regime took to oppressing Shi’ites in Iraq, he is not solely responsible. Jon Greenburg (2014), an active award-winning journalist at PunditFact, writes that the United States took Iraq, dethroned Saddam Hussein, and propagated democracy, in which Maliki took power (Greenburg, 2014, p. 1). In the neighboring country of Syria, China supported the unpopular Assad regime. By keeping this regime propped up, China enabled ISIS’ foothold in the unstable climate, allowing it to sweep through the area. Through their support of discriminatory regimes, the U.S. and China bear responsibility for ISIS on a higher level than Maliki.
 

 The U.S. government’s role in creating conditions suitable to ISIS’ proliferation rests in the Iraq War, which created conditions that allowed ISIS to conquer northern Iraq. The war stems from the assertion by then- U.S. President George Bush that Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, possessed government-harbored terrorists. The war ended with Hussein’s execution; which had catastrophic consequences for Iraq. Saddam’s ousting created a power vacuum that allowed previously suppressed groups to gain power through fundamentalism. According to author and political strategist Robert Creamer (2014), “[Bush] didn’t make it [the Iraqi government and army] more inclusive of [oppressed groups]. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that . . . top commanders of today’s [ISIS] are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military (Creamer, 2014, p. 1 of 3.)” The process of de-Ba’athification (removal of Hussein’s regime) upset the stability Hussein maintained with his harsh rule, and the U.S. kept peace with its military while it created a democracy. When the U.S. military retreated in 2011, the Iraqi government did not carry enough power to mediate disagreements and prevent violent warring between groups.

   The war in Iraq worked to Iraq’s detriment, but China benefited from de-Ba’athification: oil. After Saddam’s downfall, Chinese state-owned companies have poured over $2,000,000,000 a year into Iraq’s oil industry (Arango, 2014). Now, Iraq is China’s fifth largest oil supplier. However, China pays for this prosperity: its involvement in the Middle East makes it a target for disenfranchised peoples. ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has stated: “Muslim rights have been forcibly removed in . . . China . . .” According to Diplomat writer Zachary Keck (2014), China, against the judgment of the U.S., supported the Syrian Assad regime, the government whose acts toward its Sunnis led to ISIS’ creation and proliferation. This, by keeping Assad propped up, enabled ISIS to fester into a large power, controlling swaths of land throughout the area known as the Fertile Crescent (Keck, 2014, p. 1 of 2).
 

 The fact that ISIS is a major problem is obvious. The U.S., in de-Ba’athification, and China, for its support of Assad, share blame for permitting conditions in which ISIS conquered a large area in the Middle East. ISIS is a major threat to not only the independence of nearby countries, but also to the world as a whole. A state preaching “convert-or-die” has no place in this world, as it obstructs the freedom of all. A stable path to peace in the Middle East would benefit all parties by providing a stable source of energy for global powers and stimulating the developing economies in the region. Therefore, the U.S. and China must respond to the crisis in Iraq and Syria, because the burden of responsibility rests on them.

REFERENCES

   Arango, T. & Krauss, C. (2013, June 2nd). China Reaps Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-ir
aq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

   Creamer, Robert. (2014, November 15). Bush/Cheney Created Conditions that Led Directly to ISIL.\
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/bushcheney-created-
condit_b_5820916.html

   Greenburg, Jon. (2014, September 15th). Matthews: Cheney’s post-Saddam tactic created ISIS. Retrieved
from http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/15/chris-
matthews/matthews-cheneys-post-saddam-tactic-created-isis/
   Keck, Zachary. (2014, September 15th). China Created ISIS, Too. Retrieved from
http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/china-created-isis-too