Agonal Autism in the Syrian Conflict: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Agonal Autism in the Syrian Conflict (Quelltext anzeigen)

Version vom 11. Juni 2017, 11:29 Uhr

55 Bytes hinzugefügt , 11:29, 11. Jun. 2017

keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung

Tiao

Bürokraten, Administratoren

31.738

Bearbeitungen

@@ Zeile 1: / Zeile 1: @@
 == Some tentative observations concerning agonal autism and the Syrian conflict ==
-The Syrian conflict is in its seventh year. With no realistic chance for any of the warring parties to terminate it by one-sided military action, conflict resolution depends more than ever on a strategy of communication between the parties. Paradoxically, though, the use of communicative strategies to resolve armed conflicts is much easier in large-scale "old" wars between two or more states than in the unconventional "new" (Kaldor 1999) or "small wars" (Clausewitz 1810/1966) which unfortunately characterize much of today's world (cf. Daase 1999, 2001).
+With the Syrian conflict in its seventh year, chances for any one side to end it by outright military victory have faded, thus making it a matter of formal logic that the relevance of other means of conflict resolution - especially communicative ones - should be heigthened. In practice, that is more easily said than done, though. To switch from the sword to the negotiating table has never been easy, but in the new age of small, asymmetric, and unconventional warfare (cf. Daase 1999, 2001), it seems to have become all but impossible. This paper looks at some potential causes and consequences of this dilemma.
 Even though the country lies in ruins - and chances are that no government will ever be able to rule all of what used to be the modern state of Syria (Jenkins 2014) - communication attempts under the auspices of the United Nations failed in both 2012 and 2014, and none of the more recent talks at different places yielded substantive results. One of the reasons for failure has been seen in the West's reticence to talk with all regional stakeholders, combined with its attitude of self-righteousness that forbids negotiations with "Axis of Evil" governments as well as with terrorist organizations (Lüders 2015: 63).