31.738
Bearbeitungen
Agonal Autism in the Syrian Conflict: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Agonal Autism in the Syrian Conflict (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 12. Juni 2017, 19:55 Uhr
, 19:55, 12. Jun. 2017keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 1: | Zeile 1: | ||
There are many reasons for speedy and efficient negotiations to end the civil war in Syria. For one thing, Syria is drowning in chaos and human misery; the country is beyond redemption or repair - it has been declared dead years ago in the sense that there is no possibility of any future government being able to control all of what used to be the modern state of Syria (cf. Jenkins 2014); today, if anything, Syria is even deader than it was then. The military stalemate and the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict will prevent any revitalization. Secondly, the internationalization of the Syrian War makes it ever more likely that it leads the whole region into the abyss of large-scale hostilities. Since the local beginnings of the Syrian conflict and the foundation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in 2011, many groups joined the fighting. They include ISIL with a sizeable number of fighters from around the world, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (Ex-Nusra Front), Hezbollah, Iranian and Afghan fighters, and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) - the latter dominated by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). In addition, states such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United States provided weapons and materiel to rebel groups. Turkish troops and special forces (backed by the FSA) launched attacks against Kurdish milita fighters who in turn had been supported by the USA. Israel carried out air strikes inside Syria against Hizbollah arm deliveries and other targets. For some observers, the situation is so hot it can spark a regional explosion at any time that might affect the whole area from Turkey over Lebanon and Iran all the way to Qatar and Yemen - with neither Russia nor the USA very likely to just sit there and watch. | |||
Close to the abyss, opportunities to negotiate still seem to disappear swifter than they arise. Chances for peace are treated as if they were a nuisance. As Michel Aoun (2013) said, it was a great mistake of historic proportions not to accept Assad's offer to negotiate Syria's future. Assad had offered at the beginning of the uprising to talk about the role of the Baath Party, and admitted that this party was not capable anymore to lead the country; he even conceded that new parties would have to be allowed. - In September 2015, The Guardian revealed that the USA had refused a Russian offer as early as in 2012 to have [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside Assad step aside for a negotiated peace deal]. And none less then Ahtisaari said that the West should have and could have prevented all this from happening. He called the Syrian war "a self-made disaster", and when speaking of the flow of refugees to Europe, he stated that he saw no other option "but to take good care of these poor people … We are paying the bills we have caused ourselves.” | |||
As Michael Lüders (2015: pp. 73) writes: "Die beiden großen Syrien-Konferenzen der UN, im Juni 2012 und im Januar 2014 in Genf, sind gescheitert, weil die 'Freunde des syrischen Volkes' auf einer Übergangsregierung bestanden, der Assad und idealerweise das gesamte Regime nicht mehr angehören sollten. Warum hätte er sich, warum hätten sich Russland und der Iran darauf einlassen sollen? Zur ersten Syrien-Konfernz war Teheran gar nicht erst eingeladen worden. Bei der zweiten suchte UN-Generalsekretär Ban Ki-moon, diesen Fehler zu korrigieren und lud die iranische Führung ein, um sie kurz vor Konferenzbeginn in einem beispiellosen Akt der Demütigung auf amerikanischen Druck hin wieder ausladen zu müssen. Die Politik der USA zwischen beiden Konferenzen war wesentlich darauf fokussiert, immer wieder Moskau und Peking zu geißeln. Vor allem Außenministerin Hillary Clinton tat sich hervor mit verbalen Angriffen: Russland und China würden ihre Unterstützung Assads 'teuer bezahlen', beider Verhalten sei 'verabscheuungswürdig', sie betrieben 'Obstruktion' und 'missbrauchten' die Vereinten Nationen, und so weiter. Im Übrigen wurden weitere Sanktionen gegen Damaskus verhängt, drohten die USA wiederholt mit militärischem Eingreifen, sagten aber die allseits erwartete Intervention nach dem Einsatz von Chemiewaffen im August 2013, mutmaßlich durch das Regime, überraschend ab. (...) Fehlende Diplomatie udn Kompromissbereitschaft im Umgang mit Russland und dem Iran haben ebenso wie das Festhalten an der vermeintlichen Alternative einer 'gemäßigten' Opposition den Weg geebnet für den weiteren Staatszerfall und den Vormarsch des 'Islamischen Staates' auch in Syrien. Gleichzeitig wurde Syrien neben dem Irak zum Schlachtfeld eines Stellvertreterkrieges zwischen Saudi-Arabien und dem Iran, eines zunehmend gefährlicheren Showdowns zwischen Sunniten und Schiiten, dessen Folgen noch gar nicht abzusehen sind." According to Lüders (2015: pp. 78) it was not the lack of resolve to topple Assad that had paved the way for ISIL to enter Syria, but the contrary is true. What made ISIL strong in Syria was the USA's determination to topple Assad. Had they succeeded, ISIL would now reign in Syria. - More recently, attempts to enter negotiations at Geneva, Lausanne, and Astana ended with no result. Looking back, the most striking aspect of the Syrian conflict is the absence of communication and negotiation. The question is legitimate: What is behind the catastrophical absence of communication - purpose or accident, madness or badness? | |||
Building upon Michael Lüders' (2015) ''Wer Wind sät'' this paper looks into the (f)utility of one or the other conceptual tool to further our understanding of what went wrong in Syria - and what continues to push the whole region ever closer to the abyss. | Building upon Michael Lüders' (2015) ''Wer Wind sät'' this paper looks into the (f)utility of one or the other conceptual tool to further our understanding of what went wrong in Syria - and what continues to push the whole region ever closer to the abyss. | ||
| Zeile 63: | Zeile 67: | ||
To sum it up: to the neutral observer, the U.S. narrative shows a clear cognitive distortion. In a way, though, such a focus on faulty communication tends to belittle the relevance of socio-economic interests, power structures, and legitimizing discourses. To say that conflict parties just do not talk enough and that they do not talk enough because they have different perceptions of who started it all and who is responsible for the conflict ("discrepant punctuation") simply does not grasp the fact that international politics are not governed by naively distorted perceptions, but that - as a rule - they at least contain a large portion of strategic modelling, and be it only for securing popular support in the electorate. While the political and the media discourses might look similar to the one-sidedness of a husband's narrative in a couple conflict, one should not rush to conclusions. While the husband may be given the benefit of naiveté, the White House discourse on Syria should be given credit for having been more carefully constructed to serve the foreign policy interests as defined by those in that House. Instead of being unable to prevent cognitive distortions in their perceptions and discourses, political actors in asymmetric conflicts are normally unwilling to refrain from distoring facts because they calculate that to do that kind of talking and to pursue that kind of walking will serve their most important objectives best. What they need, then, from those who believe in the power of justice and solidarity, is not therapy, but resistance. | To sum it up: to the neutral observer, the U.S. narrative shows a clear cognitive distortion. In a way, though, such a focus on faulty communication tends to belittle the relevance of socio-economic interests, power structures, and legitimizing discourses. To say that conflict parties just do not talk enough and that they do not talk enough because they have different perceptions of who started it all and who is responsible for the conflict ("discrepant punctuation") simply does not grasp the fact that international politics are not governed by naively distorted perceptions, but that - as a rule - they at least contain a large portion of strategic modelling, and be it only for securing popular support in the electorate. While the political and the media discourses might look similar to the one-sidedness of a husband's narrative in a couple conflict, one should not rush to conclusions. While the husband may be given the benefit of naiveté, the White House discourse on Syria should be given credit for having been more carefully constructed to serve the foreign policy interests as defined by those in that House. Instead of being unable to prevent cognitive distortions in their perceptions and discourses, political actors in asymmetric conflicts are normally unwilling to refrain from distoring facts because they calculate that to do that kind of talking and to pursue that kind of walking will serve their most important objectives best. What they need, then, from those who believe in the power of justice and solidarity, is not therapy, but resistance. | ||
*The war in Syria opened a window of opportunity for ISIL. Hama sunnites were looking for help against the shiite government forces, and ISIL saw a chance of toppling the shiite regime in Damascus. In 2012 and 2013, ISIL became active in Syria: holy scripture saying that the final victory will be handed to sunni moslems north of Aleppo close to the Turkish border at Al-A'maq or Dabiq against 42 armies (Lüders 2015: 88). | *The war in Syria opened a window of opportunity for ISIL. Hama sunnites were looking for help against the shiite government forces, and ISIL saw a chance of toppling the shiite regime in Damascus. In 2012 and 2013, ISIL became active in Syria: holy scripture saying that the final victory will be handed to sunni moslems north of Aleppo close to the Turkish border at Al-A'maq or Dabiq against 42 armies (Lüders 2015: 88). | ||
| Zeile 156: | Zeile 151: | ||
*In addition to Aleppo, the Syrian government currently controls the capital, Damascus, parts of southern Syria and Deir Az Zor, much of the area near the Syrian-Lebanese border, and the northwestern coastal region. Rebel groups, ISIL, and Kurdish forces control the rest of the country. | *In addition to Aleppo, the Syrian government currently controls the capital, Damascus, parts of southern Syria and Deir Az Zor, much of the area near the Syrian-Lebanese border, and the northwestern coastal region. Rebel groups, ISIL, and Kurdish forces control the rest of the country. | ||
= Role of the USA = | |||
Die USA verkünden westliche Werte, akzeptieren Wahlergebnisse aber nur, wenn der Gewinner genehm ist: Algerien 1992, Staatsstreich gegen Mursi 2013. Keine Einwände gegen Annullierung der ägyptischen Wahlen 2011/12 durch das Mubarak-treue Oberste Gericht. - Wer sich dem Hegemonieanspruch der USA widersetzt, wird mit Sanktionen überzogen. Iran, Syrien, Irak, Libyen, Russland ... Wenn ein Staat implodiert, antworten die USA mit unerklärten schmutzigen Kriegen, vielfach von Söldnern geführt, stets auf der Jagd nach Terroristen Drohnen in Pakistan, Jemen, Somalia, Libyen, Irak und zunehmend auch Syrien. "Über die Zahl der Todesopfer dieser offiziell meist geleugneten Einsätze lässt sich nur spekulieren, allein in Afghanistan sollen es i nden Jahren der Besatzung (2001-2014) über 10 000 gewesen sein, mehrheitlich Zivilisten, die meist als 'Kollatoralschaden' geführt werden (Lüders 2015: 112). | Die USA verkünden westliche Werte, akzeptieren Wahlergebnisse aber nur, wenn der Gewinner genehm ist: Algerien 1992, Staatsstreich gegen Mursi 2013. Keine Einwände gegen Annullierung der ägyptischen Wahlen 2011/12 durch das Mubarak-treue Oberste Gericht. - Wer sich dem Hegemonieanspruch der USA widersetzt, wird mit Sanktionen überzogen. Iran, Syrien, Irak, Libyen, Russland ... Wenn ein Staat implodiert, antworten die USA mit unerklärten schmutzigen Kriegen, vielfach von Söldnern geführt, stets auf der Jagd nach Terroristen Drohnen in Pakistan, Jemen, Somalia, Libyen, Irak und zunehmend auch Syrien. "Über die Zahl der Todesopfer dieser offiziell meist geleugneten Einsätze lässt sich nur spekulieren, allein in Afghanistan sollen es i nden Jahren der Besatzung (2001-2014) über 10 000 gewesen sein, mehrheitlich Zivilisten, die meist als 'Kollatoralschaden' geführt werden (Lüders 2015: 112). | ||
| Zeile 185: | Zeile 169: | ||
= Weblinks and Bibliography = | = Weblinks and Bibliography = | ||
*[http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/naher-osten/michel-aoun-im-f-a-z-gespraech-es-ist-kein-fruehling-es-ist-ie-hoelle-12020554.html Aoun, Michel (FAZ 11 January 2013) Es ist kein Frühling, es ist die Hölle. Interview mit Michel Aoun] | |||
*Blom Crocker, Terri (2015) The Christmas Truce: Myth, Memory, and the First World War. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. | *Blom Crocker, Terri (2015) The Christmas Truce: Myth, Memory, and the First World War. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. | ||
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/well-put-bin-laden-out-of-business-says-us-523771.html Buncombe, Andrew (The Independent, 20 January 2006) We'll put Bin Laden out of business, says US]. | *[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/well-put-bin-laden-out-of-business-says-us-523771.html Buncombe, Andrew (The Independent, 20 January 2006) We'll put Bin Laden out of business, says US]. | ||