31.738
Bearbeitungen
Agonal Autism in the Syrian Conflict: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Agonal Autism in the Syrian Conflict (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 13. Juni 2017, 17:08 Uhr
, 17:08, 13. Jun. 2017→A March of Folly?
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| (7 dazwischenliegende Versionen desselben Benutzers werden nicht angezeigt) | |||
| Zeile 1: | Zeile 1: | ||
= A March of Folly? = | |||
The Western world sees itself as a community of values. Even when it comes to questions of military intervention, the heads of state and governments never fail to mention this vital aspect of their mission. At countless meetings, official statements solemnly declare their commitment to the heritage of Enlightenment, and their proud military alliance is no exception to the rule when it routinely affirms that "NATO member states form a unique community of values, committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law" [http://www.nato.int/cps/po/natohq/official_texts_68580.htm see: Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon 2010]. | |||
The problem is that the interventions undertaken by Western governments in the name of such good intentions - from Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria - tend to produce paradoxical results. Their secret manoeuvres, harsh sanction regimes and military interventions starved, maimed, tortured, displaced, repressed and/or killed literally millions all over the globe, toppled democratically elected governments, supported military coups, and forged the most reactionary alliances with ruthless dictators. More often than never, such actions were also doomed to failure in the sense that the "cure" did more harm than the original "disease" that had prompted the interventions. | |||
In all those cases, the risks were known to those in office, and alternative routes of action had been suggested to them by well-informed advisers, but had been ignored when the fatal decisions were being made. The frequency and the terrible consequences of such constellations in history had prompted Barbara Tuchman (1984) to write her bestselling book ''The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam.'' | |||
Michael Lüders' ''Wer den Wind sät. Was westliche Politik im Orient anrichtet'' (2015) can justly be seen as an equally successful sequel to this 30 years old March-of-Folly discourse. Lüders starts his account with the West's original sin of overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran (1953), and argues in impressive detail his case that the West is betraying its own values while at the same time pursuing a foolish policy that cannot but backfire against its own interests. The basic idea of the book is this: if we (the West) only did the right thing in terms of political values (respect democratic movements and human rights, refrain from supporting autocrats and hypocrites), it would create a win-win situation for both itself and the rest of the world. | |||
known and suggested to the respective Western governments, taken in the name of values and good intentions these values are also routinely being betrayed by Western governments. When it comes to geopolitics, our countries more often than not seem to take their advice not from their widely postulated ideals, but from a far more pragmatic primer, half a millenium old, once compiled by a mediocre poet for a ruthless Florentine prince. They betray democratic movements, ignore democratic elections, support military coups and hail repressive regimes. | |||
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. | 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. | ||
Strangely enough for such a risky situation, 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 | As Michael Lüders (2015: pp. 73) writes, the two UN Syria conferences of June 2012 and January 2014 did not produce results, because the "Friends of Syria" insisted on the removal of Assad's regime even before installing any transitional government - and on the exclusion of Iran from the negotiating table. Iran had not been invited to the first conference, and it was being disinvited under humiliating circumstances due to US pressure from the second one. The US policy of lambasting Moscow and Peking and of ever increasing the pressure of sanctions against Damascus lacked intelligence and sensibility. Bad diplomacy and lack of readiness for compromise with Russia and Iran as well as clinging on to the supposed alternative of a "moderate" opposition paved the way for the weakening of the Syrian state and the rise of ISIL. Simultaneously, Syria turned into the arena of a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which gave the conflict an ever stronger sectarian character as a war between the shia and the sunnni factions of Islam - a development with consequences hard to assess. | ||
With hindsight, the most striking aspect of the Syrian conflict is the absence of communication and negotiation. The question therefore must be answered: 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. | ||
= Agonal Partnership = | = Nostalgia and Dystopia = | ||
==Agonal Partnership == | |||
Here is one hypothesis: while it has always been difficult to make the step from sword to talk, communication is much more difficult in the new age of asymmetric and unconventional warfare with its recurrent complaint by state parties to be suffering from a "lack of partners for peace". It was a great advantage of "old" wars that they were culturally embedded in a network of practices, customs, rules, and meta-rules that allowed for institutionalized (meta-) communication even while the fighting was still going on. That permitted phenomena like the Christmas Truce of 1914 (Blom Crocker 2015) to happen - or the story of a German flying behind the British lines to deliver a letter written by an enemy he had shot down himself (Seamark 2012): | Here is one hypothesis: while it has always been difficult to make the step from sword to talk, communication is much more difficult in the new age of asymmetric and unconventional warfare with its recurrent complaint by state parties to be suffering from a "lack of partners for peace". It was a great advantage of "old" wars that they were culturally embedded in a network of practices, customs, rules, and meta-rules that allowed for institutionalized (meta-) communication even while the fighting was still going on. That permitted phenomena like the Christmas Truce of 1914 (Blom Crocker 2015) to happen - or the story of a German flying behind the British lines to deliver a letter written by an enemy he had shot down himself (Seamark 2012): | ||
| Zeile 16: | Zeile 32: | ||
Their irregularity makes unconventional parties vulnerable to be defined as terrorists. This label paves the way for extermination rather than negotiation. As White House Speaker Scott McClellan said when asked how the United States would react to Usama bin Laden's offer to negotiate a truce in 2006, "We don't negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business" (Buncombe 2006). As soon as you call your enemies "terrorists" you promise yourself and others not to negotiate with them for both pragmatic (lack of trustworthiness) and deontologial ("thou shalt not negotiate with terrorists") reasons. | Their irregularity makes unconventional parties vulnerable to be defined as terrorists. This label paves the way for extermination rather than negotiation. As White House Speaker Scott McClellan said when asked how the United States would react to Usama bin Laden's offer to negotiate a truce in 2006, "We don't negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business" (Buncombe 2006). As soon as you call your enemies "terrorists" you promise yourself and others not to negotiate with them for both pragmatic (lack of trustworthiness) and deontologial ("thou shalt not negotiate with terrorists") reasons. | ||
= Agonal Autism = | == Agonal Autism == | ||
If we try to find a way to describe the Syrian situation today, we have to look for an antonym to the Mühlmannina term of agonal partnership - a search that could produce a term like "agonal autism". That would refer to the lack of communality, and the non-functioning of social communication and interaction including a basic lack of reciprocity. In people with an autistic personality disorder this comes to show in the problems that appear in everyday rituals like meeting and leaving, asking, giving and thanking, reciprocal smiles, frowns etc. - To be sure, the clinical term of autism has quite a varied use from Eugen Bleuler's first use in 1911 as a central symptom of schizophrenia over Sigmund Freud's equation of autism with narcissism, and all the way to today's everyday use to refer to persons with an excessive self-centeredness and who are in need of help because of their living mostly in their own imagination. While it may certainly be seen as objectionable to pick a term of individual pathology to draw analogies to political strategies, one may decide to provisionally accept this manoeuvre - and be it ''faute de mieux'' until some more appropriate term emerges. | If we try to find a way to describe the Syrian situation today, we have to look for an antonym to the Mühlmannina term of agonal partnership - a search that could produce a term like "agonal autism". That would refer to the lack of communality, and the non-functioning of social communication and interaction including a basic lack of reciprocity. In people with an autistic personality disorder this comes to show in the problems that appear in everyday rituals like meeting and leaving, asking, giving and thanking, reciprocal smiles, frowns etc. - To be sure, the clinical term of autism has quite a varied use from Eugen Bleuler's first use in 1911 as a central symptom of schizophrenia over Sigmund Freud's equation of autism with narcissism, and all the way to today's everyday use to refer to persons with an excessive self-centeredness and who are in need of help because of their living mostly in their own imagination. While it may certainly be seen as objectionable to pick a term of individual pathology to draw analogies to political strategies, one may decide to provisionally accept this manoeuvre - and be it ''faute de mieux'' until some more appropriate term emerges. | ||
Agonal autism lacks the prerequisites of agonal partnership, i.e. it lacks the option to change from a first level of antagonism (fighting each other) to a second one consisting of communication about the conflict). Lacking such a normative framework on a meta-level, a party to a conflict is condemned to a radically self-centered perception, conceptualization, and action within a conflict. Parties fight each other, but with regard to the codes of right/wrong, good/bad, legal/illegal, etc., their autism confines them within the conceptual walls of their own subjective world view and reality. All of this would be innocuous were it not for the fact that - as the Thomas theorem goes - "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences" (Thomas & Thomas 1928: 571-2). In other words: If a party to a conflict believes that the enemy is "really" neither willing nor able nor worth to negotiate, then the reality will be shaped accordingly: there will be no | Agonal autism lacks the prerequisites of agonal partnership, i.e. it lacks the option to change from a first level of antagonism (fighting each other) to a second one consisting of communication about the conflict). Lacking such a normative framework on a meta-level, a party to a conflict is condemned to a radically self-centered perception, conceptualization, and action within a conflict. Parties fight each other, but with regard to the codes of right/wrong, good/bad, legal/illegal, etc., their autism confines them within the conceptual walls of their own subjective world view and reality. All of this would be innocuous were it not for the fact that - as the Thomas theorem goes - "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences" (Thomas & Thomas 1928: 571-2). In other words: If a party to a conflict believes that the enemy is "really" neither willing nor able nor worth to negotiate, then the reality will be shaped accordingly: there will be no negotiations (even if the enemy were willing and able). | ||
= | = Do Governments Need Therapy? = | ||
Why people develop a perceptional and interactional self-centeredness is not really difficult to understand. It is a function of self-preservation. Even extreme self-centeredness is a natural phenomenon. At least in developmental psychology. There, narcissism is the dominant trait during the first months of a human baby's life. As development proceeds, narcissism is being refined and reduced and ends up as a healthy "ego-ideal" in the adult (just like the super-ego can be seen as what is left in the adult person of the earlier Oediupus conflict). | == Agonal Autism as a Problem of Communication == | ||
What we have called by the provisional name of agonal autism seems closely related to the phenomenon of so-called ''discrepant punctuation'' (Watzlawick et al. 1967), i.e. a narrative that reconstructs a sequence of events in a conflict in favor of the narrating participant. Just think of two children reporting their fight to their parents: each one will tend to ascribe responsibility for what has happened to the other one, claiming that he/she had only reacted to what the other one had done: "He started it all - he left me no choice!"). | |||
Why people develop such a perceptional and interactional self-centeredness is not really difficult to understand. It is a function of self-preservation. Even extreme self-centeredness is a natural phenomenon. At least in developmental psychology. There, narcissism is the dominant trait during the first months of a human baby's life. As development proceeds, narcissism is being refined and reduced and ends up as a healthy "ego-ideal" in the adult (just like the super-ego can be seen as what is left in the adult person of the earlier Oediupus conflict). | |||
Of course, there are all kinds of risks and hazards on the way to what is considered a well-balanced adult. In developmental criminology, some theorists (e.g. Kaplan 1980) contend that the need for a defense against low self-esteem (brought about by low performance in school) can be seen as a motivating factor for delinquent behavior (with defensiveness operationalized as a discrepancy between scores on measures of high conscious self-esteem and low unconscious esteem). | Of course, there are all kinds of risks and hazards on the way to what is considered a well-balanced adult. In developmental criminology, some theorists (e.g. Kaplan 1980) contend that the need for a defense against low self-esteem (brought about by low performance in school) can be seen as a motivating factor for delinquent behavior (with defensiveness operationalized as a discrepancy between scores on measures of high conscious self-esteem and low unconscious esteem). | ||
In social psychology, a certain self-centeredness in the service of the defense of self can be seen manifesting itself in dyadic conflicts between individuals, such as in long-standing conflicts between husband and wife. Here, each partner tends to have his/her own narrative of who treated whom unfairly first. | In social psychology, a certain self-centeredness in the service of the defense of self can be seen manifesting itself in dyadic conflicts between individuals, such as in long-standing conflicts between husband and wife. Here, each partner tends to have his/her own narrative of who treated whom unfairly first. The fundamental reason why different narratives about conflicts exist has to do with the fact that - in any longer chain of events - every item in the sequence can simultaneously be seen as stimulus, response, and reinforcement. As Bateson & Jackson (1964: 273-4) explained: "A given item of A's behavior is a stimulus insofar as it is followed by an item contributed by B and that by another item contributed by A. But insofer as A's item is sanwiched between two items contributed by B, it is a response. Similarly A's item is a reinforcement insofar as it follows an item contributed by B. The ongoing interchanges, then, which we are here discussing, constitute a chain of overlapping triadic links, each of which is comparable to a stimulus-response-reinforcement sequence. We can take any triad of our interchange and see it as a single trial in a stimulus response learning experiment. - If we look at the conventional learning experiments from this point of view, we observe at once that repeated trials amount to a differentiation of relationship between the two organisms concerned - the experimenter and his subject. The sequence of trials is so punctuated that it is always the experimenter who seems to provide the 'stimuli' and the 'reinforcements', while the subject provides the 'responses'. These words are here deliberately put in quotation marks because the role definitions are in fact only created by the willingness of the organisms to accept the system of punctuation. The 'reality' of the role definitions is only of the same order as the reality of a bat on a Rorschach card - a more or less over-determined creation of the perceptive process. The rat who said 'I have got my experimenter trained. Each time I press the lever he gives me food' was declining to accept the punctuation of the sequence which the experimenter was seeking to impose." | ||
The reason why different narratives about conflicts exist | |||
:"A given item of A's behavior is a stimulus insofar as it is followed by an item contributed by B and that by another item contributed by A. But insofer as A's item is sanwiched between two items contributed by B, it is a response. Similarly A's item is a reinforcement insofar as it follows an item contributed by B. The ongoing interchanges, then, which we are here discussing, constitute a chain of overlapping triadic links, each of which is comparable to a stimulus-response-reinforcement sequence. We can take any triad of our interchange and see it as a single trial in a stimulus response learning experiment. - If we look at the conventional learning experiments from this point of view, we observe at once that repeated trials amount to a differentiation of relationship between the two organisms concerned - the experimenter and his subject. The sequence of trials is so punctuated that it is always the experimenter who seems to provide the 'stimuli' and the 'reinforcements', while the subject provides the 'responses'. These words are here deliberately put in quotation marks because the role definitions are in fact only created by the willingness of the organisms to accept the system of punctuation. The 'reality' of the role definitions is only of the same order as the reality of a bat on a Rorschach card - a more or less over-determined creation of the perceptive process. The rat who said 'I have got my experimenter trained. Each time I press the lever he gives me food' was declining to accept the punctuation of the sequence which the experimenter was seeking to impose. | |||
Every party to a conflict tends to see the other party as the cause of the grievance, and its own actions as a reaction to the other party's misbehavior. According to Watzlawick et al. (1967), disagreement about how to punctuate a sequence of events is at the root of countless relationship struggles: | Every party to a conflict tends to see the other party as the cause of the grievance, and its own actions as a reaction to the other party's misbehavior. According to Watzlawick et al. (1967), disagreement about how to punctuate a sequence of events is at the root of countless relationship struggles: | ||
| Zeile 38: | Zeile 53: | ||
The evident function of clinging to one's own version of the sequence of events is - again - the defense of the worth and integrity of one's own self. The longer and the more costly those discrepant punctuations of sequences of events become, the more it will turn into a threat to a common good (the existence as a couple as such). In such a situation it is good to reach out for a third party (a therapist) who can observe the couple from a meta-level of communication and devise methods of cautious interventions with the goal of slowly opening both partners to the perceptions of the other. | The evident function of clinging to one's own version of the sequence of events is - again - the defense of the worth and integrity of one's own self. The longer and the more costly those discrepant punctuations of sequences of events become, the more it will turn into a threat to a common good (the existence as a couple as such). In such a situation it is good to reach out for a third party (a therapist) who can observe the couple from a meta-level of communication and devise methods of cautious interventions with the goal of slowly opening both partners to the perceptions of the other. | ||
Nothing is more tempting than to transfer the image of the husband-wife-conflict with its mutually exclusive narratives about causes and responsibilities ("you started it all, I only react to what you are doing to me") onto the level of international conflicts. | Nothing is more tempting than to transfer the image of the husband-wife-conflict with its mutually exclusive narratives about causes and responsibilities ("you started it all, I only react to what you are doing to me") onto the level of international conflicts. | ||
During the Cold War, there was much talk about that. It went something like this: If one could reveal the blind spots of both sides' views of East-West conflict during the Cold War, one might help governments to overcome those perceptual limitations and prejudices, and conflicts could be resolved in almost no time at all. The hottest candidate was Carl Rogers' person-centered talking therapy. Did not Rogers himself propagate that? And even if this might be a false memory, it is a proven fact that Watzlawick himself did apply the concept of discrepant punctuation to the case of the East-West arms race (Watzlawick et al. 1967), implying that - given a third party to help them climb the meta-level of communication - things could be easily resolved. And it is not implausible at all that such a thought was behind more recent attempts to apply the concept of discrepant punctuation to the interaction sequences between the United States and Al Qaida in the War on Terror. Thanks to Malick's (2011) analysis, it can be treated as an established fact that there are indeed mutually irreconcilable narratives in the Al Qaida conflict - and it would come as a great surprise if the same were not true in the case of Syria that we are dealing with today. | During the Cold War, there was much talk about that. It went something like this: If one could reveal the blind spots of both sides' views of East-West conflict during the Cold War, one might help governments to overcome those perceptual limitations and prejudices, and conflicts could be resolved in almost no time at all. The hottest candidate was Carl Rogers' person-centered talking therapy. Did not Rogers himself propagate that? And even if this might be a false memory, it is a proven fact that Watzlawick himself did apply the concept of discrepant punctuation to the case of the East-West arms race (Watzlawick et al. 1967), implying that - given a third party to help them climb the meta-level of communication - things could be easily resolved. And it is not implausible at all that such a thought was behind more recent attempts to apply the concept of discrepant punctuation to the interaction sequences between the United States and Al Qaida in the War on Terror. Thanks to Malick's (2011) analysis, it can be treated as an established fact that there are indeed mutually irreconcilable narratives in the Al Qaida conflict - and it would come as a great surprise if the same were not true in the case of Syria that we are dealing with today. | ||
== Western Policy as a March of Folly ? == | |||
The question does not seem to be "If" there is a cognitive distortion in the Western narrative, but "Why". How is it possible that the world's only remaining superpower comes up with such a distored narrative? How can it be so blind to its own mistakes? How can a government follow an evidently self-defeating policy even though it knows that there is an alternative path of action? Such questions have been asked before with regard to other similarly compelling politica paradoxes. Why is it that governments pursue policies contrary to their own interests - from Vietnam over the counterproductive War on Terror all the way to Syria? | The question does not seem to be "If" there is a cognitive distortion in the Western narrative, but "Why". How is it possible that the world's only remaining superpower comes up with such a distored narrative? How can it be so blind to its own mistakes? How can a government follow an evidently self-defeating policy even though it knows that there is an alternative path of action? Such questions have been asked before with regard to other similarly compelling politica paradoxes. Why is it that governments pursue policies contrary to their own interests - from Vietnam over the counterproductive War on Terror all the way to Syria? | ||
| Zeile 51: | Zeile 65: | ||
The lesson from this kind of thinking leads to a simple conclusion even if that may be hard to realize in practice: let us elect more intellectually capable leaders, or, if that does not work, let us at least try to educate those in power to the highest degree possible with the best adivsors imaginable. And maybe, one or the other of our leaders could see a talking therapist. | The lesson from this kind of thinking leads to a simple conclusion even if that may be hard to realize in practice: let us elect more intellectually capable leaders, or, if that does not work, let us at least try to educate those in power to the highest degree possible with the best adivsors imaginable. And maybe, one or the other of our leaders could see a talking therapist. | ||
= | = The Spectre of a Higher Rationality = | ||
An alternative approach would suggest that what seems self-defeating, dumb, and ineffective might look irrational at first sight only, but reveal a certain sense and rationality if seen in a larger context. Seemingly irrational phenomena in politics might turn out to be rational as part of a larger scheme. That is the idea of George Tsebelis in his book on ''Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics'' (1990). | An alternative approach would suggest that what seems self-defeating, dumb, and ineffective might look irrational at first sight only, but reveal a certain sense and rationality if seen in a larger context. Seemingly irrational phenomena in politics might turn out to be rational as part of a larger scheme. That is the idea of George Tsebelis in his book on ''Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics'' (1990). | ||
| Zeile 70: | Zeile 84: | ||
*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). | ||
* | *To keep Iran under pressure, even though the country would be a natural ally against the sunni extremists, is ideologically motivated nonsense and a result of an erroneous solidarity with Israel and the Gulf states. ... To get out of the dead-end street, Western governments would have to include all stakeholders, including Russia and China. This will not happen, because the US policy follows a path of hegemonial reasoning that does not accept the idea of a world balance of powers, but that wants to defend and strengthen US global supremacy. Chances are that this lack of pragmatism will finally accelerate the downfall of this superpower(cf. Lüders 2015: 100). | ||
= Role of the USA = | |||
The USA proclaim Western values, but they only accept election results of their liking. See: Algeria 1992, the coup d'état against Mursi 2013. They did not object the nullification of the Egyptian elections 2011/12 by the highest court still loyel to Mubarak. - Whoever resists the imperial will of the USA is subjected to sanctions: Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Russia ... - When necessary, the USA wage dirty wars, often carried out by soldiers of fortune and always chasing terrorists: drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, and increasingly Syria. In Afghanistan this kind of warfare has been estimated to have killed 10 000 people during the occupation years (2001-14), mostly civilians counted as collateral damage" (Lüders 2015: 112). | |||
Verbündete der USA sind vorzugsweise Diktatoren und Feudalherrscher. Aber auch terroristische Organisationen. Das Ideal ist der "delegierte Krieg": andere bis hin zu guten Dschihadisten übernehmen, gewissermaßen im Franchise-Verfahren, Ordnungsaufgaben im Sinne der USA. (112 f.). | |||
Amerikas Freunde sind Ägypten und Saudi-Arabien, Kuweit und die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate sowie - vor allem Israel. Sie bilden eine reaktionäre Heilige Allianz à la 1815, die im Namen der Terrorbekämpfung jeden Ansatz demokratischen Aufbegehrens in der Region zu unterdrücken sucht. | |||
Die Parteinahme für reaktionäre Autokratien beruht nicht zuletzt auf der Annahme, sie würde freiheitliche und liberale Werte gegenüber den Muslimbrüdern verteidigen. Man glaubt, dass sich die religiösen Überzeugungen von Islamisten nicht vereinbaren ließen mit der Respektierung von Demokratie, Pluralismus und Frauenrechten. Vor allem aber haben die Islamisten bestimmte vage Vorstellungen von einer arabischen Welt, mit Selbstbewusstsein und Unabhängigkeitsstreben - was man von den Allianzpartnern der USA glücklicherweise nicht zu befürchten hat. (vgl. Lüders 2015: 127 f.). | |||
Wer den Wahabismus, Al-Qaida oder den IS geschwächt sehen möchte, tut gut daran, in den Muslimbrüdern eine Alternative zu erkennen. (130). Westliche Politik begeht aber den Fehler, sich immer enger an die wahabitischen Saudis und an das Dreieck Saudi-Arabien, Ägypten, Israel anzulehnen und (ausgerechnet) die Muslimbrüder als Bedrohung zu sehen. Richtig wäre es andersherum. | |||
Der zweite große Fehler besteht in dem Glauben, eine sunnitische Koalition aus Golfstaaten und Türkei könnte den IS besiegen. Das kann aber nicht gelingen. So laufen die USA und Europa Gefahr, "in einen Krieg der Golfstaaten gegen die Schiiten im Irak und im Iran hineingezogen zu werden" (134). | |||
Der dritte große Fehler ist die Iran-Politik: seit 1993 "dual containment" against Irak and Iran. Auf Israel-Lobby zurückzuführen. Hat auch mit der israelischen Hizbollah-Obsession zu tun. Hatte Israel nach langer Besatzung (1982-2000) zum Abzug genötigt. Israel und AIPAC April 1995: Comprehensive U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action.. - AIPAC verfolgt zwei geostrategische Ziele: Iran politisch und wirtschaftlich zu isolieren und Gründung eines palästinensischen Staates verhindern (135). Reformer Chatami (1997-2005) läuft gegen eine Wand. Nach 11. September 2001 geht Bush von Containment zur Strategie regionaler Transformation über: Regimewechsel in Irak und Iran. Nachdem Iran 2002 zur Achse des Bösen kam, erschienen 2003 reihenweise Artikel, die auf einen Krieg gegen Iran und regime change hinarbeiteten. Mit erstaunlichem Erfolg überzeugt Israel die USA und Europa, dass eine Atommacht Iran mit allen Mitteln verhindert werden müsse (136). Ahmadineschad (2005-2013) war Wasser auf die israelischen und amerikanischen Mühlen. El Baradei beschreibt, wie die USA vielfach in letzter Minute eine Einigung im Atomstreit verhinderten und stattdessen die Sanktionsschraube weiter andrehten (136-138). | |||
Der vierte große Fehler ist der Glaube, dass wir die Guten und die anderen die Bösen sind. Wir übersehen dabei, dass ein Großteil der Menschheit ein Leben in Ohnmacht führt, vielfach entrechtet und ohne Chance. Wir begreifen nicht, dass es an der Zeit ist, die Selbstgerechtigkeit und den heuchelnden Moralismus abzulegen. Wenn Menschenrechte dazu dienen, eigene Machtpolitik zu tarnen oder unliebsame Politiker anzugehen, während sie sonst - man denke an die Verbündeten Ägypten, Saudi-Arabien u.a. - keine Rolle spielen, werden sie zu Worthülsen und machen den Westen nicht gerade zum Lieblingskind derjenigen, die das Spiel durchschauen. | |||
= 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. | |||
*[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]. | |||
*[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronik_des_Bürgerkriegs_in_Syrien_2011 Chronik des Bürgerkriegs in Syrien 2011, in: de.wikipedia.org] | |||
*Clausewitz, Carl von (1966) Meine Vorlesungen über den kleinen Krieg, gehalten auf der Kriegs-Schule 1810 und 1811, in: Clausewitz, Carl von: Schriften, Aufsätze, Studien, Briefe, Bd. 1, hrsg. von Werner Hahlweg, Göttingen: 208-599. | |||
*[https://www.thelocal.ch/20170306/genevas-syria-talks-end-on-more-positive-note Geneva's Syria talks end on 'more positive' note. AFP 6 March 2017] | |||
*[http://www.bpb.de/apuz/26279/krieg-und-politik-im-21-jahrhundert?p=all Hoch, Martin (2002) Krieg und Politik im 21. Jahrhundert. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 20/2001] | |||
*Kaplan, Howard B. (1980) Deviant Behavior in Defense of Self. San Diego: Academic Press. | |||
*Lüders, Michael (2015) Wer den Wind sät. Was westliche Politik im Orient anrichtet. München: C.H. Beck. | |||
*[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199749/Gentlemen-skies-The-German-flying-ace-shot-British-World-War-I-pilots--risked-life-deliver-letter-telling-superiors-alright.html Seamark, Michael (Daily Mail Online, 7 September 2012) Gentleman of the skies: German flew behind enemy lines to deliver letter from Brit he shot down] | |||
*[http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-explained-160505084119966.html Syria's civil war explained from the beginning. Al Jazeera 16.05.2016] | |||
*Thomas, William I. & Dorothy S. Thomas (1928) The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf, 1928. | |||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War Syrian Civil War, in: en.wikipedia.org] | |||
*Tsebelis, George (1990) Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: U of California Press. | |||
*Tuchman, Barbara W (1984) The March of Folly. From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Knopf. | |||
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zunes/congress-and-lebanon_b_107439.html Zunes, Stephen (HuffPost 25 June 2008, reposted from Foreign Policy in Focus 10 June 2008) Congress and Lebanon] | |||
| Zeile 124: | Zeile 173: | ||
== 2015 == | == 2015 == | ||
*September: Russia launches a bombing campaign against what it referred to as "terrorist groups" in Syria, which included ISIL as well as rebel groups backed by western states. Russia has also deployed military advisers to shore up Assad's defences. | *September: Russia launches a bombing campaign against what it referred to as "terrorist groups" in Syria, which included ISIL as well as rebel groups backed by western states. Russia has also deployed military advisers to shore up Assad's defences. | ||
*October: the US scrapped its controversial programme to train Syrian rebels, after it was revealed that it had spent $500m but only trained 60 fighters. | *October: the US scrapped its controversial programme to train Syrian rebels, after it was revealed that it had spent $500m but only trained 60 fighters. | ||
| Zeile 147: | Zeile 192: | ||
*At the UN Security Council, Russia has vetoed eight Western-backed resolutions on Syria, while China vetoed six resolutions. | *At the UN Security Council, Russia has vetoed eight Western-backed resolutions on Syria, while China vetoed six resolutions. | ||
*US administration claims it found evidence of a crematorium in the notorious Saydnaya prison. According to the reports, the Syrian regime is using the crematorium to cover up the number of those killed in prison. | *US administration claims it found evidence of a crematorium in the notorious Saydnaya prison. According to the reports, the Syrian regime is using the crematorium to cover up the number of those killed in prison. | ||
*According to the SDF, Tabqa and the adjacent dam were recaptured from ISIL, which leaves no other major ISIL-held urban settlements on the eastern road to Raqqa. | *According to the SDF, Tabqa and the adjacent dam were recaptured from ISIL, which leaves no other major ISIL-held urban settlements on the eastern road to Raqqa. | ||