{"id":1106,"date":"2012-04-08T00:32:51","date_gmt":"2012-04-07T22:32:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/?p=1106"},"modified":"2014-06-28T14:14:19","modified_gmt":"2014-06-28T12:14:19","slug":"solution-oriented-conflict-transformation-syria","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/2012\/solution-oriented-conflict-transformation-syria\/","title":{"rendered":"Solution Oriented Conflict Transformation – Syria"},"content":{"rendered":"

W<\/strong>e all feel desperate watching the horrible killing, feeling the suffering of the bereaved, the whole people.\u00a0 But, what to do? Could it be that the UN, and governments in general, have a tendency to make the same mistake, again and again, of putting the cart before the horse?<\/p>\n

The formula they use is generally:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[1] Get rid of No. 1[Mugabe-Saddam-Ghaddafi-Assad etc]<\/em> as key responsible, using sanctions; then<\/p>\n

[2] Cease-fire<\/em>, appealing to the parties, or intervening, imposing;<\/p>\n

[3] Negotiation<\/em> among all legitimate parties; and from that<\/p>\n

[4] A political solution<\/span><\/strong><\/em> as a compromise between the positions.<\/p>\n

It looks so logical.\u00a0 There is a key responsible, President Assad, ordering the killing; get rid of him by all means.\u00a0 Then the cease-fire, the fire ceasing; then negotiation, and then the solution emerges.\u00a0 Logical, yes; but maybe not very wise.<\/p>\n

No. [1],<\/strong> as identified by his own, by outsiders, and by the media in a Western No. 1-oriented culture, no doubt matters.\u00a0 But being that important, he may also hold some keys to the solutions<\/span><\/strong>.\u00a0 He may later step down or be ousted, but first listen to his words.<\/p>\n

No. [2],<\/strong> Cease-fire: Why would they do it with no acceptable solution<\/span><\/strong> in sight?\u00a0 Would that not be capitulation, even to outsiders?\u00a0 Useful for a break in the fighting, rest for the fighters, time to redeploy and to rearm; but neither necessary<\/span><\/strong> nor sufficient for a solution<\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

No. [3],<\/strong> Negotiation, with a major party eliminated, and a de facto<\/em> monitored capitulation?\u00a0 Whose agenda will be favored by that?<\/p>\n

No. [4]<\/strong>, A political solution?\u00a0 Indeed yes, but under these three conditions the outcome is given in advance.<\/p>\n

Let us look at the opposite order, [4]-[3]-[2]-[1].<\/strong>\u00a0 We start with a solution<\/span><\/strong>, then negotiation about details, if successful, even compelling, an armistice may emerge.\u00a0 And then, maybe, No. 1 steps down, having done his part of the job.<\/p>\n

But how can anybody find a solution<\/span><\/strong> when the killing is rampant? Well, the motivation is high.\u00a0 Make a cease-fire and the motivation dwindles, as we saw in Sri Lanka.\u00a0 Tourism picked up again, but the search for solutions<\/span><\/strong> abated down to zero, and the cease-fire was used by both for the purposes mentioned above.<\/p>\n

But how can there be a solution<\/span><\/strong> when key actors have their arms full of arms?\u00a0 Who said they should do it?\u00a0 They have deputies; moreover, the country is full of people who have given thoughts to the problems, not only to who is bad and who is good.\u00a0 And who are not only victory-oriented, but solution-oriented<\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The search could be for solutions<\/strong><\/em>,<\/span> not for the<\/strong><\/em> solution.\u00a0 Let 1,000 dialogues blossom, in each quarter, each village, enriching the gross national idea product, GNIP.\u00a0UN-supported facilitators, with knowledge of mediation, rather than with guns and binoculars.<\/p>\n

To do this, let the parties, outside and inside Syria, talk.\u00a0 Let them state their goals, the Syria they would like to see.<\/p>\n

First, an image of the goals of some outside parties:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Israel: wants Syria divided in smaller parts, detached from Iran, status quo for Golan Heights, and a new map for the Middle East;<\/li>\n
  2. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 USA: wants what Israel wants and control over oil, gas, pipelines;<\/li>\n
  3. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 UK: wants what USA wants;<\/li>\n
  4. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 France: co-responsible with the UK for post-Ottoman colonization in the area, wants confirmed friendship France-Syria;<\/li>\n
  5. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Russia: wants a naval base in the Mediterranean, and an \u201cally\u201d;<\/li>\n
  6. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 China: wants what Russia wants;<\/li>\n
  7. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 EU: wants both what Israel-USA wants and what France wants;<\/li>\n
  8. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Iran: wants Shia power;<\/li>\n
  9. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Iraq: majority Shia, wants what Iran wants;<\/li>\n
  10. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lebanon: wants to know what it wants;<\/li>\n
  11. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Saudi-Arabia: wants Sunni power;<\/li>\n
  12. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Egypt: wants to emerge as the conflict-manager;<\/li>\n
  13. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Qatar: wants the same as Saudi Arabia and Egypt;<\/li>\n
  14. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Gulf States: want what USA-UK wants;<\/li>\n
  15. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Arab League: wants no repetition of Libya, tries human rights;<\/li>\n
  16. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Turkey: wants to assert itself relative to the (Israel-USA) successors to the (France-UK-Italy) successors to the Ottoman Empire, and a buffer zone in Syria.<\/li>\n
  17. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 UN: wants to emerge as the conflict manager.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Over this looms a dark cloud: Syria is in the zone between Israel-USA-NATO and Shanghai Cooperation Organization-SCO, both expanding.<\/p>\n

    Then, an image of the goals of some inside parties:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Alawis<\/em> (15%): want to remain in power, \u201cfor the best of all\u201d;<\/li>\n
    2. Shias in general<\/em>: want the same;<\/li>\n
    3. Sunnis<\/em>: want majority rule, their rule, democracy;<\/li>\n
    4. Jews, Christians, minorities<\/em>: want security, fearing Sunni rule;<\/li>\n
    5. Kurds<\/em>: want high level autonomy, some community with other Kurds.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Every single statement here can be challenged and challenged again.\u00a0 But let us for the sake of the mental experiment assume that this image, with 16 outside and five inside parties, is more right than wrong.\u00a0 Is the terrible violence outside \u201cterrorism\u201d, or inside \u201cstate terrorism\u201d, against those wanting democracy?<\/p>\n

      Both. But asking who is more responsible in a powder keg, nitrate, sulfur, carbon, or the blow, or who constructed the powder keg (France) is not helpful.<\/p>\n

      Rather, is there any solution in sight? Not by violence.<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0 Whoever wins will be deeply resented by the rest, in a house and a region so deeply divided against itself. Not by sanctions, regardless of how deep, and broad, with Russia and China participating.\u00a0 It is like punishing a person with microbes and the immune system fighting inside for having fever.\u00a0The weaker the patient, the more contagious.<\/p>\n

      What comes to mind is a Swiss solution.\u00a0 One Syria<\/span><\/strong>, federal, with local autonomy, even down to the village level, with Sunnis, Shias and Kurds having relations to their own across the borders.\u00a0International peacekeeping, also for the protection of minorities.\u00a0 And non-aligned, which rules out foreign bases and flows of arms, but does not rule out compulsory arbitration for the Golan Heights (and June 1967 in general), with Israeli UN membership at stake.<\/p>\n

      Napoleon invaded to control Switzerland in 1798-1806, but gave up. \u00a0Will the present Napoleons, Netanyahu-Obama, do the same?<\/p>\n

      The alternatives are two more catastrophes: open war with Saudi-Jordan-Qatar; or R2P (Responsibility to Protect) a la<\/em> Libya, with 7,700 bombs and missiles.\u00a0 The winner is resented; and with no sustainable solution in sight.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      <\/p>\n

      <\/div>\n

      \n

      <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[188],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-1106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-announcements"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1106"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1106\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3108,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1106\/revisions\/3108"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1106"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.galtung-institut.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}