What to do about Syria?

By Johan Galtung Reprint | | Print |

Alfaz, Spain, Mar 28 2012 (IPS) - We all feel desperate watching the horrible killings, the suffering of the bereaved and the whole population. But what can be done?

Could it be that the U.N., and governments in general, have a tendency to repeat the same mistake, starting at the wrong end? They usually apply this formula:

First, get rid of No. 1, as the key responsible figure/actor, using sanctions;

Second, implement a ceasefire, by appealing to the parties, or by intervention;

Third, negotiations among all legitimate parties;

Finally, a political solution as a compromise.

It seems logical. There is a key figure, President Assad, ordering the killing; oust him by all means. Then the ceasefire, negotiations, and finally the solution emerges. This may be logical, but it is not very wise.

No. 1 no doubt matters. But being that important, he may also hold some keys to the solutions. He may later step down, or be ousted, but first listen to him.

Why should the parties accept a ceasefire when there is no acceptable solution in sight? Would that not be capitulation? Would it not give the adversary time for redeployment and rearmament? Though desirable, it is neither necessary nor sufficient as a solution.

Whose agenda will be favoured by negotiations after a major party has been eliminated?

A political solution? Yes, but under the three conditions above, the outcome is predetermined.

Consider the opposite sequence. Start with a solution, then negotiations about details. If the solution is successful, even compelling, an armistice may follow. And then, maybe, No. 1 steps down, having done his part of the task.

But how can anybody find a solution when the killing goes on?

Well, the motivation is high. After a ceasefire, the motivation dwindles, as we saw in Sri Lanka. Tourism returned, but the search for solutions disappeared, and both sides used the ceasefire as an excuse to regroup.

How can there be a solution when the key actors are fighting?

They need not negotiate themselves, they can send deputies; besides, the country is full of solution-oriented people, not only victory-oriented, who have reflected on the problems, not only about who is bad or good.

The search could be for several solutions, not only one. Let 1000 dialogues blossom, in each quarter, each village. The U.N. should send facilitators, with knowledge of mediation, rather than with guns and binoculars.

To do this, let the parties, outside and inside Syria, talk. Let them state their goals for the Syria they would like to see.

The following is an impression of the goals of some outside parties:

Israel: wants Syria divided into smaller parts, detached from Iran, status quo for the Golan Heights, and a new map for the Middle East;

USA: wants what Israel wants and control over oil, gas, pipelines;

UK: wants what USA wants;

France: co-responsible with the UK for post-Ottoman colonisation in the area, wants confirmed friendship with Syria;

Russia: wants a naval base in the Mediterranean, and an “ally”;

China: wants what Russia wants;

EU: wants what Israel-USA and France want;

Iran: wants Shia power;

Iraq: majority Shia, wants Shia power;

Lebanon: wants to know what it wants;

Saudi Arabia: wants Sunni power;

Egypt: wants to emerge as the conflict-manager;

Qatar: wants the same as Saudi Arabia and Egypt;

Gulf States: want what USA-UK want;

The Arab League: wants no repetition of Libya, tries human rights;

Turkey: wants to assert itself relative to Israel-USA, successor to the colonisers France-UK-Italy that divided up the Ottoman Empire.

It also wants a buffer zone in Syria.

U.N.: wants to emerge as the conflict-manager.

Over this looms a dark cloud: Syria is between Israel-USA-NATO and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (Russia, China and Central Asia, with India and Iran as observers), both expanding powers.

Next is an image of the goals of some inside parties:

Alawis (15%): want to remain in power;

Shia: want the same;

Sunni: want majority rule, their rule, democracy;

Jews, Christians, minorities: want security, fearing Sunni rule;

Kurds: want high-level autonomy and some community with other Kurds.

All of these views can be challenged, but let us for the sake of a mental experiment assume that this image, with 16 outside and five inside parties, is more right than wrong.

Who is responsible, those inciting violence against the state, or the violent “state terrorism” against pro-democracy protestors? 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.

What is important is whether there is any solution in sight.

Not by violence. Whoever wins will be intensely resented by the rest, in a deeply divided region.

Not by sanctions. It is like punishing a person for having fever when microbes and the immune system fight inside.

What presents itself is a Swiss solution. One Syria, federal, with local autonomy, even down to the village level, with Sunnis, Shia and Kurds maintaining relationships with their own kind across borders.

International peacekeeping, also for the protection of minorities.

And non-alignment, ruling out foreign bases and flows of arms, but not compulsory arbitration for the Golan Heights, with Israeli-U.N. membership at stake.

Grammatically the above graph should read:

“There should be an international peacekeeping force, particularly for the protection of minorities, and non-alignment, ruling out foreign bases and flows of arms; but, with Israeli-U.N. membership at stake, there should not be compulsory arbitration for the Golan Heights.”

Napoleon invaded and occupied Switzerland from 1798-1806, but gave up. Will the present Napoleons, Netanyahu-Obama, do the same?

The alternatives are two further catastrophes: open war with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar; or another Libya, where the victor is resented and no sustainable solution is in sight.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Johan Galtung, Rector of the TRANSCEND Peace University, is author of “The Fall of the US Empire–And Then What?” ( www.transcend.org )