Mindful questions on the conflict in Syria

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article surveys the Syrian war from its beginning in 2011, when protests against torture and repression were met with mass detention and killings, through the formation of the Free Syrian Army, the alignment of regional and international powers behind the opposing sides, the entry of ISIS and the resulting shift in United States priorities, the use of chemical weapons including the attack at Douma in 2018, and the accusations levelled by the United Nations against both government and opposition forces for killings, sexual violence, torture and the denial of water, food and healthcare. The author then sets out the humanitarian status quo: some 6.5 million people who have fled to Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon, more than six million trapped inside the country, minimal humanitarian access with some 2.9 million people in remote areas unreached, and children among those most affected, alongside renewed military escalation in Idlib, Aleppo and Hama and the repeated failure of demilitarised and security zone arrangements. The closing section poses a series of questions about the true drivers of the war and the real interests of the external actors, and argues that the international community has never brought the government and the rebels to one table to identify the underlying issue, concluding that without a redefinition of external interests and better conflict handling techniques, peacekeeping and safe zones will remain unattainable. Readers should note that the framing and attribution of motives in this article reflect the author’s own perspective; the editorial position of this journal is neutral as between the parties and their accounts of the conflict.

KEYWORDS *

Syria, civil war, humanitarian crisis, refugees, chemical weapons, ISIS, international intervention, safe zones, mediation, United Nations, Idlib, displacement

INTRODUCTION

The war began in 2011 when the public was protesting wrongful, and torture in the country, President Bashar Al-Assad reacted by imprisoning of more people and killing hundreds of them. That led to the formation of a rebel group known as the Free Syrian Army to oust the authoritative regime in July 2011 (BBC News, 2019). The Middle East countries like Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are against such acts, thus support the opposition while Iran supports the president and has supplied soldiers to reinforce the government forces. Besides, it has emerged as a backyard for international intervention where the US backs the rebels as Russia supports the government. That has even escalated the war leading to the displacement of several people from the country.

When ISIS joined the rebels to fight against the President, the US reacted by training a section of the rebels to fight the Islamic States in Iraq rather than fighting the authoritative president. For that matter, the president has applied chemical weapons to kill civilians as the US intervene using airstrikes (Bijlani, 2017). The united nations have accused both the opposition and the government of committing human crimes such as manslaughter, rape, and torture besides preventing access to essentials of life like water, food, and healthcare. The latest chemical attack occurred in July 2018 in Douma where 40 people died and several others injured. Several others died later due to suffocation and injuries (BBC News, 2018). Currently, the war has existed more than World War II.

MAIN CORPUS

Status Quo

Currently, more than half the population of Syria has fled to seek refuge in neighboring countries like Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Lebanon, which is around 6.5 million. The number makes Syria the most massive humanitarian catastrophe. More than six million people are trapped in Syria amidst the escalating war despite the international agreement to minimize the intensity of such war (UNHCR, 2019). Humanitarian access to the country is very minimal due to the high level of insecurity in the country, leaving about 2.9 million people in remote areas without any aid. Most of the people affected by diversity are children.

Recently, northwest Syria experienced military escalation where the Russian and Syrian regime initiated a deadly campaign of the bombardment of parts of Idlib, Aleppo, and Hama Provinces after an attack of certain groups formerly linked to Al Qaeda. Various agreements to establish demilitarized regions in the country have been violated and talks about creating security zones failed. Most of the countries like the USA, Russia, and Turkey participating in reducing the war in Syria have conflicting interests making their talks about creating secured zones in eth country futile.

Mindful Questions

The Syrian war is in its 9th year without a basic understanding of the leading cause of war in Syria. As a result, several questions emerge. First, what is the leading cause of war in Syria? Is it a dictatorship from President Bashar Al-Assad or is it a battleground for the different international countries for supremacy, US and Russia? The US supports the rebellion regime, and Russia supports the government towards ending the war. For this matter, is the international community in a consensus to end this war soon?

When the United States began their support, they were against the authoritative government and wanted justice for the aggrieved parties. Later on, the Islamic States in Iraq joined together with the rebel group to fight the ousting of the president. However, the US government changed its aim and began fighting ISIS, which was also in the same course in their country (Bijlani, 2017). So far, their fight to remove the dictator from power has reduced and intensified their fight against ISIS. What is the main interest of the US in the Syrian war? The President who has committed humanitarian crime sabotage or elimination of the ISIS who are also in the course of toppling that lousy government? Can the US government cooperate with ISIS since Syria is an Islamic state to fight for justice for the tortured, brutalized, and aggrieved citizens? If not, will the war ever end?

Countries like the European Union, the United States, and Turkey, among others, have shown their solidarity with innocent children by offering aids through bodies like UNCHCR and UNICEF. They have also called for talks in a bid to create secured areas in the region to enhance their aids and the safety of the citizens (BBC News, 2018). Conversely, these groups have various interests and would like to control specific areas that have inhibited the aim of these conferences. What then, is the main objective of these nations? Narrow interests or the assistance of the humiliated and poor citizens innocent trapped in the war?

SUMMARY *

The article’s central observation is structural rather than partisan: after nearly a decade, the parties to the Syrian war and their external backers have never agreed on what the war is about. For some it is a struggle against authoritarian rule, for others a contest between outside powers, for others still a campaign against jihadist organisations. Because each actor pursues a different objective, every negotiated arrangement, from demilitarised areas to safe zones, has collapsed, while the humanitarian consequences, millions displaced abroad, millions trapped inside, and populations beyond the reach of aid, continue to accumulate. The author’s conclusion is that external actors must first clarify their own interests before any process can succeed. The question in the article about possible cooperation with ISIS reflects the author’s rhetorical framing and does not represent the editorial position of this journal.

CONCLUSION

The mediation process needs neutral individuals to assist the disputants in solving their issues amicably. However, the international community has not brought the rebels and the government to the table to unearth the main issue. Will they manage to reach a long-lasting solution by separating the parties in the parties in the mediation process? Therefore, it is essential for the international community to redefine its interests in the Syrian War and establish better techniques in handling the conflict. Otherwise, peacekeeping missions and creating safer zones in the country will remain a nightmare.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The failure of successive Syrian peace efforts has less to do with the absence of talks than with the structure of the war itself. A conflict in which every major party has an external patron capable of replacing its losses is a conflict in which no party ever reaches the point of exhaustion that ordinarily makes settlement possible. This is why the author’s instinct is correct: mediation between Syrians alone cannot succeed while the states supplying them remain outside any binding framework, and mediation between those states alone cannot produce a peace that Syrians will live by. Both tables are necessary, and they must be connected.

Given that, expectations should be arranged in ascending order of difficulty rather than pursued all at once. Humanitarian access is the first order of business, not because it settles anything, but because it is the only subject on which every actor’s stated position obliges them to agree, and because a functioning cross line and cross border corridor under neutral monitoring is both immediately life saving and the cheapest available test of whether commitments are honoured. Local ceasefires that hold, prisoner and detainee exchanges, and clarification of the fate of the missing follow the same logic: each is achievable in isolation and each builds the thin layer of credibility on which anything larger depends.

Constitutional and political questions belong at the end of that sequence, not the beginning. Where they have been placed first, as in successive international conferences, they have consistently produced deadlock, because they require the parties to concede in advance what the war has been fought over. A constitutional process that is genuinely inclusive, involving not only the government and armed opposition but the refugee population, civil society and the communities that have governed themselves through the war years, has a chance of durability precisely because it does not begin as a bargain between armed actors.

Two things deserve emphasis in a conflict of this character. Accountability cannot be traded away as the price of a settlement: the documented use of chemical weapons and the abuses attributed to multiple parties concern crimes against individuals, and a peace that quietly amnesties them creates the grievance that produces the next war. Preserving evidence and keeping accountability mechanisms open, even where prosecutions are not immediately possible, is part of a durable settlement rather than an obstacle to it. And the return of refugees must be voluntary, safe and dignified, negotiated with the returnees themselves rather than arranged between governments, since forced return to conditions of insecurity is not the end of displacement but its continuation in another form.

Finally, a word on the author’s framing. Asking what each external actor really wants is the right question, and it is also the question mediation exists to answer, not through accusation but through the patient work of establishing what each party can actually accept and what it fears. In Syria, that work has been attempted repeatedly and has failed repeatedly. Its failures are nevertheless the record from which the next attempt must be built, since the alternative is not the absence of a process but the continuation of the war.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES *

Lynch, M. (2016). The New Arab Wars: Uprisings and Anarchy in the Middle East. PublicAffairs, New York.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 (2015) on a political settlement in Syria.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013) on the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons.

Geneva Communiqué of the Action Group for Syria, 30 June 2012.

Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva (successive reports).

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Fact Finding Mission and Investigation and Identification Team reports on incidents in the Syrian Arab Republic, including Douma, April 2018.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2019). Syria Regional Refugee Response, Inter agency Information Sharing Portal, Geneva.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Humanitarian Needs Overview: Syrian Arab Republic, Damascus and Geneva.

Memorandum on the Creation of De escalation Areas in the Syrian Arab Republic, Astana, 4 May 2017, and the Sochi Memorandum on Idlib, 17 September 2018.

Office of the Special Envoy of the Secretary General for Syria, reports on the Constitutional Committee, Geneva.

International Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria (IIIM), established by General Assembly Resolution 71/248 (2016).

International Crisis Group, Middle East reports on the Syrian conflict, Brussels.