FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Can We Give Meaning to Syria’s Destruction?

by

shutterstock_327353750 (2)

Lund, Sweden.

In 2012 when it all started, an educated conflict analyst or otherwise conflict competent person would have said about the conflict in Syria that it was a very complex thing, caused by history, environment, traumas, external factors, the economic situation, etc.

And that al-Assad and his government was certainly an important reason but far from the only one.

The conflict expert would have warned against at last four ways of thinking:

a) any interpretation that put all the good people on one side and all the bad people on the other – because there are no conflicts in the world with only two such parties;

b) any idea that the conflict could be solved by siding with the presumed good ones and going against the bad one(s);

c) every attempt to ‘weaponise’ the conflict and increase the level of violence, the duration of the conflict and the human suffering;

d) any and every idea that foreigners would know better than the Syrians themselves – government, opposition and citizens in civil society – what should be a solution.

Finally – the professional conflict and peace worker would have maintained that you can’t make peace by asking one person – not even brilliant ones like Kofi Annan or Staffan di Mistura – with a small team around him and some shuttle diplomacy to succeed with facilitation, consultations, brainstorming, proposal-making, mediation and, finally, some kind of negotiations leading to a peace agreement in what is undoubtedly one of the most complex and ‘hard’ conflicts on earth.

Peace-making requires a completely different approach to not just be a pawn in the wider war game – a game that according to Al-Jazeera today encompasses some 900 military groups – add to that government forces and all the political and civil groups that don’t carry weapons: 1500?

Five years later – at least 250.000 dead people, 3 million refugees and 6,5 million internally displaced people, cities, economy, cultural heritage destroyed – anyone can see that no one listened to such simple conflict rules of thumb.

Conflict and peace illiteracy

The self-appointed and completely un-educated, peace-makers of the international community – presidents, prime and foreign ministers of the US, NATO, Russia, etc. – did about everything else.

It seems to not even occur to them or to the media that conflict analysis and peace-making is an established field of knowledge (theory as well as experience) and a profession – as much as is law, strategic studies, economy or political science.

It’s a bit like the Nobel Peace Prize – it’s decided by Norwegian ex-MPs, people who have no professional insight in peace theory and practise. Would such a committee be accepted as deciding the prize in, say, medicine?

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 10.18.51 AM

It doesn’t occur to anyone how much more easy it is to use violence, that violence can be applied by any uneducated fool and – more importantly – that violence, arms trade and all that makes the original conflict much much more difficult to solve.

Why then are conflicts such as Syria weaponised when it is so counterproductive?

Because of the enormous military-industrial interests, because the weapons are always on the ministry shelves, because arms traders move them from one place to the next and pour in new ones – profits from which goes to the multi-billionaires and criminals – and because of the totally absurd ongoing imbalance’ between the world’s military expenditures and peace-making expenditures – about 2000:50

And because of one more thing: We are told by our government-loyal Western mainstream media that all this politicians, statesmen etc are working to create peace. Some may – but closer to the truth is that there are governments who want war, who profit from war and who have strong interests in exploiting the chaos create by war.

All the failed wars and interventions – Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to mention but a few – cannot all be results of Western goodwill, impartial – but failed – peace-making. Don’t be that naive, please!

Are you concerned about the world’s big problems?

Are you concerned about refugees numbers growing? About Western economies falling behind? About China rising? About climate change? Human rights increasingly being violated everywhere?

Of course you are – but! The above ways of (mis)handling conflicts will create global havoc – most likely involving also nuclear weapons – way before the other issues are becoming catastrophic.

Militarism is a much larger reason for the West’s decay than is generally understood. And militarism prevents, beyond it own destructive ways, the other problems from being solved.

The Syrian cessation of hostilities on February 27, 2016

And, so, this “cessation of hostilities” in Syria is not a first step toward peace. It will only be a short break in the fighting. It will give some groups designated terrorists (and outside the agreement) time to re-group and others not designated terrorists time to appear concerned about people – that is, after 5 years where none of them bothered about human lives but now when they’ve seen refugees pouring into Europe…

Why such cynicism, you may now ask?

Well, there is, in the best of cases, a will to peace here and there but overall much stronger interest in wars everywhere. The perhaps-goodwilled have no education, no competence, no resources, no media back-up and, worst of all, no ideas about:

a) how to restructure the entire conflict-handling apparatus in the international system,

b) how to reduce war and violence in the world and

c) what to do now in Syria.

They are in the firm hands of the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC.

Violence and wars, we know. Civilisation, we don’t.

MIMAC, the world’s most dangerous class, is dangerous because it is conflict and peace illiterate and holds unlimited means of violence and other war resources, including propaganda, in its hands.

And where intellect and education is out and moral compasses long ago lost, weapons go in.

Kill one more thing in Syria to give it meaning

Syria is a dying patient, wrong or no diagnosis, prognosis and treatment by too many doctors who never studied medicine but try to convince us that they did their best.

Can this tragedy anyhow achieve some historical meaning, in spite of all? Can some forgiveness be granted for a quarter of a million dead – after a million in Iraq?

Only if one more thing is now killed in Syria: the colonial, militarist and racist ways of thinking that is the story of the West – US/NATO, EU and Russia – in the Middle East.

It is absolutely doable.

Are you an optimist? Will be done?

Jan Oberg is director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research in Lund, Sweden.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
Stratos Ramoglou
Why the Greek Economic Crisis Won’t be Ending Anytime Soon
David Price
The 2016 Tour of California: Notes on a Big Pharma Bike Race
Dmitry Mickiewicz
Barbarous Deforestation in Western Ukraine
Rev. William Alberts
The United Methodist Church Up to Its Old Trick: Kicking the Can of Real Inclusion Down the Road
Patrick Bond
Imperialism’s Junior Partners
Mark Hand
The Trouble with Fracking Fiction
Priti Gulati Cox
Broken Green: Two Years of Modi
Marc Levy
Sitrep: Hometown Unwelcomes Vietnam Vets
Lorenzo Raymond
Why Nonviolent Civil Resistance Doesn’t Work (Unless You Have Lots of Bombs)
Ed Kemmick
New Book Full of Amazing Montana Women
Michael Dickinson
Bye Bye Legal High in Backwards Britain
Missy Comley Beattie
Wanted: Daddy or Mommy in Chief
Ed Meek
The Republic of Fear
Charles R. Larson
Russian Women, Then and Now
David Yearsley
Elgar’s Hegemony: the Pomp of Empire
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail