The Syrian Dystopia and different theoretical paradigms
The level of humanitarian suffering in Syria is beyond imagination. Even the best of experts did not expect that Syria would be in the midst of the worst humanitarian crisis the world has witnessed, ten years down the line, but sadly, keeping the media fatigue aside, Syria’s situation remains dystopic. If we compare the amount of investment to fuel this war, compared to the money to alleviate the impact of this war on the Syrians, the people who have borne the brunt of this crisis, it's very little. More than a decade full of war and hostility has left a very nerve-wracking impact on Syria, birthing and catalyzing mass displacement, devastated public infrastructure, a shattered environment and economy; and thus a full-fledged humanitarian crisis. This, on top of the COVID-19 pandemic has left more than 14 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, 6.5 million of which are children.
As elaborated in my previous post, the referent object here remains the Syrian population who can identify themselves in the category of the ‘most vulnerable’ (those living in areas hosting large numbers of IDPs (internally displaced people) and returnees and/or where access to basic services and livelihoods are significantly reduced, as well as those particularly affected by the socio-economic deterioration and growing food insecurity in particular.”). The threat object remains the states, militia groups of other countries and extremist organizations while the securitising actors remain the international organizations, however certain structural changes need to occur so that effective strategies to counter the crisis are put into place.
(Source- Photo by Salih Mahmud Leyla/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Before beginning the analysis through different theoretical frameworks, it is important to look at the conception of anarchy and how it underplays the international system. Anarchy, in layman terms, refers to the state of being without any overarching government or authority, or the presence of one with limited or no power. The original concept was born in response to the concepts of democracy and other political systems. This births out of the ‘survival’ instinct of the state wherein self-preservation is the priority.
After establishing the referent and threat object as well as the securitizing actors, we will shift our focus to the theoretical lenses, starting with realism. Realism as a theory strongly believes that the state is the principal actor and its ‘self-preserving’ nature rather makes it a unitary unit in times of war because of its inability to ‘rely’ on other forces. In this sense it is able to protect its national interest and speak and stand with one voice. However, in a country affected by civil war, where intersectionality lies at the core of the conflict, this has a corrosive effect on the sentiments of different communities and further distorts their sense of ‘self’ or ‘identity’ that we discussed on the previous blog. State security lies at the center of the tenets of realism and therefore heinous acts committed by the state or the authoritative regime are justified. Whilst taking the relativity of security in this regard, the state becomes the threat object instead of the one that ensures the safety of the population. In this scenario the Syrian population is being exposed to armed conflicts, chemical weapons, detainment and torturous war crimes, all justifed in ensuring the ‘security of the state’ against extremist groups and external powers trying to create a battleground out of Syria. Because it also assumes that anarchy is how the world order is, they assume that everyone is in it for themselves and therefore no one to call in times of a national emergency. Therefore even with the help of little aid from humanitarian organizations like the UN, it is difficult to trust its functioning completely from the realist perspective because after 9 rounds of failed peace talks, a realist would be bound to question its efficacy and autonomy. (considering the fact that veto lies in the hands of 5 permanent members and a realist would argue that they’re acting according to their self-interest).
Moving on to the liberal perspective, it assumes a rather optimistic view wherein states can transcend this fundamental power struggle and get involved in areas of cooperation wherein peace, not as an ideal but in practice, can be pursued. Because ensuring the right of the individual to life and liberty is assumed to be the main goal of the government by a liberal lens, this clearly stands violated in the regime of Bashar-Al Assad’s authoritative regime. For instance, Amnesty International claims that the tactics being used for prisoners of war in Assad’s regime are appaling. The main concern from the liberal lens thus remains the construction of institutions that protect these individual freedoms by maintaining checks and balances on the political power rendered by the government. However, because neo-liberal institutions like the UNHRC have been able to do very little in this specific regard, as mentioned earlier, their autonomy needs to be questioned along with the fact that because there is a power imbalance within these same institutions should they be given the responsibility of being securitizing actors.
Constructivism, the third lens, is basically concerned with the role of identities and social practices. Unlike the prior two lenses it supports the scope for change within the international system because it assumes the entire system to be a social construct. This can tie in with the critical perspective provided by Robert Cox wherein the system needs to be altered completely in order to see a significant shift, specifically with regard to this crisis. Although it assumes the anarchic world order, it also assumes that anarchy is what states make of it, and therefore the norms and rules complying with the very definition of anarchy can be changed. It also brings about a central importance to the context of identities because they give actors (states) interest and those interests depict how those actors will react. In this sense, it acknowledges the complexity and the intersectionality underpinning the Syrian crisis.
(Source- Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)
In conclusion, these different paradigms reflect the different problems, how they are perceived in the real world, and the loopholes that provide room for possible solutions to exist.
Bibliography
Adam Lammon, Jacob Eishen. “A Realist Approach to Syria.” Text. The National Interest, July 8, 2018. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/realist-approach-syria-25262.
Ahmad, Sohail, Muhammad Mubeen, and Inayat Kalim. “An Analysis of Syrian Conflict with the Lens of the Realist School of Thought.” Global Social Sciences Review 5, no. 1 (March 30, 2020): 660–71. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(V-I).66.
Syria — Is It a War without End? | Start Here. Accessed May 6, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e_KpYIfZAY.
Middle East Institute. “Three Signs of Impending Famine in Syria Absent Immediate Action.” Accessed May 6, 2022. https://www.mei.edu/publications/three-signs-impending-famine-syria-absent-immediate-action.
Amnesty International. “Syria 2020 Archives.” Accessed February 5, 2022. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/report-syria/.
Chabkoun, Malak. “How Assad ‘Won the War.’” Accessed February 5, 2022. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/11/3/how-assad-won-the-war.
“As Humanitarian Situation in Syria Worsens, Emergency Relief Coordinator Tells Security Council ‘Failure Each Year Cannot Be Our Strategy’ | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” Accessed February 5, 2022. https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sc14779.doc.htm.
Hi Rajvee, your blog was pretty intriguing to read through and I liked the way you analyzed the issue at hand through theoretical perceptions within the security discourse and how the relativity of security establishes the state of Syria (with an authoritative regime) as the threat object. From what I know, this acknowledgement is particularly important in identifying state perpetrated violence that institutionalizes into heinous war crimes, wherein in some cases, even sexual assault is justified on the basis of 'state security'. I also appreciate and agree with you on the point of the inefficiency of institutions like the UNHRC in bringing about a prolonged systemic change to put a halt to the crisis, and thus questioning their efficacy is required. The case-study of Syria therefore highlights the limits of global governance mechanisms in the face of complex situations where varied set of actors are at play.
ReplyDeleteHello Rajvee, I quite liked your articulation on the prolonged security crisis in Syria. Moving beyond the statist perception of the security conflict, you managed to bring forth the truncated nature of the conflict, where the overlaps between various ‘threat object’, makes the issue a particularly complicated one. Considering the purpose of your paper is to examine ‘the relativity of security and its implications on the human rights arena and ongoing violation by the regime’, I particularly appreciate your nuanced explanation of the crisis ranging from the ‘ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria’, State perpetuation of war-crimes, blatant human rights violation, to the mess created by the meddling of western superpowers through the lens of the three different ideation of anarchy.
ReplyDeleteAs of now, any attempt of dissuading the conflict has been made either through meagre humanitarian aid or through sheer military intervention, thereby I appreciate it when you are bringing the entity of international institutions into the fray. For irrespective of the liberals emphasis on the international bodies like ‘UNHCR and other non-state actors’ acting as security agents who will initiate ‘meaningful strategies to dissolve dissent’, even after nine rounds of UN lead peace talk, it has failed to pacify the conflict.
However, I had just one query in regards to this. As you have mentioned in the earlier section of your work, overlaps in identities and ‘ambitions/personal interests’ has been at the core of the protracted nature of the Syrian conflict. Thereby if we take into consideration the inter-subjective nature of the ‘referent object’. I am curious as to whom do you pose to be, in the category of the ‘most vulnerable' if we take the three different interpretation of anarchy in account?