25^th November 2015

 

Following my recent theorizing about the nation-state, I was asked a perfectly fair question, namely “What does all this have to do with the immediate “Syrian Question”?  I realised I had concentrated on the general theory and failed to spell out the particular Syrian dimension…

In Syria, the world confronts two concurrent political problems.

First, the removal of a brutal dictator whose claims to democratic legitimacy have been confirmed in “democratic elections” – just as Hitler’s claims were validated.   Assad has rejected, indeed denied, the claims by “the West” that Assad’s political legitimacy has been destroyed by the use of barrel-bombs against his own citizens: that issue remains to be resolved.  The other nation-states are split on the matter, with Russia and Iran contending that Assad remains legitimately in power and deserving of support, and other leading states attacking his regime.

Second, the prospective emergence of an aggressive “virtual state”, which ISIS seeks to establish in the Levant, starting with a physical base in Iraq and Syria.  The ISIS promoters have taken advantage of the emergence of two neighbouring “partially failed States”, and have occupied territory in both countries which neither Government can effectively control by conventional means.  These promoters are seeking to “play the nation-state game” and to assemble a virtual political entity – according to the prevailing nation-state rules.  That is the so-called “caliphate”, which is being gradually constructed, before our very eyes, just as Israel was constructed by way of the League of Nations’ Palestinian Mandate and the Zionist movement, and its legitimacy eventually recognized by the majority of global nation-states.

These two conflicts are quite separate, but they are conceptually linked.  What is the link?  It is the culture and legitimacy of the “nation-state” itself.  President Assad relies on that, for the assertion of his continuing legitimacy: he does not accept that he has been or can be legitimately removed from power by force.  Both Putin and the Iranian Government support Assad’s position, partly because to do otherwise might jeopardize their own international legitimacy.  In the other conflict, the whole strategy of the ISIS promoters is built upon the same propositions – they are merely following the political conventions by which the globe is now ruled.

And I contend that any diplomatic resolution in Syria should be grounded on the same principles.  We are where we are.  The conventions of the international community of states are relatively new, but they are powerful, and they underpin the legitimacy of the Governments of most UN member-states.  The “West” should be prepared to concede that, following an effective cease-fire, either Assad or his Party should be free to participate in new Elections, and seek a democratic mandate.  If possible, Assad should be persuaded to retire and given immunity from suit, leaving his Party to fight the new Elections.  It may even be necessary to concede a partly “federal” solution to accommodate the Kurds within Syria, as they have been accommodated within Iraq.   It will be by upholding the prevailing  conventions that the international community of states can be mobilized to defeat the virtual caliphate.  Both conflicts need to be addressed simultaneously, adopting consistent reasoning.

That is how I see a diplomatic solution emerging….

Roger Warren Evans, Swansea UK