Problem Solving
Despite history being very cruel in the past, it has in fact proven to us that civil wars end in one of the two ways:
1. Either with the defeat of one side and the success of the other
2. A perpetual and costly stalemate between the parties involved, eventually leading to a peace negotiation, usually never through political pressures alone.
1. Either with the defeat of one side and the success of the other
2. A perpetual and costly stalemate between the parties involved, eventually leading to a peace negotiation, usually never through political pressures alone.
General overview of responses and reactions
Majority of the international and responses have been in
fact against the ongoing conflict and most have proposed a similar solution.
The most popular proposal has been for the regime and opposition to reach a
negotiated agreement resulting in political power being shared between
representatives of the separate groups. This has been the most preferred
outcome as it cancels the possibility of the war continuing in a military
fashion, and stop further impacts and implications of war.
To support this proposal, the majority of civil wars since the Cold War have all resulted in some form of negotiated settlement, proving its effectiveness as a solution and outcome.
To support this proposal, the majority of civil wars since the Cold War have all resulted in some form of negotiated settlement, proving its effectiveness as a solution and outcome.
What are the possible outcomes?
Continued stalemate
If
the conflict in Syria continues at the current state, and no resolution can be
reached, the conflict could potentially risk and worsen, exponentially. The
potential risks and impacts include:
- An indefinite further number of lives lost
- Exponential death toll
- Ruined and Torn Nation
- The continued suffering of refugees becoming an increasing local, regional and international scale
- Displacement of refugees, impacting both Syria and neighbouring countries, causing an economic, social and environmental crisis
- The same ongoing impacts that have occurred except potentially more extreme
The purposeless continuation of the warfare in Syria is occurring since neither side is capable of defeating the other without major external support at this point, and it is forcing the impacts to spill over to neighbouring countries, catching international attention.
- An indefinite further number of lives lost
- Exponential death toll
- Ruined and Torn Nation
- The continued suffering of refugees becoming an increasing local, regional and international scale
- Displacement of refugees, impacting both Syria and neighbouring countries, causing an economic, social and environmental crisis
- The same ongoing impacts that have occurred except potentially more extreme
The purposeless continuation of the warfare in Syria is occurring since neither side is capable of defeating the other without major external support at this point, and it is forcing the impacts to spill over to neighbouring countries, catching international attention.
Assad's regime emerge victorious
If President Assad and the regime emerge victorious, he will
be left to rule over all of Syria, whose population is largely comprised of
Sunni Muslims. These Sunnis however despise Assad due to religious differences,
being an Alawite, being part of a minority in Syria.
If victorious, President Assad, known for his aggressive nature, will continue his violence fuelled approach to problem solving, and continue to carry out using vicious means for issue resolution, but instead, with a better armed force. With no one to retaliate or stand against them, the Assad regime will continue to follow their ideals which sparked outrage in the beginning.
It is predicted that Assad will also continue to strongly oppress the Sunni Syrian population and as a result, face the future risk of an uprising, causing another civil war due to the enraged Sunni Arabs shown as a potential outcome, currently demonstrated in Iraq. If this is the outcome, Syria is not likely to return and reach relative peace like it experienced pre-2011.
If victorious, President Assad, known for his aggressive nature, will continue his violence fuelled approach to problem solving, and continue to carry out using vicious means for issue resolution, but instead, with a better armed force. With no one to retaliate or stand against them, the Assad regime will continue to follow their ideals which sparked outrage in the beginning.
It is predicted that Assad will also continue to strongly oppress the Sunni Syrian population and as a result, face the future risk of an uprising, causing another civil war due to the enraged Sunni Arabs shown as a potential outcome, currently demonstrated in Iraq. If this is the outcome, Syria is not likely to return and reach relative peace like it experienced pre-2011.
Syrian opposition emerge victorious
On the other hand, if the Opposition defeat the regime, the
outcome will drastically differ. It is predicted that the country will be
subject to continued violence and destruction, being ruled by rebels, however,
some fear that it will be too much but no doubt, the likelihood of violence is
high. Some also fear Syria suffers the risk that the large Sunni majority will
seek revenge on minorities and other ethnic groups within the country, and that
ethnic cleansing will be inevitable after claiming power. They believe that it
is a possibility, to compensate the severe oppression they experienced and to
punish President Assad, Alawites and their followers. As a result of their
actions, it could potentially force Syrian minorities to flee from Syria,
knowing that any retaliation will lead to death.
With this outcome, there is also the potential squabble for power as after the Assad government deteriorates, there will leave no definite ruler, and would have to be decided within the different Sunni groups. Also, if factionalism within their beliefs remain static, it may also spark another war to attain definite political control.
Similarly to the Assad Government claiming victory, if this is the outcome, Syria is not likely to return to the relative peace experienced pre-2011.
This, outcome along with the scenario of the regime victory, both are the least favourable outcomes.
With this outcome, there is also the potential squabble for power as after the Assad government deteriorates, there will leave no definite ruler, and would have to be decided within the different Sunni groups. Also, if factionalism within their beliefs remain static, it may also spark another war to attain definite political control.
Similarly to the Assad Government claiming victory, if this is the outcome, Syria is not likely to return to the relative peace experienced pre-2011.
This, outcome along with the scenario of the regime victory, both are the least favourable outcomes.
Negotiated settlement between the two parties
A diplomatic solution based on the idea of power sharing between
the Sunni majority and the Alawite minority has been proposed by the President
of America, Barack Obama and the Secretary of State, Kerry , both sharing the
belief that this solution will avoid both sides being victorious. They believe
that the outcome of either side winning will not beneficial at all but in fact
detrimental for the nation of Syria but also for political reasons, as it will
cause Syria to verge further from political stability.
However, the proposal of a settlement based on power sharing between the Sunnis and the Alawites has been criticised for its rate of success for mainly two reasons including:
Problem 1. Existing battlefield conditions don’t incentivize either parties to accept a comprised settlement, as both sides have the mindset that they can win the war. However, they both acknowledge and believe that in order to do so, it is inevitable that a sacrifice of an acceptable cost is required and to make it worse, both have funders that will to support and fund their operations until the war is over.
Problem 2. The difficulty involved with enforcing a power sharing agreement over time between the religious divided Sunnis and Alawites. Even if both parties have strong incentives to negotiate to good terms through a military stalemate set in or outside where funding were to be removed, the agreement would still be likely to fail if carried out independently. How can convince the Sunni leaders to credibly commit to not consolidating power once the Assad government is split and opened? How can we ensure that Sunni and opposition leaders will not jailed by the current Alawite government once demobilised?
However, there is a potential solution to fixing the disadvantages with this outcome that can be achieved through the correct support and attention.
Solution to Problem 1.
- With the right education programs to educate, reveal and simplify the complicated situation within Syria, there is a large possibility that this outcome will work. As the complication is mainly fuelled by religious divide, by explaining the possible solution in a non-bias approach, we will be able to persuade both parties come to a negotiated settlement, but most importantly, a solution which ensures that each group can practice and maintain their own religion.
Solution to Problem 2.
- The solution to the second problem of the negotiated settlement is quite simple as well. The problem that has arisen for the problem of implementing the solution is the fear of both parties not being willing to surrender and consolidate to a solution, having no faith in the other party to commit. The solution involves several large government groups and officials, (Developed and Leading Countries) and also international organisations to travel to Syria to negotiate, monitor and mediate the agreement shared between both the Assad government and the rebels once enforced. This will remove the possibility of failure of either side not upholding their agreement as the consequences will be extremely harsh but also, with such a good outcome, will deter them from declining. Explained further below.
A number of studies carried out by researchers reveal that civil war combatants are likely to sign up and implement peace agreements if both the oppositions are assigned to territorial autonomy and vice versa. Political decentralisation allows combatants to in fact maintain their individual political control over their share of territory but also creates a situation where both sides of the conflict are able to maintain their independent security forces. This certain type of peace agreement allows them both to maintain their separate existence, to practice their separate religious beliefs but also to allow them to function properly as there is the establishment of peace and security. This result is likely to result in more willing negotiating partners and a more defensible and stable peace settlement.
This outcome between parties for civil war is perceived to be the best outcome, suggesting for the most stable conclusion, where history has provided this outcome, solid evidence to succeed. Already, Lebanon despite being a poorly functioning country, its past conflicts have been resolved through a negotiated compromise, which has saved the country from descending and deteriorating into destruction. Currently, in Lebanon, each separate ethnic group receives its independent recognition, protection and political power is shared between them. The president is a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister is a Sunni Muslim, the defence minister a Druze, the Speaker of Parliament a Shiite, and Parliament is divided equally between Muslims and Christians, providing power to every faction in Lebanon.
This solution is the most reasonable outcome in our opinion by far and despite not being the easiest as it will require agreement from parties on local, regional, and a global scale, as mentioned previously, with the correct local, regional and international support, it is achievable. We strongly believe that this outcome is the best to strive for a as it will place the Syrian political system in a peaceful state, allowing the country to recover slowly from the disastrous impacts of the war.
However, the proposal of a settlement based on power sharing between the Sunnis and the Alawites has been criticised for its rate of success for mainly two reasons including:
Problem 1. Existing battlefield conditions don’t incentivize either parties to accept a comprised settlement, as both sides have the mindset that they can win the war. However, they both acknowledge and believe that in order to do so, it is inevitable that a sacrifice of an acceptable cost is required and to make it worse, both have funders that will to support and fund their operations until the war is over.
Problem 2. The difficulty involved with enforcing a power sharing agreement over time between the religious divided Sunnis and Alawites. Even if both parties have strong incentives to negotiate to good terms through a military stalemate set in or outside where funding were to be removed, the agreement would still be likely to fail if carried out independently. How can convince the Sunni leaders to credibly commit to not consolidating power once the Assad government is split and opened? How can we ensure that Sunni and opposition leaders will not jailed by the current Alawite government once demobilised?
However, there is a potential solution to fixing the disadvantages with this outcome that can be achieved through the correct support and attention.
Solution to Problem 1.
- With the right education programs to educate, reveal and simplify the complicated situation within Syria, there is a large possibility that this outcome will work. As the complication is mainly fuelled by religious divide, by explaining the possible solution in a non-bias approach, we will be able to persuade both parties come to a negotiated settlement, but most importantly, a solution which ensures that each group can practice and maintain their own religion.
Solution to Problem 2.
- The solution to the second problem of the negotiated settlement is quite simple as well. The problem that has arisen for the problem of implementing the solution is the fear of both parties not being willing to surrender and consolidate to a solution, having no faith in the other party to commit. The solution involves several large government groups and officials, (Developed and Leading Countries) and also international organisations to travel to Syria to negotiate, monitor and mediate the agreement shared between both the Assad government and the rebels once enforced. This will remove the possibility of failure of either side not upholding their agreement as the consequences will be extremely harsh but also, with such a good outcome, will deter them from declining. Explained further below.
A number of studies carried out by researchers reveal that civil war combatants are likely to sign up and implement peace agreements if both the oppositions are assigned to territorial autonomy and vice versa. Political decentralisation allows combatants to in fact maintain their individual political control over their share of territory but also creates a situation where both sides of the conflict are able to maintain their independent security forces. This certain type of peace agreement allows them both to maintain their separate existence, to practice their separate religious beliefs but also to allow them to function properly as there is the establishment of peace and security. This result is likely to result in more willing negotiating partners and a more defensible and stable peace settlement.
This outcome between parties for civil war is perceived to be the best outcome, suggesting for the most stable conclusion, where history has provided this outcome, solid evidence to succeed. Already, Lebanon despite being a poorly functioning country, its past conflicts have been resolved through a negotiated compromise, which has saved the country from descending and deteriorating into destruction. Currently, in Lebanon, each separate ethnic group receives its independent recognition, protection and political power is shared between them. The president is a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister is a Sunni Muslim, the defence minister a Druze, the Speaker of Parliament a Shiite, and Parliament is divided equally between Muslims and Christians, providing power to every faction in Lebanon.
This solution is the most reasonable outcome in our opinion by far and despite not being the easiest as it will require agreement from parties on local, regional, and a global scale, as mentioned previously, with the correct local, regional and international support, it is achievable. We strongly believe that this outcome is the best to strive for a as it will place the Syrian political system in a peaceful state, allowing the country to recover slowly from the disastrous impacts of the war.