Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Syria

Syria

‘There is something of the propagandist in everyone’: A Syrian Perspective

by

As this week sees the 1,000th day of conflict in Syria pass, Muttahir Salim reflects on the role of propaganda in the conflict.

The Editor

***

‘There is something of the propagandist in everyone’: A Syrian Perspective

by Muttahir Salim

1457463017_6569822722_o

“To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname
empire, and where they make a wilderness, they call it ‘peace.”
Tacitus

You know it and I know it, ‘there is something of the propagandist in everyone’.[1] Human nature is, and always will be, bound by a jaded and prejudiced view of the world. No matter how we try, and without the proper checks and balances in place,[2] propaganda will always form an exceptional instrument of choice for galvanizing favourable public opinion, particularly in times of conflict. Indeed the notorious and brutal Syrian civil war is an exact proponent of this notion.

As was once a notion wholly utilised by 19th century anarchists,[3] select modern scholars have now coined this activity as ‘Propaganda of the Deed (POTD)’. The idea of POTD as suggested in Bolt and Betz’ 2008 Whitehall report[4] is that it is a form of mass media political marketing with the aim of forming sympathetic patronage by way of the patron’s representative client.[5]

In 21st century conflicts, POTD has shown to be an incredibly effective instrument for galvanising and mobilising public opinion. What has been especially remarkable in this rather unforgiving Syrian Civil War has been the prolific and successful use of POTD from all sides of the conflict including established media outlets. Indeed the swift media reaction and western governments’ spin, hastening affirmative military action over the chemical weapons attack on Ghouta in August of this year, was especially remarkable.  Earlier claims relating to the use of chemical weapons declared Assad had crossed the ‘red line’ and claims of his irrefutable guilt, fed directly into a rapidly escalating western government media–blitzkrieg, mostly led by the US and the UK, for a ‘justifiable’ offensive on Syria.

While the UN has not yet established exact culpability, Syrian-allies Iran and Russia pointed the fingers at the rebels, and the US and its allies have blamed the Assad regime for the attack. Some could argue that the rebels had the motivation, the intent and plausible capability to gain the most from a POTD-related attack to mobilise favourable public opinion. However, uncertainty as to who carried out the Ghouta attacks remains.[6] What is sure though is that UN inspectors have confirmed that sarin gas was used on relatively large scale massacring hundreds of people. However, obtaining substantiated proof is fraught with difficulty, particularly when the issues of collection of verifiable hard evidence (i.e. chemical samples), human and image intelligence are complex and often gathered under ambiguous ever changing front lines.

According to UN reports, nearly 93,000 people have been killed, though current invalidated figures put the casualties much higher,[7] while millions have been driven from their homes due to the conflict. What began in March 2011 as an uprising against Bashar al-Assad that has now descended into a vicious civil war, where largely Sunni Muslim rebels are pitted against Assad’s forces (a Shi’ite Alawite). The onset of this is the potential to widen the conflict regionally (and to some degree it already has) and open up old cold war rivalries. Underneath the shadow of this forgotten Cold War contention,both sides have expertly utilised their patrons and have become connoisseurs in exploiting this rivalry to their distinct advantage.

As the civil war has gathered pace and both sides, the rebel forces in particular, have vied for international public opinion, it would seem that POTD ‘activity’ has become the mainstay tool of rebel fighters to correct deep-rooted grievances. By inference, when the resources of the protagonists differ significantly and there is no natural institutional outlet, POTD directive action looks at balancing the odds. Indeed, we know that the resources of the ‘belligerents’ differ significantly whilst both attempt to exploit each other’s weaknesses. The weaker of the two has attempted to use a strategy to offset deficiencies and given the lack of earlier unconvincing Superpower support (i.e. US Support) has arguably been left to the few ‘effective’ devices available to them, that being POTD.

There is still uncertainty as to which parties will be attending the UN-brokered Syrian conference scheduled for 22 January 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland.  However one thing is for sure: in the run up to the conference there will be an upsurge of propaganda activity. Indeed, we expect the representatives that do attend the conference will be actively looking to optimise their preliminary negotiating position by way of mobilising the masses with a view to boosting favourable international public opinion. This may sadly involve further terrorist actions aimed at gaining support through their preferred choice of media outlets. It would seem that the protagonists of POTD acknowledge and agree that in ‘today’s fast changing political landscape where social and political agendas are being interpreted and shaped by global media’[8] it has become the latest vogue that which its protagonists expect rapid response times.

We would not want to overstep the mark here in terms of advocating responsibility of the use of such horrific weapons as there is yet no substantiated evidence to the fact. However, POTD would seem to be an effective asymmetric weapon of choice for the weaker of the two and the moral boundaries in which POTD is being used may have become inauspiciously blurred.

______________

Muttahir Salim is an MA postgraduate student (War in the Modern World) at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. He is currently the Middle East lead for Arup’s Resilience, Security and Risk practice based out of Abu Dhabi.

___________________
NOTES

[1] Eugen Hadamovsky (1933), Propaganda und nationale Macht: Die Organisation der öffentlichen, Meinung für die nationale Politik (Oldenburg: Gerhard Stalling).
[2] http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Anarchism_and_violence.html
[3] Neville Bolt, David Betz & Jaz Azari (2008),  Propaganda of the Deed 2008 Understanding the Phenomenon, Whitehall report 3-08, pp. 2, (The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies)
[4] Ibid. pp. 2
[5] ‘United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic Report on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta Area of Damascus on 21 August 2013’
[6] UN Report – http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45162 (accessed  on 27 November 2013,-13:17hrs)
[7] Neville Bolt, David Betz & Jaz Azari (2008),  Propaganda, pp. 1.

Why failures in American leadership endanger peace

by

by Avram Lytton

The UN Security Council in session
The UN Security Council in session
(photo by Pete Souza)

Whether we like it or not, we live in a relatively stable time thanks to the presence of a single hegemonic super-power – the United States. Its political, military and economic power (current political dysfunction aside) remains unrivalled in its totality. It is therefore disheartening to see this power and clout squandered by the current administration in its failures and capitulations over Syria and Iran.

In Syria, what started as a protest movement against the corrupt and oppressive Assad regime has escalated into a chaotic civil war. Rather than attempt to support moderate rebel factions, the Obama administration dithered and misrepresented the extent of aid it was providing. Even worse, it effectively vetoed additional aid from regional powers who, in the absence of a more concerted effort, have had great difficulty coordinating actions or even agreeing on a strategy. The result has been an ever worsening, and widening war that has not only devastated the Syrian state, but has also radicalised the opposition to an alarming degree and provided safe havens for jihadist groups. The Assad regime, with substantial aid from its ally, Iran, has even regained the momentum it was once thought to have lost.

When the Assad regime began using chemical weapons on a small scale, the Obama administration did nothing. When it deployed those weapons on a larger scale on August 21, it seemed that, at last, the President would respond to the crossing of his ‘red line’. Instead, the world was treated to a darkly comic series of missteps and blunders. When it appeared that no action would be taken, a deal was brokered by Russia. This deal, however, is not the happy ending it appears for two key reasons. First, as it relies on the Syrians to do most of the work, overseen by personnel from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), it is predicated on the survival of the Assad regime for however long it takes to complete. Secondly, because of the nature of the agreement, it will be relatively easy for the regime to retain some of its CW deterrent through deception. Thus, the United States has been removed as a player in Syria, split from its allies and discredited. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has emerged as the world’s leading statesman.

On the Iran front, the United States looks poised (at the time of writing) to strike a bad deal that could see Iran given an economic lifeline while the international community receives nothing meaningful in return. The heart of the problem is that diplomacy relies on there being room for a deal to be made that is acceptable to both sides. The ultimate objective of the international community, in particular Israel and Saudi Arabia, is the cessation and rolling back of the Iranian nuclear program. However, the Iranian regime has made it clear that it will never cease enriching uranium, even if its people suffer for it under sanctions. Negotiations for the sake of negotiations simply obfuscate the issue.

Yet, in all this, it is the Americans who seem the most keen to reach a deal, any kind of deal, as quickly as possible. Sanctions are hurting the regime and, if drawn tighter, may lead to its collapse. The White House, however, seems more interested in removing itself from the region than in regime change and is even opposed to tighter sanctions, lest they hurt diplomacy. To the United States, Iran is a distant and theoretical threat, but to countries in the Middle East it is a very real menace. No wonder then that the Israelis are furious; no wonder that the Saudis, already angered over American inaction in Syria, are threatening to break ties with the United States.

Unending war in Syria and a massive regional mobilisation of radical elements is in no one’s interest. Also unappetising is an advancing Iranian nuclear program, bolstered by better and more numerous centrifuges while the regime is strengthened by weakened sanctions. Let us not forget, that not only does this regime have a long history of sponsoring terrorism in other countries, but it also relies on its hostility to Israel and the West to legitimise its governance. The United States, by negotiating for a compromise with Iran and avoiding influencing the proxy war in Syria, is simply punting these security issues to the next administration.

None of the above is leadership; it is risk avoidance. War is a last resort, to be sure; it is a last resort in Syria, not least because of the greatly uncertain outcome, and it is a last resort with regards to the Iranian nuclear program. However, broadcasting one’s lack of seriousness about the use of force, whether through an evaporating red line or through a rushed and dubious deal with the untrustworthy Iranian regime, does not avoid war. Indeed, by horse trading with Iran rather than dictating, the international community has given the regime in Tehran a legitimacy it does not deserve and a sense of power it has not earned. It has also left the final say to a number of regional powers who feel far more threatened than Washington does, and may not feel as restrained when they react to that threat.

Approaching the 100th anniversary of an infamous act of terrorism in the Balkans, one should reflect on what events a small power can set in motion when tensions are left to simmer in a multi-polar environment. It is the power of the United States that underwrites and maintains the current international system and restrains the behaviour of the smaller powers. If the US is retreating from its position as de facto world policeman, then I fear that the peace we enjoy may soon disappear with it.

Syria: A Proxy Battleground

by

By Pezhman Mohammadi

Syria

Almost two years after unrest began in Syria, not only has the ‘popular revolution’ not borne fruit, but also many of the ‘freedom fighters’ have turned out to be non-Syrian, foreign-funded terrorists. What made Syria a target of a foreign-backed insurgency? And what could be the solution to the crisis?

Since 2011, Syria has become a target of indirect foreign intervention to topple the Assad’s regime. Various motives have been suggested for such aggression against the secular state. First, Syria is strategically important for many countries, including the United States, Israel, Iran and Russia. Second, Syria is Iran’s strongest ally, Israel’s long-time adversary, and a channel for Iranian arms transport to resistance organisations in Palestine and Lebanon.

Has a new ‘Cold War’ emerged in the Middle East? Putting Russia aside for the moment, Syria can be argued to have become a battlefield for a clash between Iran and the United States. The US, assisted by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is arming the Free Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists against Assad. Meanwhile, Iran is providing financial assistance and military know-how to the Syrian President through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) shadowy Quds Force, hence the reason the Syrian President is still standing.

To some analysts, the current Syrian turmoil is as part of a US plan to contain and further isolate Iran by removing Islamic Republic’s only Arab ally in an era of increasing Arab-Iranian regional rivalry. Assad’s regime is considered as a fundamental pillar in Tehran’s policy approach towards Israel and hostile Arab states. Clearly, in his absence, Iran loses significant influence in that arena. In this context, Michael Hanna of Century Foundation in New York stated that “Syria is a central player in Iranian power projection”. Nevertheless, this would be an attempt to correct an earlier American miscalculation, namely the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which significantly strengthened Iran’s position in the region. This is a textbook proxy conflict scenario in which the laws of war appear to be absent, causing mass civilian casualties.

Some believe that Syria without Assad would be an ideal state, a liberated society. But this is wrong. Syria is currently witnessing a sectarian clash, thanks to the emergence of extremist Wahhabi ideology in the Free Syrian Army. According to this ideology, other religious sects, whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic factions such as Shiites, are all considered as ‘infidels’ and must either accept the fanatic organisation’s ideology or be persecuted and killed. In the absence of Assad, a once secular country is likely to disintegrate as sectarian conflicts intensify. This provides an explanation for the loyalty of the Alawite-dominated Syrian army to President Assad: they prefer his rule to that of the FSA.

The solution to the Syrian crisis is far from straightforward. I would suggest that bilateral talks between Iran and the US would be a step in the right direction. Improved US-Iranian relations would contribute to improved regional stability.

Moreover, in late-2012, Iran proposed a ‘Six-Point Plan’ to solve the Syrian Crisis. The Plan’s steps include immediate cease-fire; initiation of a ‘national dialogue’; establishment of a united government which; humanitarian assistance to the citizens of Syria; freedom for all prisoners who have not committed a crime against the country; and full and unbiased media access to Syria. Although this has been widely rejected by the ‘anti-Syrian coalition’ for obvious reasons, Russia and China may be able to enforce the Plan using their influence in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Further, states must stop arming the terrorists in Syria. In this context, the United Nations (UN) is obliged to issue a firm resolution against the terror-sponsoring bodies. After all, these are the same gang of radicals that the West is fighting against in different corners of the world. A related practical, but extremely difficult, measure would be to place punitive economic sanctions on countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar that financially and militarily sponsor such groups.