Courses and seminars
Index / Activities / Courses and seminars / Conclusions of the Seminar: "The Regional and International Implications of the Conflict in Syria"
Conclusions of the Seminar: "The Regional and International Implications of the Conflict in Syria"
From November 08, 2013 until November 15, 2013
As a part of our effort to promote dialogue between the role-players in politics, the economy and civil society, as well as to debate over the current situation in Syria, we organized this seminar on November 4, 2013 along with Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and FRIDE. The event was divided into three sessions: the current situation in Syria, geopolitical interplay and future scenarios. The debate was lively and included analysis of the crisis from several perspectives, with concluding remarks made at the end in the form of a final statement.
A
document is attached (in English) to expand upon the contents.
1. One must not underestimate the importance of emotions (which are also influenced by the contradictory information in the media), due to the humanitarian disaster and the reality on the ground. Nearly six million people are suffering these battles on a daily basis.
2. Geopolitics has taken control of the Syrian Spring.
3. Sectarianism is not a driving force, even though it is used as such by certain groups. The conflict is not fully determined by a sectarian dimension, though it does possess sectarian elements. This is positive, if we are able to find that there is still space for a solution which makes it possible to maintain Syria’s continuity as a single State.
4. The role-players in the Syrian opposition are fighting amongst each other and cannot join forces to fight against the regime. However, this division is also promoted by the intervention of foreign powers.
5. There is a certain dynamic related with the Cold War in the case of Syria. Russia has just one single ally in the region: Damascus, which it attempts to protect.
6. The Kurdish question is a heavily weighted factor that must be taken into account. Kurdish role-players are increasing in importance.
7. The Arab uprisings have demonstrated that authoritarian tendencies have not been left behind (Egypt provides an example).
8. Where are we headed? Any solution will have to be pragmatic. What happens if it is necessary to talk with Assad?
9. Non-State groups are fundamental. Hezbollah’s intervention has been crucial in turning the situation around since last year, when it was thought that Assad was about to fall.
10. Have we reached a time for remembering the “Great Middle East Project,” a political term coined by the Bush Administration (2004), as part of a proposal for radical change in the way in which the West carries on its relations with the Middle East?
11. What regime alternatives are there after Bashar al-Assad? It is fundamental to think about Syria’s options in the event of a potential transition to democracy. Could federalism be a possibility?
1. One must not underestimate the importance of emotions (which are also influenced by the contradictory information in the media), due to the humanitarian disaster and the reality on the ground. Nearly six million people are suffering these battles on a daily basis.
2. Geopolitics has taken control of the Syrian Spring.
3. Sectarianism is not a driving force, even though it is used as such by certain groups. The conflict is not fully determined by a sectarian dimension, though it does possess sectarian elements. This is positive, if we are able to find that there is still space for a solution which makes it possible to maintain Syria’s continuity as a single State.
4. The role-players in the Syrian opposition are fighting amongst each other and cannot join forces to fight against the regime. However, this division is also promoted by the intervention of foreign powers.
5. There is a certain dynamic related with the Cold War in the case of Syria. Russia has just one single ally in the region: Damascus, which it attempts to protect.
6. The Kurdish question is a heavily weighted factor that must be taken into account. Kurdish role-players are increasing in importance.
7. The Arab uprisings have demonstrated that authoritarian tendencies have not been left behind (Egypt provides an example).
8. Where are we headed? Any solution will have to be pragmatic. What happens if it is necessary to talk with Assad?
9. Non-State groups are fundamental. Hezbollah’s intervention has been crucial in turning the situation around since last year, when it was thought that Assad was about to fall.
10. Have we reached a time for remembering the “Great Middle East Project,” a political term coined by the Bush Administration (2004), as part of a proposal for radical change in the way in which the West carries on its relations with the Middle East?
11. What regime alternatives are there after Bashar al-Assad? It is fundamental to think about Syria’s options in the event of a potential transition to democracy. Could federalism be a possibility?
