Localizing the rule of law to end Syria’s civil war
By Omar Alansari-Kreger, Engage Minnesota
Here is a proposition well worth considering: what if a moderate majority rebellion unified around a cause based on universal respect for the rule of law?
What is the best way to achieve a practical peace in a seemingly endless conflict? The Syrian Civil War continues unabated with no hindrances. The more information obtained, the more perplexing its reality. In Syria, each faction has paramilitaries that allege loyalty to a sectarian cause. Alliances are made with foes in order to marginalize a common enemy for tactical gain; hence, the battle lines are always changing. The carnage of Syria’s Civil War has proven one thing: there are no winners, only losers. Assad’s regime claims to be waging a war against foreign terrorism. Its campaign is best rendered as one of wonton repression that accepts nothing but unquestioned loyalty to the regime. There will never be a lasting peace under policies of state-sponsored terrorism. Torture combined with a longing for retribution is preserved by a thirst for revenge; both are timeless and destructive.
As an outsider looking into the Pandora’s Box of the Syrian Civil War, I cannot help but to feel overwhelmed by the plethora of informational resources that compete over its portrayal. It seems that each source is fighting its own war of legitimacy only to leave an observer lost and disillusioned with the facts as they are. Complexity is achieved through the diversity of opinions. It becomes highly unfathomable to imagine a world without either. A man can make an opinion just as opinions make men, but are opinions alone truly indicative of intelligence, impartiality, and reason? Each perspective that has covered the Syrian Civil War is exclusively motivated by its own narrative.
So, is impartiality out of question when deciphering its realities? When an outsider separates themselves from the tutelage of the mainstream media, what remains? The most difficult thing to trust is discovered in our gut instincts. It takes a strong basis of belief to have one. Opinions change like the wind which explains that whenever we are irresolute, anything can be believed if there is enough motivation of fear. That is where this general reluctance comes from that shuns queries that provoke critical investigation. An escape from ignorance is threatening because it removes layers of conveniently arranged isolation. Regardless of the degree of isolation, no sheltered bias complete with its competing narrative can deny the carnage and chaos of the Syrian Civil War.
The problem is that each perspective fighting for an alternative vision for Syria is supported by its own scapegoats. The fragmented rebels blame the authoritarian regime and the authoritarian regime blame the fragmented rebels. All the while, secret allegiances are forged only to be carried out by coldly calculated intelligence strategies withdrawn and hidden into corners of deep black operations. No one, no matter how well informed truly knows the fullest extent of what is going on. Anything can be believed or disbelieved which makes it impossible to maintain an impartial resolution about the civil war. To achieve objective reason as a universal political platform, it becomes necessary to raise a rather ambiguous rhetorical question: is it an act of humanity to be lethargic and apathetic about crimes against humanity? Outsiders, in the form of concerned citizens, feel powerless to do anything because they are rendered voiceless by the power elites that control them.
Yet, what can one person do to restore peace to Syria? Arguably, the most obvious conclusion waits to be extrapolated from our intuition. The likes of which come from instincts, issues of clarity, and through the deliberation of indisputable fact. It is all too evident; an organized bloodlust has no care or consideration for the rule of law. The butchers of history believe in one thing only which is the whimsicality of power. The basis of which denies man of law and order which condemns mankind to the endlessness of war. What then is the truest path to peace? It seems the more we focus on the delicacies of the Syrian Civil War, the darker and hazier its reality. So, why not keep it simple?
The longer the regime remains, the longer peace will remain elusive. Authoritarian regimes are only interested in their long term perpetuity through any means necessary. The Assad regime is anything but an exception to that rule. Here is a proposition well worth considering: what if a moderate majority rebellion unified around a cause based on universal respect for the rule of law? A new rebellion could emerge in a way that would transcend ideological squabbling. The reality on that ground demands that no manmade schism of ideology, no matter how well articulated, is more crucial than a system guaranteeing pluralistic accessibility to the rule of law. The Assad regime is a byproduct of corruption, cronyism, and outright contempt universal laws beyond its own. Each ideological schism in the rebellion must adhere to that universal rule of law principle for the immediacy of peace. Yet, is the basis of that aspiration possible without intervention from abroad considering there never was a united rebellion? A unity government established on principles of impartiality and universality for purposes of supplementing a grand rule of law paradigm entertains a high hope of reason for a Syria that could be.
Foreign powers etched out of competing nationalisms are committed to endless cycles of war. The likes of which will create nothing but bleak horizons for world futures. When entire nations are jeopardized for purposes of geo-political gain, each area of intervention will inevitably become a breeding ground for blowback. Great concern is mounted on the future of a post-Assad Syria without realizing that realities on the ground cannot get much worse than they already are. The sooner that rule of law paradigm is adopted, the sooner peace will prevail in Syria. A march to a more permanent peace must begin with its inalienable foundations set during its interim formation. This specifically details a future of plurality, détente, and universal reconstruction. Each stipulation represents an undeniable condition for peace. Such circumstances will never be met under repressive regimes of authoritarian rule or during ongoing cycles of civil war.
Each bomb dropped carries great potential to create a new terrorist.
Omar Alansari-Kreger, of Minneapolis, is a Muslim-American, a writer, and a social activist.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you like this piece, share it on social media. We invite you to join us in this project on our social media sites. We welcome your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a commentary, podcast or photo story. (For more information, email firstname.lastname@example.org.)