About the conflict in Syria
Let us analyse the events in Syria from the historical perspective, as if from a 100 years distance, temporally disregarding today's political interests for a better understanding of the causes of conflict.
I must say, first, that I see these events in the aspect of correspondence between global conflicts and the history of written culture. This point of view differs from the “clash of civilisations” concept because it strengthens that conflicts take place between cognate cultures with common roots rather than between different civilisations. Written cultures mutually identify common sources during conflict; they reconstruct the original structures and go back to the geographical points of origin. Such points are focuses of the cultural area that has a historically established configuration. The dynamics of conflict answers to the particular configuration of the cultural area.
The conflict in Syria began as the reaction to the events of the Arab Spring, which were continuously developing over North Africa and Middle East from the beginning of 2011. The chain of events was the following: Tunis - Egypt - Libya and Lebanon - Jordan - Yemen - Bahrain and, finally, Syria. Analysts generally agree that it was a spontaneous process.
Although political results of the Arab Spring are not final, a discernible pattern emerges in its development. Modern events are repeating the line of regional transmission of written culture corresponding to the history of Arabic literary language. This becomes clear if we overlay modern events on historical map.
Indeed, the events started in Tunis (Carthage, Punic literacy), then passed to Egypt (the oldest focus of the cultural area) and from there immediately spread over the countries representing cultural branches, as it was during the transmission of written culture to new territories in the ancient times. Precisely, to Jordan (Nabataean Kingdom, proto-Arabic alphabet), Yemen (the Old South Arabian literacy) and Bahrain (old cultural area boarder). The events further spread to Sudan (Nubia), Libya, and later to Mali in accordance with old cultural links. They reached Lebanon (old Phoenicia) and, finally, Syria, the point of origin of Aramaic, the most influential literary language and predecessor of Arabic in this region.
This picture seems to represent a regular pattern. A dependence of this kind can be traced on various historical stages and especially in antiquity, when political events look like a response to the events of cultural history. Such dependence can be clearly traced, for example, in the Roman conquests. In the course of time, however, due to multiplication of cultural layers, it becomes more obscure. However, in the later periods, too, it is possible to trace that original links established during the initial cultural transfer configure future relations between countries and peoples.
Generally, in the situation of close contact all parties to conflict spontaneously reconstruct their profound historical links though an implicit convergence, a spontaneous process of informational nature. Reconstruction is quite apparent, for example, during the conflict in Libya in the division of the country along the historical border between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania, respectively Greek and Punic domination in antiquity. The division into two historical regions has reappeared in the course of confrontation between the adherents of European and autonomous political choice.
Conflict in Syria represents a similar development but in a more complex way, because of the complexity of the region that has provided sources to the cultures of many peoples. In antiquity, an important common source for a number of the Middle Eastern and European cultures was the Aramaic language. Historical base of the modern-day events in Syria can be understood as the reconstruction of the Aramaic written culture area. Cultures derived from or linked to the common source appear in confrontation at the cross-points, and the conflict develops accordingly.
Current events on historical map show a distinctive conflict dynamics. The events start in Deraa, southern Syrian city on the crossing of old Semitic subareas - Phoenician, Jewish and Aramaic. From the periphery, the events quickly unfold in such a way that all area focuses appear to be involved. They are Damascus, the region of the earliest Aramaic kingdoms and Homs (Emesa, near is Kadesh, the area frontier in the time of ancient Egypt, later Christian centre). Then, the conflict focuses in Aleppo and provincial Idlib, which shows that convergence has reached even a deeper level, because this is the location of the oldest centre of written culture in Syria (here in Ebla Sumerian cuneiform was applied to Semitic language contemporarily with Akkadian in Mesopotamia).
This picture is confused by the fact that old cities in Syria are continuously sustained. At the first glance, the conflict seems to be concentrated in the economically developed zones. But together with the escalation, it become more and more clear that the conflict is developing to the east, going beyond modern frontiers of Syrian Arab Republic proper through Iraq to Iran and encompassing the entire ancient cultural area. It is noteworthy that written Aramaic spread over a vast area in the standard official use already in the time of Persian Empire of 6th - 4th centuries BC. Aramaic replaced Akkadian in the older cuneiform area and continued to play the main role in this area for ages, although its linguistic forms and literary variants changed.
Additionally, a number of Aramaic-based scripts spread over the world up to China (Uyghur alphabet). Arabic alphabet, which replaced Aramaic on a part of the area, has the Aramaic source. Moreover, Aramaic is well known as one of the languages of Judaism and early Christianity, in other words, the language of the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods through the Late Antiquity. That means that there is a clearly defined vast geographical zone originally established by the spread of written culture and a number of distant countries, culturally linked to this zone. This point of view allows us to understand why more and more parties are involved in the conflict and the number of states and armed groups is growing.
Today’s conflict in Syria shows that it is not a sectarian Sunni/Shia war (as the UN initially defined it), but rather a confrontation of mixed ethnic, religious and secular groups battling other groups of mixed character. One can see that the groups are opposed by the difference of self-identity, which ultimately goes back to different historical contacts and shapes today’s political preferences. Thus, Syrian opposition (Free Syrian Army and National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces) has a democratic orientation, although there are nuances; they easily find allies in the USA and Western European countries. Syrian government and its allies have regional orientation. They unite the government, the army and several military groups, such as radical Shiite party Hezbollah from Lebanon, which also denies sectarianism and views Lebanon as a part of Syria.
These two main conflict parties mirror the history of the region, where the European culture overlaid the Semitic culture from the earliest times - from Greek enclaves of the Seleucids until the French Mandate.
Further conflict development into civil war shows a full-scale reconstruction of the old links, which imitates the picture of presence of several geopolitical predecessors. Historical and linguistic associations seem to subconsciously motivate the confronting parties set into particular semiotic environment.
The distribution of zones held by conflict parties, for example, reminds of the division of Syria in the period of French Mandate, when Syria together with Lebanon was divided into Greater Lebanon, the Alawite State, the Druze State (As-Suwayda), State of Damascus, and State of Aleppo; it also included for a time Turkish province Hatay (historical region of Antiochia). During the conflict, zones held by the government and anti-government forces are approximating to these divisions. The southern zone held by rebels is expanding to the east, while the northern rebel-held zone is expanding to the southeast tending to encompass a vast territory adjacent to Aleppo. Correspondingly, the government-held zone is narrowing to the west. Simultaneously, the conflict is crossing Iraq and Jordan borders and spreading further; there is already a spillover to Lebanon and Golan Heights and an escalation of tension in Israel.
These developments produce geopolitical reconstructions that are observable on the map. Thus, the recently self-proclaimed Kurdish autonomy in Syria together with Kurdish activities in Iraq and Turkey are expanding Kurdish ethno-political presence in the region. This entire Kurdish zone reminds of the territory of historical Armenia and even an older stage of the spread of Hurrian and Urartian languages. Additionally, Iran is developing activities in Syria and political and economic relations with Armenia. In this way, the older historical frontiers reappear.
Finally, reconstruction concerns the most radical conflict party, the so-called 'Islamic State'. During the conflict, this extremist group seems to have overgrown the initial political goals of its creators and turned into an expanding force. The IS is the product of violent international conflict. The analysis of their ideology shows that they want to return to early Islam by re-establishing the seventh-century ruling principles, war methods, societal structure and laws.
They have declared new 'Islamic Caliphate', and this is a clear case of reconstruction. Capture of cities and control zones are the result of random operations sporadically distributed over the vast territories of Syria and Iraq. Eventually, the emerging line of IS advance appears to be partly similar to the early Arab conquests (in reverse order). However, they are actually reconstructing the pre-Islamic situation, rather than the declared caliphate.
IS methods are borrowed from the period of transition of the Arab world to literacy in the 7th century. It is clear that the transition period bears traces of illiterate society. Hence, a return to barbarism challenging modern civilisation. Massacre, genocide, and public executions are performed consciously. Additionally, there are many cases of vandalism, which likely chooses the targets through associations. IS has attacked various cultural centres and symbolic objects, including Islamic historic places and sacred memorials. Such violent acts are similar to barbarian attacks of the past; they are aimed at the incorporation of the developed culture. The choice of Paris as the target of terror attack is clear in this context, because France is the recent source of European culture associated with this region.
It is of importance that together with the process of reconstruction a number of major expansions are crossing in Syrian conflict. It is, first, the spread of European culture and the international English language, which has certainly influenced the Arab Spring and the following events in Syria. Additionally, there are countries with an earlier geopolitical presence in this region, such as Turkey (during the Ottoman Empire), and Iran (even older Persian Empires and Aramaic roots).
There is also Russian expansion, which has acquired aggressive character in the last years. Russia, in its turn, is undergoing changes of the reconstruction type. Reconstruction concerns the elements of ideology and culture of the Soviet period, on the one hand, and the elements of early Russian history, such as the revival of the Orthodox Church, on the other. The post-Soviet Russia resumed large-scale contacts with the West, this time primarily with Anglo-American sources, and as it happens generally, turned against the sources of borrowing.
Confrontation with the West is expressed in aggressive political rhetoric towards the USA and EU (“Anglo-Saxons” and “European values” as Russian enemies) and in political and military activities over the former USSR, as well as on the periphery of the West European and Middle Eastern regions with extensions into the Pacific and Arctic.
Beginning with the annexation of Crimea, Russian expansion moved westwards to Ukraine associated with the EU and southwards to the Middle Eastern region. Today’s Russian expansion is unfolding in the same way as other expansions through the area focuses relevant to the history of Russian culture. The expansion is supported by vulgar interpretations of Russian history and associations within the history of church. There is an idea to defend Christian values from the West and from the East, in particular, in Syria. It is not surprising, therefore, that Kiev - Crimea - Syria line of expansion reached Turkish coasts, since the initial source of Russian culture is, as is known, Byzantium.
In other words, Russian involvement in Syrian conflict and further confrontation with other countries result not only from Soviet political connections, but also from the expansion pattern.
It is doubtful that Kremlin is elaborating a targeted strategy of world conquests and geopolitical change. There is no doubt, however, that through counteraction with other parties the aggression will go in a particular direction. For example, today’s development Latakia - (Antiochia) - Istanbul (Constantinople) partly reconstructs the direction of Alexander of Macedon conquests (in reverse order). If the conflict continues, it will be unfolding to Balkans, probably, to Bulgaria, and escalating the aggression towards Ukraine, Lithuania, and Georgia. In other words, it will be developing through the line of transmission of Slavonic literacy and following the links to Byzantium. This may activate a parallel expansion towards Western Europe, which will go in the line of more recent Russian cultural contacts through the corresponding points.
As developments show, the process of area reconstruction in the course of Syrian events reached the basic historical level. That means that practically all countries can be involved in the conflict.
All expansions in the history of the region unfolded in similar way: Babylonians, Assyrians, Medes and Persians, Greco-Macedonians and Arabs moved through the same area focuses, if mapping as vectors rather than actual routes of military campaigns.
Similarly to the events that repeatedly took place in this area in the periods of Greco-Macedonian, Roman, Turkish and other expansions, the escalating today's conflict will encompass Asia Minor, the entire Near East, including Israel, and the Middle East, including Iran, with further extension to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Furthermore, it can develop south-westwards to Egypt and Africa and spread over the Mediterranean into Western and Eastern Europe and further to both Americas. It is not excluded that it can reach as far as India and China, because there are corresponding cultural links. The chain of geographical locations, or focuses of the cultural area, through which global conflicts develop, remain constant throughout history, independent from actual geopolitical presence of peoples and states in these places.
What opportunities give us these findings?
First, they increase predictability of the development of political conflicts and potential conflict zones (compare, for example, the present day situation and my mapping in the beginning of the Arab Spring).
Second, they help us to know the level of conflict development. Without exaggeration, we are at the threshold of an uncontrolled escalation of global conflict. Additionally, the conflicts of this kind develop in waves, or cycles. That means that interim solutions, if any, will not mean the final resolution until the underlying cultural conflict is resolved.
Third, there appears an opportunity to work out methods of political regulation proceeding from the nature of conflict. It becomes clear that arbitrary geopolitical repartition of the world is now impossible, because there is a spontaneous informational process behind the current political events.
People do not know yet how to manage such processes. However, positive steps to calming the conflict seem possible. The whole world without exaggeration is interested in peace in Syria.
For this purpose, I suggest to proceed not from the current situation, but from the expected result.
As history shows, global conflicts of this kind are ultimately aimed at the formation of political unity, which allows peoples to overcome differences, to enhance contacts and to organise information exchange between cultures. Greco-Macedonian conquests, for example, culminated with the creation of oecumena with common language in the Hellenistic period, which prepared conditions for the broadest cultural exchange, systematised knowledge and formed common basis for modern civilisation.
The essence of what is happening now is a growing demand to overcome inconsistency. It concerns not only the economic sphere, poverty and social protection, but in the most the more general problems of disagreement between culturally different models of behaviour and forms of political organisation.
This demand is addressed mainly to the developed European culture as the main source of borrowings. However, the people who belong to the European culture also address a similar demand to remote cultural sources, which explains, for example, the broad coalition in the Iraq War.
Hence, the main question: Do great societal transformations necessarily need war and conquests? Was the Second World War the last attempt to prove that there is no place for empires in the modern world?
I think that modern society has accumulated enough knowledge, experience and information resources to avoid devastating war and to create a desirable unity in the information domain. Peoples are able to peacefully work out common principles and harmonise positions. For this purpose, the key trends, which we observe now, must be taken over and transposed into virtual sphere for a conversion of aggressive tendencies.
In particular, the strategy of political regulation has to correspond to the configuration of the cultural area. It seems that Turkey can play an important role in the calming of conflict. Not only because Turkey is today’s politically important state in the region, but because Asia Minor is one of the most important area focuses and historical crossing of eastern and western cultures, which was always apparent in the history of its geopolitical predecessors.
The positive activities of Ankara after the incident with Russian jet show that Turkey can become one of the key partners in the resolution of Syrian conflict. This evolution will necessarily bring to the agenda the Armenian problem. The events will certainly reach Armenia, because Armenia is also the focus of the area, including Azerbaijan and the entire Caucasus region. There is little doubt that the developments will soon result in the reconstructions in the region of historical Armenia (not necessarily with Armenian ethnic presence), together with the reconstruction of the Kurdish zone, which is already taking place.
The solution of the Armenian problem, therefore, is a vital interest of Turkey. Turkey has to start political dialogue with Armenia, reduce tension and normalise diplomatic relations. Yerevan has to share this responsibility and encourage, instead of insisting on the formal acknowledgment of the fact of genocide, the broadest open and transparent dialogue. Such political activities will definitely transmit a positive impulse to other geopolitical focuses.
Aleppo as the main Syrian focus requires peace in the first instance. It is necessary to concentrate efforts in this key point, as far possible, and achieve cease-fire, probably holding consultations with Iran. Truce in the south of Syria is also an important point, and here Jordan can play a positive role.
In Iraq, the focuses are in Bagdad (Babylon) and Mosul (Nineveh). It is necessary to consolidate efforts on conciliation in Mosul, now under IS control, and to avoid additional confrontation at this point. Furthermore, it is necessary to prevent by all possible means a spread of conflict to Egypt.
It is doubtless that Bashar Assad’s government must retire, because it is the main symbol of the conflict. For the majority of armed groups there will be no more reason for further fighting; the third countries support of Syrian government will automatically become illegitimate. All who can cease fire must do that without delay.
There is no final military solution of the problem of terrorism. An indispensable condition for defeating IS and other terrorist units is the reduction of the role of security agencies in politics.
Calming Syrian conflict needs a complex political regulation of the entire region. It can be accomplished in frames of international organisations, probably in specially created commissions, in which the Arab League, the EU and USA can play important roles. Political regulation in neighbouring countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine) is required, because Syrian conflict has crossed the borders and develops regionally. The regulation running from the periphery will produce positive effects on the centre. Furthermore, it is impossible to resolve Syrian conflict without resolution of conflict between Russia and Ukraine because these events and processes are bound together.
Antiterrorist alliance with Russia in the present-day state of affairs seems impossible, because Russian leaders have been preventing resolution of Syrian conflict from the very beginning, both with military help to Syrian government and by political means, such as UN Security Council. Putin uses antiterrorist rhetoric primarily in view of strengthening the role of security agencies and their international cooperation, which produces serious effects on the escalation of conflict. The recently planned talks between NATO and Russia, however, seem promising, provided that Kremlin course changes and NATO positions itself as the defence complex.
Additionally, it is necessary to begin preventive measures of humanitarian character for resolving the cultural conflict.
In Islamic world, the most important role in this respect seems to belong to Egypt, which has a long experience of interreligious agreement. In the Christian world, it is Rome and also Paris with its secular scholarship. It seems possible to broadly introduce semantic components in education that could strengthen common origin of different cultures and explain differences on the humanistic ground.
Finally, it is desirable to develop international legal regulation, in particular, to introduce legal limitations on propaganda and information war, because they reach a broader public than the target audience. The appropriate media content is required for the conversion of aggressive attitudes, for example, counter Russian propaganda. It is also desirable to give legal definitions of aggressive regimes and their international status.
Final resolution of conflict needs political and legal frames, on the one hand, and humanitarian work of systematisation of the content of different cultures, on the other.