Syria strains the semantics of
civil war By Jacqueline Outka
The semantics of war have been thoroughly
debated over the years - one man's terrorist, as
they say, is another man's freedom fighter. These
semantics are always changing: in a 1944 Tribune
column, George Orwell wrote, "when the Spanish
[civil] war broke out the BBC produced the name
'Insurgents' for Franco's followers. This covered
the fact that they were rebels while making
rebellion sound respectable." Now, the tide has
turned and the word "insurgent" - used, for
example, in reference to "anti-American" fighters
in Iraq - has come to be more negatively charged
than "rebel."
Just as calling the
participants in wars by different names affects
our feelings toward them, so what we call each war
itself is also very important (eg, "the American
Civil War" versus "the War of Northern
Aggression"). To refer to Assad's "crackdown" on the
Syrian opposition is to
call upon the world's aid, attention, and
condemnation; to call the conflict a full-blown
"civil war," as the media has been calling it
lately, is to imply something altogether
different. Without prioritizing between these two
descriptions, it's worth looking into what,
exactly, the latter term means.
Civil wars
are generally defined as wars between two or more
groups within a particular nation-state. In the
Syrian case, the two main players are the Syrian
government and the opposition. The opposition is a
complex body in and of itself, composed of many
diverse groups who are nonetheless united in their
desire to oust the present government.
At
least one scholar has argued that the state has to
be one of the parties in order for a war to count
as "civil", but in practice it all depends on
one's perspective (to take the example of the
American Civil War again, both sides saw
themselves as "the state" - that was the whole
nature of the conflict). Historians like John
Keegan argue that several more conditions must be
in place before a war is considered civil -
including the presence of uniforms - but his is a
minority view.
The nature of civil war has
changed significantly since the 20th century. In
the past 100 years, civil wars have increased both
in quantity and in duration. The result is that,
paradoxically, they have become both more and less
significant.
On the one hand, many civil
wars simply carry on their bloody way in small,
forgotten corners of the world with most people
being none the wiser. On the other hand, a
characteristic feature of the modern civil war is
the interference of external actors; you have
weapons from country X and support from country Y,
and country Z is threatening to invade if you
don't get it all sorted out by December. And the
characterization of a particular conflict as a
"civil war" appears to justify both emotional
distancing - "it's their fight, why should we get
involved?" - and covert operations (a la the Cold
War) on the part of foreign nation observers.
In the case of Syria, the use of "civil
war" has become much more common in recent months.
A UN peacekeeper was one of the first to apply the
term back in June, and it appears now to be used
without comment.
Now, why does this
matter? Violence is violence, and I highly doubt
that Syrian civilians are losing sleep over what
international policy wonks are calling their
terrified days and nights.
Yet the fact
that international players are throwing the word
around nonetheless could be significant for
Syria's future. Take Assad's recent statement that
he will "live and die in Syria." This rhetoric
comes in response to the offers of David Cameron
and others to house him in their countries if he
will call for a ceasefire. Assad's remark is, in
essence, playing the "civil war" card against the
West - emphasizing that this is a Syrian conflict
only, and no one else need intervene. Meanwhile,
Time reported recently that President Obama, fresh
off his re-election, is already fielding calls
demanding to know if he is planning to change his
policy on Syria - or, to return to our favorite
term, intervene in a civil war.
So war
semantics are not just semantics - and, as you
follow the situation in Syria, pay close attention
to each word and what, exactly, it implies.
Jacqueline Outka is a
contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
