G 20 No deal on Syria shows no will to end with terrorism

G 20 No deal on Syria shows no will to end with terrorism

Terrorism was always associated to power. Either as a counter reaction to state oppression and unbearable exploitation or as a state illegal oppression of popular resistance to state atrocities.
Yet Terrorism is pure violence because its end is not to move or eliminate un obstacle but to spread fear to anyone that would like to resist to the terrorist act. In that circular argument every ideological cover is just a cover and can not be accepted as a political action. On the pure violence of terrorism equalization between the victims’ deeds with the aggressors’ rights does not make sense rationally. It can only be taken into account under the stress of immediate self defense and emotionally radical conditions when revenge comes as an inescapable course of action a sort of automatic reaction legalized in war or a state of folly that could lead in penal law in attenuating circumstances .
Terrorism’s paradox is the fact that although it is scheduled and executed with cold blood it produces almost always the opposite effect of the alleged causes and ends of the terrorist act.
Coming to the Paris terrorists acts as such it is obvious that the so called war is confined in the action of a certain well trained cellules of terrorists associated in networks of European range organized by power centers like Al Qaida in the past Isis today. The individuals taking part to all these actions are prepared to die which means that their relation with western values of human life, of self and others, is inexistent or destroyed. There is a clear difference between suicide and murder in the west a distinction that was not always accepted since at a time one believed that the self belonged to God and so no one had the right to take it away. In the case of terrorist ideological scenario the suicide bombers are martyrs and are murderers of oneself and others in the name of their God. But who is this God who commands death and who is the incarnation of this name of the God who gives the order? These questions of associations with reality and reason often lead to severe psychopathology that could not in any case be connected to reality be it social or political. The distinction has to be made between the social causes- misery and alienation-underlying the creating of a set of conditions that creates a radical culture and the quality of the act one chooses to respond to oppression, exploitation or even pure evil.
So far for the perpetrators but what about the victims and their reaction.
As is always true when confronted to radical events there are two stages of action both in time and cause. The first is the reaction to the immediate identifiable cause. In the case of the Isis attacks the operational response based on force is unavoidable and should even be undertaken with conviction to protect our lives and values. The second reaction should be to the identification of the causes that led to this folly of violence and the part in which we could associate ourselves as western citizens. This inescapably brings us to the Syrian Crisis not because the terrorists into their twisted conditioned minds invoked it but because it takes a simple rational recognition of reality to see the effects of war that are spread from Middle East to Europe.
The Question could be posed in blatantly simply terms: is there someone who wants to end the Syrian war for the sake of its people?
Regrettably Geopolitics are not concerned with peoples’ sufferings or interests it just has to take into account people’s reaction and the way this interferes or hinders state politics. Power politics is the normal western mode in international relations and this has not change during at least the Thucydides accounts of the Peloponnesian war even though the enlightened western modernity and reason is well defeated by this mode of action. The same applies to the Syrian crisis. Who wants to end it? Is the Anti- Assad stance more important than half a million people dead in war and almost half the population of the country driven out of its territory living in complete indecent conditions and drowning by hundreds in the Mediterranean every year? What kind of reason can explain all that other than one associated with sheer power politics?
The recent G20 came close to a deal about confronting Isis as a military organization. Nothing is confirmed yet and all that for a deal which even though fundamentally insufficient would be temporarily necessary.
Still one has to make a deal to stop the war. And in that moment of the conflict this will mean radical concessions. For the West to negotiate with Assad and accept Russian’s military bases, for the Russians to accept that Assad has gradually to be driven out of the conflict and in time out of power through a consensual process. The Saudis have to negotiate ad hoc in this case with their Shiite enemies of Iran just to redraw their active support in corresponding political and military factions. Turkey as one of the most important stakeholder in the conflict has to cut illegal transactions through its borders that are actually finance Isis and to reassert its politics towards Assad and the Kurds.
All that have to be done as a prerequisite for a real dialogue over a deal to end the War. Apparently none of these are going to happen. The military option alone is perhaps to be the most probable option. It is like succeeding to change the clock in a time bomb. Superior Force will probably repress the force of Isis terrorists but war is an inextinguishable source of violence. Global modernity lesson conveyed by the physics second law of dynamics force us to recognize that violence in Syria is violence globally. Europe is receiving it first. Nevertheless one has to clear the argument from un eventual confusion. Responsibility as in good legal theory remains on the beholder i.e. on the perpetrator and the war in a country- assuming there is still a country- is the primary concern and responsibility of its citizens leaders and followers alike and in fair proportion. Politics have to do with reason not guilt.
By Dr. Spyros Damtsas