The Conflict Of The Syrian Conflict - 1506 Words

Introduction At the time of writing, the Syrian conflict has raged on for nearly half a decade, while that in Darfur for well over a decade. In both instances, some of the international community’s most experienced mediators attempted to halt the fighting. None, however, were able to bring more than a few days of respite to these violent conflicts. Since the end of World War II, mediation has grown as a form of conflict management tool. As mediation gained prominence and primacy in international relations as a method for war termination, wars are more often decided in a meeting room than on the battlefield. In fact, since the end of the Cold War, the trend in war termination has almost reversed as the number mediated settlements†¦show more content†¦With every failed ceasefire, conflicts, like those in Darfur and Syria, become more complex, entrenched and widespread; conflict actors multiply, grievances become further aggravated, more territory is engulfed in violence and the means of aggression become more brutal. The failure of a ceasefire sets a peace process back tremendously and often gives rise to further bloodshed. Successive failures, particularly in situations of acute power imbalances and deeply held perceptions of injustice, often contribute to a conflict becoming protracted and intractable, making it alm ost impossible to mediate. There is a growing urgency therefore to understand how to more effectively mediate durable ceasefires more effectively. The challenge of reaching a ceasefire, in large part, stems from the nature of the armed conflict itself. Most conflicts today take place within the borders of states and are fought between state actors and armed groups. Intra-state conflicts are particularly challenging to mediate as the obvious asymmetry in favour of the state often precludes its officials from accepting any mediation. State actors are usually well organised, have the full force of the state’s security apparatus at their disposal and enjoy legitimacy in eyes of the international community. In contrast, armed groups, at least initially, are a band of civilians: untrained in warfare; incoherent in philosophy; disjointed in structure; and unsupported