Christiane, Thank you for the intuitive response, it is a very good example of the international relations theory of liberalism, which has in the 20th century been a theory of great merit. Since I am developing a theoretical framework for post-civil war Syria, different insights give me the opportunity to test the developing theory against peer responses, in an effort to “see the pitfalls” as the theory develops. Therefore my response is not an attack upon your view but rather an application of a political theory in opposition to better understand both frameworks.

I understand your point on sovereignty, yet critical theory would argue that, if a sovereign nation’s instability affects other nations they therefore have a right to intervene, regardless of the desires of the host nation. Also I would ask who actually does sovereignty apply? The government or the people? As we have seen over the past year, many times these two entities are themselves in conflict, as in the case of Syria, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern nations. Is sovereignty more applicable to the state or the people who are the states constituency? If these two entities are in conflict with each other who then has the ultimate right to sovereignty?

Which would lead me to my next question, if the international community left Syria to work out their own political issues, is that really a fair fight? In Syria the government controls the military, and thereby has an advantage in any conflict with its people. If we therefore apply sovereignty to the people and that is being challenged by the government, would not international intervention be necessary? In the case of Egypt, whether you agree with the ousted president or not, he was legitimately elected, and although the military has claimed to be acting under the direction of the people, many would disagree. In Egypt, unlike Syria, the military would seem to be a third entity, which claims the right to decide the nation’s political direction.

I totally agree with you that sending in guns is a poor plan. And I would agree that this conflict has some origins in the poor planning undertaken through the seemingly arbitrary remapping of the region by foreign powers post World War II. A single nation intervention, such as one by the U.S., is also in my opinion a poor solution to the problem. The days of dominating superpowers, I think is coming to a close. But international intervention is a possibility.

What if the United Nations, finally became the world body it was meant to be? What if, due to the instability of Syria and the ramification throughout the region that that conflict is causing, an international effort was made to stabilize the sovereign nation? Although Colonialism is a policy of the past, what if the U.N. through an international effort intervened in Syria and gave power to neither the current government nor the opposition forces, but instead set up a protectorate government of international make-up, which would, with the Syrian people, develop a stable, acceptable government to which the people would agree? Then after giving them the time to develop that government and infrastructure to maintain it, simple remove themselves and return the sovereignty back to the people.

If you believe that sovereignty applies to the people, then this method may be one solution which could eventually return that right back to them.

The assumption that the United Nations will finally become the world body is a very far away assumption. With the magnitude of thrust that super powers are practicing on others, and utilizing critical theory within a biased frame, that is to incur change by creating a puppet government rather than sovereign government makes things worst.

Case studies in the middle east abound.

Mark, the theories could not be wrong if applied within the original frameworks that were built upon, but when used is a distorted manner will cause more pain and suffering to the people of the country. Lebanon was a major trial grounds to critical theory, the player the Israelis failed to achieve its objectives. Is it a result of simply the people's choice (the southerns, but not other citizens who were betting for Israel to win), not really because of the intervention of other nations practicing critical theory on their own terms (the Syrians), and so on.

Syria is undergoing similar plot. This time Israelis from one side, Lebanese from another side, Iranians, and the roll goes on. So, what type of theory really applies?

Countries intervene based on a major marcoeconomic level, Russia and USA, and others intervene on a microeconomic level, Iranians, Lebanese, Iraqies, Israelis, ...

Mark, you have a challenging pursuit, too many variables are inter mixed. The people of Syria, are themselves confused in many instances, even many from both sides of the conflict change stance depending if they strike a deal that serves their purposes. For example, within the battle field, a party of Syrian rebels decides to give up their weapons to secure their safety and similarly a battalion of Syrian soldiers will do exactly the same thing to secure their safety, and these events occur many times! A confusion! Things go worst when allied fighters are in battle and out of a sudden one group sells the other in mid heat! So, things are distorted. One cause, the Saudi and Qatari money pouring in to fuel more confusions and to obtain their won gains versus the super powers... And amid all this, Israelis take advantage and bomb here and there>

As I said, extreme mess up ongoing within political confrontation under the big motto: Let the Syrians decide by themselves!

Mark, I am reading along the article you posted. Thanks

Hussin, Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful response. I am well aware that any theory which today elevates the United Nations to a world governing body that has the power to bring peace and stability is likened to science fiction. However being an optimist I cannot help but think that 20 years ago if someone had even suggested that I would today be engaging in an almost real time discussion with another scholar, and one from Lebanon, I would have probably said they had been watching too much Star Trek. If only our wisdom for dealing with conflict could match our technological cleverness.

The basic thesis is that the concept of sovereignty is one of the main conflict drivers throughout history. If therefore we eliminate the concept of sovereignty, we therefore eliminate one of the main drivers of conflict. Sovereignty is a social construct devised to divide. In general people only are concerned with their own human needs, security, stability, etc.,and if these needs are met, in general the majority of people, minus those who desire power, are less interested in who governs them. A case in point.. I present to some of my students if here in the U.S. a condition existed where unemployment was zero, commodities were cheap and readily available and the nation was secure and stable, would they care if the leader of the government was lets say Canadian? The majority answer that they would not care either way so long as "things were good". This is not to say that there are not those that will reject the idea of giving up their sovereignty to another nation for the purpose of stability and security. However many take the notion that governments equal subjugation and therefore it is preferable to subjugate to one that offers the best personal living conditions.

Yes indeed, what you said is to the point. Applicable as well in our side of the world. Let me give you another extreme example analogical to your point of view. In Lebanon, we have a messy government where politicians are occupied in their own differences and struggle for power forgetting about the people who are highly occupied making their living under harsh conditions most of the time because of the continuous chaos. People today do not give a damn about their representatives (except those who are in the core benefiting) as long as they do not interfere in their daily effort to make their living.

Strange. People do not worry about the governing body because they think that the economic cycle, which is not regulated directly by politicians, still permits people to do their things to survive.

So, it will be interesting to articulate on your last statement " many take the notion that governments equal subjugation and therefore it is preferable to subjugate to one that offers the best personal living conditions" as applicable to the Lebanese status-quo.

Regards