'Syria needs federalism'

Michael Wolffsohn is a historian and publicist. From 1981 to 2012, he taught modern and contemporary history at Germany's Bundeswehr University in Munich.

DW: Why have all efforts at mediation failed so far in the Syrian conflict?

Michael Wolffsohn: Future plans will fail, too. It's just something to keep diplomats and politicians busy without a real concept. It is always assumed that the existing nation state Syria, so-called and thus perceived, can be restored. That is an illusion.

Syria is an artificial product of post-colonial demarcation. Syria's social, ethnic and religious realities are quite different from its state borders. People who want to keep alive this artificial state are trying to square the circle. It is time to rethink the entire Mideast configuration of states, and even beyond.

Most present states are unstable artificial products, some of which have already fallen apart. Let me remind you of Sudan, look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Mali. There, things are still developing. The same is true for Syria. People who want to restore this state aren't aware of the realities.

Then, one would have to assume that the conflict in Syria is ethnically motivated.

There is an immense contrast in Syria between Arabs on one hand and Kurds on the other. There is a religious divide between the more Shiite Alawites and the Sunni, who are in the majority in Syria. In Syria, one has to deal with circumstances that can and must be described as ethnic and religious.

There are observers who say the conflict is not ethno-religious.

This is the situation: Hama, Homs and Aleppo are Sunni strongholds. Traditionally, that's where you find Sunnis who may be closer to the hard-line Muslim Brotherhood. It's not the moderates who run a revolution - they merely try to get it started. The radicals quickly take over from them.

What's the alternative to a nation state in Syria?

You would have to get everyone involved to develop federal structures within the existing states; that means decentralization and that means more autonomy and more participation for the individual groups. What people are currently trying to restore is a centralized state. You can't do that. They have to distribute power and self-determination more widely. The latter would be, one, religious, and two, ethnic.

So you're saying a federal structure in Syria might be the solution to the problem?

It would be simple to let the Kurdish region rule itself. The Sunni communities could also elect their own representatives. So far, politicians and journalists, but also scientists, assumed a more or less centralist national state or, if federal structures were to be instituted, they assumed a form of regional allocation among the groups that form the federation. But if you look at the social reality in most states, including in Syria, that isn't possible. One would have to tie in with models of reform of the late Habsburg monarchy.

The short version of my assumption is: current national states, including and focusing on Syria and Lebanon, are artificial products that are collapsing anyway. Recreating them would be a forlorn hope. Decentralization is the first step, giving autonomy to groups who regard themselves as a community. You have to federalize, instead of centralizing. That's the first step.

Who could initiate such a step?

Someone from within the country. It's an illusion to think it can be controlled from the outside. You can't solve conflicts if the parties involved aren't willing to solve conflicts among themselves.

Does that mean you believe Russia would have no influence?                    

Only very limited influence. The Americans have, and have had, very limited influence on Israel. The Americans weren't able to hold on to Mubarak in the long run, nor to the Shah in Iran. It's a popular illusion to believe that foreign and major powers can really exert such massive pressure. Historically, it's simply wrong.

How do you rate military intervention?

Military intervention is worth considering. I suggested this back in March, and was probably one of the first to do so, along with, but separately from, the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy. This could possibly take place as a Turkish forward action accompanied by Arab auxiliaries.

They would enter Syria through Turkey to create a protective zone to separate the main combatants from each other and establish a humanitarian zone worthy of the name - not like Srebrenica in 1995.

This could all be secured from the air. The German air force could take part, but otherwise the German military does not have the capacity. Surely something would be possible, and while this would be no solution in the political sense, it is indeed necessary to relieve the so-called humanitarian situation that is anything but humane.

Interview:  Diana Hodali / db / sgb
Editor: Martin Kuebler