Modernitás, jövőképek és idődimenziók a szíriai konfliktus korai geopolitikai narratíváiban

Abstract

Over the past three decades, a vast corpus of theoretical literature has been dedicated to the concept of soft and hard power, while US-oriented geostrategic thinking has revolved around how the United States can retain and possibly extend its global leadership position. In the debate on how it should use its unrivalled power in a unipolar world order some have appealed for more global engagement, while others, citing increasing anti-Americanism, have issued warnings about limitations to western universalism, and against what other actors may perceive as excesses.
In my paper I argue that at the heart of the debate on the nature and use of power in the international arena lies the diverging interpretation of legitimacy: whether its role is to veil power, or if it is a component thereof. In both cases the legitimation of geopolitical calculations relies on the use of narratives, whose role includes providing an appealing geopolitical vision, of which modernity and vision are key aspects. With the goal of further investigating the nature of narratives and legitimation, I present a case study analyzing the narratives used in the initial stage of the Syrian conflict by the leaders of regional powers, the US, and Syria. I demonstrate that the concepts of modernity held by the leaders of the six states are to a large extent incompatible. Through the examination of the time dimensions of the narratives I identify a total of six games by four of the state agents, of which five are infinite. This implies that, if stability is to be achieved, a shift is needed toward the interpretation of legitimation as a component of power.