A persuasive peace: Syrian refugees’ attitudes towards compromise and civil war termination

AuthorTolga Sınmazdemir,Chad Hazlett,Kristin Fabbe
DOI10.1177/0022343318814114
Published date01 January 2019
Date01 January 2019
Subject MatterResearch Articles
A persuasive peace: Syrian refugees’
attitudes towards compromise
and civil war termination
Kristin Fabbe
Harvard Business School
Chad Hazlett
University of California, Los Angeles
Tolga Sınmazdemir
London School of Economics
Abstract
Civilians who have fled violent conflict and settled in neighboring countries are integral to processes of civil war
termination. Contingent on their attitudes, they can either back peaceful settlements or support warring groups and
continued fighting. Attitudes toward peaceful settlement are expected to be especially obdurate for civilians who have
been exposed to violence. In a survey of 1,120 Syrian refugees in Turkey conducted in 2016, we use experiments to
examine attitudes towards two critical phases of conflict termination – a ceasefire and a peace agreement. We examine
the rigidity/flexibility of refugees’ attitudes to see if subtle changes in how wartime losses are framed or in who
endorses a peace process can shift willingness to compromise with the incumbent Assad regime. Our results show,
first, that refugees are far more likely to agree to a ceasefire proposed by a civilian as opposed to one proposed by
armed actors from either the Syrian government or the opposition. Second, simply describing the refugee commu-
nity’s wartime experience as suffering rather than sacrifice substantially increases willingness to compromise with the
regime to bring about peace. This effect remains strong among those who experienced greater violence. Together,
these results show that even among a highly pro-opposition population that has experienced severe violence,
willingness to settle and make peace are remarkably flexible and dependent upon these cues.
Keywords
civil war, civilian attitudes, framing experiments, peace, violence
Introduction
Terminating civil wars, let alone proceeding to reconcile
and reintegrate civilian communities to realize lasting
peace and avoid future conflict, poses many seemingly
insurmountable challenges. The Syrian conflict is a case
in point. Ceasefires have been short-lived, millions have
been displaced, and a durable peace settlement has pro-
ven elusive. Do Syrian refugees – and especially those
who have experienced violence first-hand – support a
ceasefire with the incumbent regime? Under what con-
ditions will refugees consider a peace agreement that
keeps Assad in power? When will they reject these types
of compromises and instead demand nothing short of
fully removing the incumbent regime?
These are critical questions, for civilians who have fled
violence and settled in neighboring countries can be
integral to ending or prolonging conflicts. Refugees can
either back ceasefires and peaceful settlements or support
warring groups and continued fighting (Salehyan &
Corresponding author:
kfabbe@hbs.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2019, Vol. 56(1) 103–117
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343318814114
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT