This march ten years ago, demonstrations of young people startet to annoy and challenge the regime in Syria. On the 20th and 21st of Mach this year many people in the region celebrate NEWROZ, the New Year. Is there finally, after thousands of people killed and after the enormous destruction in Syria a chance for a political NEWROZ? Not without countries from the region and not if external actors start working together on a new Middle East.
The start of the war
The Syrian regime reacted with extreme force against the demonstrations ten years ago. Soon Islamist terrorists took their chance to mingle into the dispute between democratic and autocratic/dictatorial forces. Some Arab countries hoped for the overthrow of President Assad. So did the West. But Iran and Russia had a different interest. They feared a reduction of their influence. Russia saw a chance by supporting President Assad to get a stronghold in the Middle East. Iran was fearing an extension of Sunni influence, especially by Saudi Arabia and the United Emirates in case of the falling of the regime. In addition, Iran was eager to strengthen its influence and build what is called a Shia crescent from Teheran to the Eastern Mediterranean.
If one would have analyzed the domestic, regional, and international situation, one could have concluded, that the “Arab revolution” in Syria would fail. Domestically the combination of repression on the one side and religious tolerance on the other side did not create a strong and broad revolutionary condition amidst the majority of the Syrian population. One could have seen that the radical Islamist forces only waited to misuse the revolt by the people. Regionally Iran was clearly seeing the danger of a structural political change in Damascus, something the Iranian leadership wanted to prevent. And that was the opinion and attitude of the Russian governing political elite. Turkey on the other hand was interested in a success of the revolt in Syria but was of course opposing a strengthening of the Syrian Kurds, whose politics were at least close to the one of the PKK inside and outside Turkey. So, the forces supporting “stability” were much stronger than the forces of - democratic - change.
Delivering weapons to the rebels?
Seeing that imbalance, the democratic forces wanted to get weapons to gain the strongest position inside the anti - Assad front. I remember my meeting in the Jordanian capital Amman with one of the leaders of the democratic forces. He pleaded for the delivery of arms. He saw the overtaking of the leadership by the radical forces and/or a defeat by the Assad forces. A Western policy of military support would have changed the balance. But it would have strengthened the Russian willingness to defend the Syrian regime. It would have prolonged the war with many regional repercussions but also could have endangered world peace. With the experience especially the US had with their engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was and still is understandable that the US would not start another military adventure. And without them European countries were not ready for such an engagement either.
For those who wished for a success of the revolt in Syria it was not an easy decision, not to engage in the fight on the side of the democratic forces. Maybe also the hope prevailed that the regime would fall anyway. Nevertheless, some weapons have been delivered, but there was always the danger that weapons would reach the terrorist forces, which was reported to be the case on many occasions. Anyway, whoever supported these Islamist groups - and it seems also the Syrian regime did it - helped to prevent that the democratic forces could achieve decisive victories.
However, weapons seldom bring peace. In this respect it is deplorable that the recent analysis of the famous Swedish research institute SIPRI had to report, that while the global arms transfer is leveling off, the Middle East arms import was growing: “Middle East states imported 25 % more major arms in 2016 - 2020 than they did in 2011 - 2015.” We should not see an even stronger surge in weapons import but strengthen mechanisms of collective security. This is the only way out of the continuing wars like those in Syria and Yemen.
Ten years after
Today the situation in Syria is primarily a catastrophic one for its population, especially for those who remained in Syria. Overall, 50% of the population are displaced internally or externally. Nine out of ten Syrians live in poverty. On the other side there are those who profit from the war. There are several mafia clans who have gained a lot from trafficking, e.g the Kateri clan in Aleppo. They “trade” with the regime, the IS and the Kurds indiscriminately. There are no moral or political obstacles against using these contacts and networks. Important for these clans is to bring benefits for the regime and President Assad personally. If they think they can overrule or disregard President Assad - as his cousin Makhlouf did -they will be sacked and have to bear the consequences.
Additionally, Iran and Russia are interwoven into this corrupt economic structure. They are dependent on the regime as a well as the regime is dependent on them. Russia is in a stronger economic position than Iran. Syria is trying to renew its relations with the - Sunni - Arab countries and is certainly not interested in a military conflict with Israel. The Syrian regime will not rely too much on Iranian support and its domestic influence. Besides this economic division between proper Syrian and Russian and Iranian actors, the country is still divided geographically with Turkish or Kurdish or US control over specific regions.
Of course, many Syrians still live outside their country and are not eager to return soon. They send money at home and these remittances are not only supporting the different families but also - indirectly - the regime. President Assad can live with that situation as long as the war economy is run by crooks who support him, and the remittances compensate the domestic deficiencies. These remittances out of earnings in Europe are de facto lubricants for the Syrian economy. Ironically they also reduce and minimize the effectiveness of Western sanctions.
Towards a political NEWROZ?
As tragic as the past ten years have been and as the present conditions in the country are, one should design a way out - for the Syrian population and for the region. There is no region in the world which is so diverse, splintered and war torn as the Middle East. And no other region is lacking overall combining organizational structure. Certainly, this cannot be changed overnight. The main work and effort must be done by the regional countries themselves. However, outside forces should try to bring countries - all of them - to one or several negotiation tables. The main outside factors are - still or again - the United States, Russia, and the EU.
The US are the dominant outside military and political force and with President Biden trying to play again a stronger role - irrespective of the pivot to Asia and the rising conflict with China. Russia gained influence on the international level by engaging in Syria and having good relations with Israel. The EU is still an economic factor for the region. One should also involve Turkey as a special outside or regional actor. Additionally, China may have an interest to be involved - as was the case of the Iran nuclear deal JCPOA. Normally, China is concentrated in promoting its economic interests and not much engaged in peace and security building. But it could have a role to play when it comes to the future of the Middle East.
If the West and especially the EU wants to play a role in finding peace in Syria and the region as a whole, one should create the conditions for such a cooperation. Europe should have a strong interest to break up and overcome the dreadful stalemate in the Middle East. The West alone cannot do it. Certainly, other international players like Russia, have different conceptions of democracy and respect for international law and human rights. But this must not prevent efforts to find a way out of the present quagmire which is not possible without recognizing the changed power structure.
The West and especially the EU must question if sanctions against Russia like in the Navalny case are more important than trying to find ways how to work for peace in our common neighborhood. That must not mean to forget values and principles on which the EU was and still is based. I would be happy if these principles would be respected in all EU member countries. As I argued in a previously blog “EU sanctions and Russia” sanctions and especially sanctions alone are no substitute for geopolitical strategies. Who wants to act globally will also have to accept compromises and will have to swallow negotiation „partners“ and results even if they are contradicting their own value positions. Provocations like the recent outbreak of President Joe Biden on Vladimir Putin in his interview on Wednesday 17th – calling Putin correspondingly a killer - are not constructive either and will certainly narrow the space for cooperation where desperately needed.
Additionally, all countries of the Middle East show - more or less - deficiencies concerning human rights, some in an extreme form.
If the EU and its Commission President is taking the geopolitical aspirations as expressed in different declarations seriously, they must also act in that direction. Europe needs a NEWROZ in Syria but also in the whole region from Iran to Yemen. Europe will not be the strongest actor in this respect, but it has to play its role in supporting new security considerations and structures including ways towards a region, free of weapons of mass destruction (see also out latest discussion on a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, AA and the JCPOA)
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.