From the beginning of the modern era, Syria has been a victim of the machinations of others. The country faces myriad problems, internal and external, none of which can easily be resolved.
Syria went from Ottoman rule to being a remnant after the French and British carved the Arab East to satisfy their imperial designs. Because of poor governance and sectarian rifts, like its “other half” (Lebanon), Syria became a playground for the deadly games of neighbours and others.
In recent years, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Russia, the US, Lebanese and Palestinian factions and militias, Kurds, and of course, ISIS, all were involved in some degree of meddling in Syria, militarily and politically. Like reckless children engaged in a dangerous game, these “outsiders” paid no attention to the consequences of their behaviour.
When Syria’s war on itself began in 2011, those who warned that nothing good could come of it were ignored. When the numbers of dead rose to 5,000 and there were calls in the US and in the Arab world to arm the Syrian opposition, others cautioned that more weapons for opponents of former Syrian president Bashar Al Assad would only increase the weapons the Assad regime’s allies would provide to protect them. And so, the spiral continued, with the sectarian factions and the Assad rule each drawing in allies until the country was fractured and drenched in blood.
And then, after 13 years of conflict, the group once associated with Al Qaeda, that had controlled the northern Syrian province of Idlib for many years, marched into Damascus toppling the Assad regime, which by then had been largely abandoned by its Russian and Iranian backers.
Many in Syria and around the world celebrated. But in reality there was little to celebrate. Estimates of those killed in the war range from 560,000 to 680,000. Much of Syria’s infrastructure has been destroyed, more than half of its population has gone into exile or been internally displaced, and the country’s already fragile social and political cohesion has been shattered.
Once installed in the capital, the group formerly deemed a terrorist organisation has put on suits and ties and moderated their speech to demonstrate that they could be responsible stewards of the “new Syria”. But the tasks they face may be insurmountable. They may control Damascus, but the rest of the country remains fractured.
Iran and its allied militias may have left or been weakened, and Russia has consolidated its position along the coast to protect its Mediterranean port and airbase, but Israel and Turkey have dug in deeper.
Israel has been especially aggressive in seizing land, aggravating sectarian strife, and bombing much of Syria’s defence and internal security capabilities. Add to this the internal challenges from Syria’s diverse ethnic and sectarian communities, who remain uncomfortable with the past of the new government and distrust that they’ve really changed. Signs continue to indicate that the new government in Damascus doesn’t have full control of some armed militias that fought alongside them during Syria's long war.
Early on, the new rulers of Damascus made predictable mistakes that have, if anything, made their job harder. Instead of seeking to reassure the civil service, military, and police forces that worked under the Assad regime, tens of thousands have been dismissed. This has increased insecurity, made the job of governing more difficult, and created a huge pool of resentful newly unemployed, some of whom retain their weapons and may be a source of future unrest.
While the new government’s rhetoric has been promising, the problems they face present seemingly impossible choices. These choices constrain their ability to move forward and, if the stress becomes too great, may push them to circle the wagons and take increasingly repressive measures to avoid losing power.
As just one example: the new government faces enormous financial pressures to rebuild the country, grow its economy, reconstitute and pay salaries to police and civil service employees. But their ability to raise funds and secure foreign investments is hampered by the fact that the Assad rule was under international sanctions and the new government is still listed by the UN Security Council as a terrorist organisation.
While many countries justifiably want the new government to demonstrate that it’s no longer the extremist group it once was, delays in support only mean delays in Syria’s rebuilding, restarting needed services, and providing salaries to Syrian public servants.
The reasons for American hesitation in sanctions relief appears to be driven in part by US negotiators wanting the Syrians to conclude some sort of security arrangement with Israel. The price of such an arrangement, however, would be to exacerbate domestic tensions, especially with elements allied with the new government who will find any agreement with Israel a bitter pill to swallow.
The bottom line is this: in assessing how to resolve any problem, personal or political, the solution should not rest on a requirement that parties lack the capacity for or have no interest in doing.
The new government in Syria may have overthrown the old regime, but while they may have ruled their province in Idlib, questions remain about whether they can create national unity and govern the more complex and diverse Syrian polity. Israel, Turkey, Iran and others need to leave Syria and stop exploiting sectarian tensions for their own ends, but they have no interest in doing so.
If there were ever a situation where the world needed a strong and effective UN, this is it. Absent a neutral mechanism to assist in the resolution of conflicts and the enforcement of the rule of law, Syria, its people, and its new rulers are left to their own devices and the whim of some malign regional forces.
