Originally published on the CGS blog on December 11, 2015.
Citizens for Global Solutions addresses a diverse set of global needs. Each deserves attention. But two difficult problems signal possibly severe ruptures to international trade, security, and economic well-being. Both are in the Middle East.
One is the possibility that nation-state jockeying for position in the resolution of the Syria crisis will get out of control and lead to broad physical and economic confrontations.
The other is that the combination of despotic, repressive family rule and archaic, backward-looking Wahhabi Islam in Saudi Arabia may lead to continuous civil unrest in Europe and beyond, as well as a severe disruption of oil supplies from the Persian Gulf region with massive economic consequences worldwide.
Solutions to these challenges are hard to find. This post is not intended to spur rash or emotional action among concerned citizens. But awareness and some attempt at constructive orientation are needed.
This post will deal with the Syrian situation. A follow-up post will address Saudi Arabia.
By recent count, over 230 warplanes from five nations are assigned to Syria. The United States accounts for about 150 of them. Russia has aircraft in the area and has launched cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea. A melange of armed forces backed by various sources divide and devastate Syria.
Syria’s economy has deteriorated badly, as Chatham House has well documented . The nation has lost control of rich agricultural areas and a large portion of its petroleum production facilities. Thus, the energy bases for economic and social performance have been greatly diminished. A recent World Bank report suggests that Syria’s gross domestic economic production has plummeted in recent years, and the government has meager international reserves.
The same report states,
As of September, 2015, 4 million Syrians have registered as refugees with the UNHCR, and are mostly hosted in Syria’s neighboring countries, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, but also in Egypt and, increasingly, in European countries. More than 12.2 million people in Syria are in need of humanitarian aid, including 5.6 million children (UNOCHA, Syrian Center for Policy Research-SCPR).
It’s plausible that rivalries among other countries, including the United States, have wittingly or unwittingly contributed to the current breakdown in Syria. The authors of a 2014 Foreign Affairs article suggest that “Syria has become a dividing line among rival powers—a twenty-first-century iron curtain of sorts.” This perspective is subject to the interpretation that the “Western” steadfast rejection of Assad has to do not only with that Assad’s bloodthirsty reaction to political challenge, but also with his economic and military alignment with Russia, Iran and China.
Overall, it seems fair to say that the combination of drought, local citizen disenfranchisement and abuse, civil war, ISIL, and Western economic sanctions is what has pushed Syria nearly to the brink of state disintegration. At this time, Syria is economically valuable to just about no other nation. At the same time, ISIL is a menace to all.
The net economic and humanitarian result of this history seems to underlie the current degree of coordination between external State actors, including both Russia and the United States. This suggests the possibility of setting up a political reorganization of Syria through international concord, leading to workable domestic concord over several months or years. The United Nations appears to be playing a constructive role in this process.
But at this time, negotiations are poorly coordinated and the parties at the tables continue to vigorously pursue separate and often opposing objectives, with abundant weapons of regional destruction active in the theatre. This obviously is a classic tinderbox situation. A regional tragedy for over 20 million humans could become a broader confrontation, harmful to economic systems and human welfare on a broader and perhaps global scale.
How do we reconcile these competing objectives? First let us look at our own orientations.
Some counsel support of a “Sunni bloc” against the Shia Muslims, Iran, and Russia. Many seem to imply that in a Russian/Western shoving match, we should further isolate and marginalize Russia.
However, from a global standpoint, it is more important for there to be normal and productive economic and social activity in and near Syria than for any of these State actors to gain advantage over the others. A functional Syria without a hostile agenda toward any of its neighbors should not threaten any of them. Such a functional Syria with adequate agricultural production, petroleum production, banks, utilities, and medical and educational systems could engage in productive economic and social interaction with nearby and global entities—Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Europe, the United States, etc.
We know we can expect Russia to continue to seek its own advantage, sometimes aggressively. That is a constant, and Russia’s geopolitical position cannot be ignored. It is highly unlikely that any reintegration of Syria is possible without Russia maintaining its base on the Mediterranean. Given the history of the area, it would probably not be feasible to reconstruct Syria without Iran and Russia having the opportunity to engage in mutually beneficial (though not exclusive) economic arrangements with the population of the reconstructed Syrian State. But these things are not inconsistent with a free standing and a functional Syria. Indeed, they would be implicit in its circumstances.
CGS Senior Fellow Don Kraus’ suggestion that an international trusteeship for Syria during the rebuilding period under United Nations auspices deserves, this author suggests, widespread and receptive attention. Such an arrangement would be a rare and substantial departure from current international practice. It would require a massive organizational effort. Perhaps only a region-threatening breakdown of current international efforts could force action in this direction. But if it could be managed, this could provide structure for a necessary long-term program to restore Syria to stability. Even if a formal trusteeship were not managed, the objectives on which such an arrangement would be focused are the objectives to be addressed in any reconstruction program for Syria. I have articulated such objectives in a recent post.
Citizens of the United States should be advising our government to defuse the tense military standoffs among “partners” in the area and to work toward reconstructing a Syria that is unaligned to sectarian identities or to political blocs in the area or in the world as a whole. In other words, Syrians should own Syria.
