The most popular
1
On Nike Ad Colin Kaepernick: the revolution will be marked?
2
The chaos that Brett Kavanaugh released
3
Amy Goodman is sentenced to imprisonment for reporting the Dakota Access Pipeline. This should scare us all.
4
We need everyone to take steps to keep Brett Kavanaugh out of the Supreme Court
5
Democrats find spine at Kavanaugh hearings – but will it last?
The United States and its European allies have long argued that the only acceptable solution to the conflict is a political process leading to elections in accordance with the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, unanimously adopted in December 2015. They remove Assad from power, under which they say that there can be no stable peace in Syria. They are also concerned that the close alliance between Assad, Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia is threatening Israeli military interests. Until an irreversible political transition is underway, the Syrian government and all of Syria held by the government, by extension, are under the severe sanctions of the West. US companies and citizens are not allowed to invest in Syria or export products to that country. Western governments are the largest donors in Syria in terms of humanitarian aid, such as food, water and medicine, but have steadfastly refused to finance the country's reconstruction.
Some analysts believe that the sanctions policy is a continuation of the West's efforts to remove Assad from power, but this time only by using money rather than weapons. The Western reconstruction money channeled by the regime or its proxies would allow the Syrian government to consolidate its control over the country and its resources, which the United States and Europeans want to avoid. They are also sensitive to the idea of financially rewarding the regime's elites responsible for their country's immersion. At best, in the absence of a political process, forced economic stagnation could compromise the regime's control of the regime. But critics of American and European foreign policy have decried what they claim to be either the collective punishment of Syrian civilians, or an attempt to dream to resume a war that the West has already permanently lost.
Russia's July proposal to embark on reconstruction and repatriation of refugees sparked a cold reaction from senior US military officials, according to Reuters. But the Trump administration generally does not have a global vision of US policy vis-à-vis the country. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East Affairs David Satterfield told reporters last month that the suspension of reconstruction aid was "the door" to bringing Russia and Syria back to the process moribund policy sponsored by the UN. This strategy, which has been working for years, has not worked yet.
In April, the House of Representatives passed a bill that, if passed, would cement the US sanctions policy. The No Assistance for Assad, currently before the Senate Committee on External Relations, would ensure that US taxpayers' money would not be spent on rebuilding government-controlled Syrian territory directly or through the UN. IMF or other international organizations. According to Syrian analyst Aron Lund, its effect would be to put an end to any drift in international organizations that could see humanitarian aid stabilize and rebuild.
Reconstruction without Western money
Without Western money, reconstruction in Syria is likely to be slow and incomplete. In July, China pledged $ 23 billion in loans and aid to the Arab states, which adds to the $ 2 billion investment in Syrian industry, committed last year. . It is unclear how much of the new package will go to Syria as opposed to other Arab countries, but in any case, it will be a drop for the reconstruction needs of Syria. Russia and Iran seem reluctant or unable to pay for reconstruction, according to numerous newspaper reports. Both countries are also under US sanctions.
The status of existing reconstruction projects is an indicator of what reconstruction could look like without Western funding. Articles on Syria's rehabilitated industrial centers, oil wells and international trade exhibitions are regularly published on Syrian media, which are trying to predict a return to normalcy. Syrian viewers can see housing built in the suburbs of Damascus, Dimas, and learn how industrial production has returned to the industrial zone of Al-Qaterji in Aleppo. Far from cameras and such flagship initiatives, there are, however, large pockets of stagnation. According to a report published in January by the Associated Press, the old city of Homs, taken over by the government in May 2014, still relies on uninhabitable ruins.
At the same time, regime-affiliated financiers are launching expansive and lucrative development projects over the ruins of the heavily damaged slums that surround Syrian cities, which were home to many of the poorest townspeople in Syria before the war. Human rights groups have expressed concern that these developments would be used to permanently relocate former residents, who usually had no formal proof of ownership of their homes.
Neighbors
But while the United States and Europe continue to refrain from any involvement in reconstruction, Syria's neighbors seem more open to Russia's proposals. Many in Lebanon and Jordan, the world's two largest per capita refugees, have become impatient after years of economic strains imposed by the war and its aftermath, and seem to be moving forward with Russia without waiting for US and European support. . At the end of July, Lebanon joined a joint committee with Russia to coordinate the return of Syrian refugees, bypassing UNHCR and Western governments. The UN refugee agency met throughout the summer with Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil on whether or not Syria is safe for returns. UNHCR maintains that this is not the case and a recent study by the Carnegie Middle East Center indicates that most refugees are in agreement. On August 20, Bassil went to Moscow, where he reiterated his position at a joint press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. We therefore see no reason why Syrian refugees should stay in Lebanon. "
The Jordanian Foreign Minister has also been in touch with his Russian counterpart about the repatriation of refugees this summer. Relations between Syria and Jordan have never been totally broken and would have improved with the upcoming opening of the economically important Nasib border crossing between the two countries. Its closure and the impact of the war in Syria have caused considerable economic stress in Jordan in recent years.
Even Turkey, once a big supporter of the Syrian opposition, is reportedly negotiating with the Assad regime via Russia to try to secure valuable reconstruction contracts, according to Al-Monitor.
Turkey's role in Syria is set to undergo radical changes in the coming weeks, as Assad and Russia prepare to attack Idlib, the last province run by anti-government opposition, for which Turkey acts as guarantor. . observation posts enforcing a "de-escalation" agreement. Turkey meets with Russia and Iran on Friday to negotiate the future of the province, as the rest of the international community prepares for a humanitarian catastrophe.
The ultimate fate of the province is virtually sealed – Turkey has given no indication that it will defend it against attacks – but analysts say neither Turkey nor Russia have any interest in a humanitarian catastrophe generating refugees and look for ways to manage the bloodbath. Turkey is currently working to convince as many non-jihadist armed groups as possible to go to Assad.
No change in Western politics
The Russian and Syrian governments, along with the Allies, have attempted to present the limited refugee returns – 77,000 in 2017 – as evidence that the Syrians want to put the war behind them and move under Assad's leadership. Until now, this argument seems to have made little progress in Western foreign policy circles.
While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced in July a summit on September 7 between his government and those of France, Germany and Russia to discuss Syria, Germany and France have not acknowledged his statement. In August, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that he and Turkey were getting ready, but that a UN official was familiar with the issue. The nation no such meeting is planned. He also expressed his skepticism that Germany and France are as open to Russian diplomatic efforts as the news of the allegedly implicit meeting. At the end of last month, Turkey announced another meeting on Sept. 7, the summit with Russia and Iran to discuss Idlib.
A staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Commission, speaking at The nation under cover of anonymity, lamented Russia's efforts to give the impression that reconstruction is on the move: clearly premature to discuss any US contribution to reconstruction.
The United States and its European allies have indicated no plan to deviate from their longstanding refusal to participate in the reconstruction of Syria. Jan Techau, a Berlin-based foreign policy expert and member of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said: The nation Assad has become so toxic that he doubts that European leaders can convince voters and national parliaments that their participation in reconstruction is useful. He said Russia's attempts to create facts on the ground in Syria would not force Europeans to take into account the failure of the UN-led peace process. European governments do not have much power to control results in Syria, he says. The United States, for its part, has the capacity to confront Russia on its projects in Syria, but have chosen not to do so, leading to the same result.
The author of the No Assistance for Assad bill, New York Democrat MP Eliot Engel, said: The nation he does not intend to reconsider his bill in the light of the partial rapprochement of Lebanon and Jordan with Russia. "Assistance to Assad will do nothing to ease the burden on Syria's neighbors," he said, "while Assad imposed restrictions on the return of refugees., many of them will never come back to live under his brutal reign. In the region and outside, some are considering putting this statement to the test. What seems certain is that ordinary Syrian civilians will continue to be relegated to the margins of decision-making about their country.
