Syria: Reflections on a Post-War Future

Kim Wilkinson argues that policy makers should look past the civil war in Syria to think about post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation.

When I was visiting the Zaatari refugee camp, I met a little girl whose mother had named her ‘Syria’. She was dishevelled, playing with her brothers and sisters in the dirt around their ‘caravan’ in Zaatari. She had ginger hair and wide green eyes. What future might she have? I wondered. That was September 2013.  It seems even harder to fathom now, over a year later, if things will get any better, and what kind of life she might lead one day. 

Since the Syrian revolution rolled into a turbulent civil conflict, war crimes have been committed on each side, chemical weapons used by Assad against his own population, rebel factions have coalesced, and fought. The human toll of this three and a half year old conflict is almost inconceivable. Global refugee numbers are now at their highest since World War Two.  As the tectonic plates of foreign policy re-align, different political futures have been projected. When Hezbollah joined Assad’s forces, the regime gained back some ground. However, recently predictions of an Assad ‘victory’ have been thrown into question. It seems, as Sherlock and Spencer put it, outside powers are unwilling to let their allies lose, but do not have enough political will to commit to their victory. With Daesh (alternatively known as Islamic State) now in the mix, the future looks even murkier. Much hinges on Aleppo, a moderate rebel stronghold, now under assault from one direction by Assad’s forces, and another by Daesh.

Short-sightedness has defined much of the policy in West Asia and North Africa (WANA). Some might think it pre-emptive, but I believe that it is necessary for policy makers to start thinking about what post-civil war reconstruction might look like in Syria. With so many players, and three and a half years of carnage – the population starved and barrel bombed, internally displaced and living as refugees - it’s hard to contemplate what “winning” the civil war would even look like.  But to think about the future of Syria, to look beyond the daily news headlines (headlines that have recently been dominated by Daesh’s latest atrocity), is an important exercise for policy makers.

Thinking about Syria’s post-war future needs a multipronged approach that includes a focus on disarmament, reconciliation, rehabilitation and the re-building of vital institutions, with an emphasis on regional cooperation.

Regardless of the outcome of the war, disarmament is a key pillar of post-conflict reconstruction that will be essential in Syria. Small arms and light weapons combined with former fighters contributed to ongoing insecurity in post-civil war Libya, even after a new government was installed. There are different approaches that could be trialled in Syria, such as a gun exchange program.

Reconciliation will also be instrumental. The process - and boons - of post-conflict rebuilding should be shared by all Syrians. Some analysts have recommended the need to focus on an overarching Syrian national identity, instead of more narrow, sectarian ones. This is easier said than done in a conflict that has increasingly taken on a sectarian flavour. Reconciliation will be made easier by holding those who have committed war crimes and human rights abuses to account, this includes the regime (for instance the massacres in al-Bayda and Baniyas and the Ghouta gas attack) but also members of rebel groups and militias, and Daesh. This will no doubt be a hugely difficult task. Human rights abuses have already been rigorously documented by Human Rights Watch and other rights groups, but it will take political will, so often in scant supply, to hold the abusers to account. One idea, though not without its shortfalls, is that conditions on aid for reconstruction could encourage follow-through on human rights observance.

It is also hard to conceive how reconciliation will be possible with Daesh. The group have no interest whatsoever in engaging in reconciliation with other parties in Syria – their vision of an Islamic Caliphate is uncompromising. The legacy of their involvement in the region will be long. Thinking about Syria’s future must include a plan for the rehabilitation of fighters – from all groups.

Rebuilding institutions and the state will be important to post-conflict reconstruction. However, some points might be taken from the experience of Iraq. In his book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Rajiv Chandrasekaran chronicles how de-Baathification removed those Baathist civil servants with valuable experience and left state-building efforts seriously maligned. If Syria’s post-civil war future involves the disassembling of the party, it should not necessitate the disassembling of the whole state apparatus.

Key infrastructure such as hospitals and schools have been decimated. Education in particular is vital for state-building. This is one aspect that is galvanising the relief effort. With a large percentage of refugees under 18, many are missing out on undertaking their school and university studies. The desire for education and job opportunities has driven some Syrian refugees to endanger themselves by re-entering Syria. 

The lack of educational opportunities for Syrians during the civil war could create what has been termed a “lost generation”. To counter this, grants have been made available through the Said Foundation to allow Syrian refugees to attend university. More could be done in this regard.

Lastly, regional cooperation should be the cornerstone of post-conflict development. Re-building Syria could be the impetus regional states – so often divided - need to come together. Some have suggested that the time has come for a new pact between WANA region powers. Post conflict reconstruction could be the impetus to refocus the powers in the region from competition onto cooperation. It could galvanise West Asian and North African states to create a kind of regional security architecture that could help prevent conflict in the future.

Even if it is difficult, we must think about Syria’s future.  States are so often occupied doing the immediate business of international politics, but the long game matters too. The cost of not planning for the future could be too much to bear, a lost generation or a failed state. Stop-gap measures and short-sighted policy is not enough for a girl called Syria. That’s why even as the Syrian civil war seems like it is nowhere close to abating, we must look and plan beyond it. Simultaneously we should be doing everything possible in the here and now to secure a future for Syrians: to invest in the education of refugees, to provide psychological support, and to, even if it seems futile, document human rights abuses. Pragmatism combined with future planning should be two key elements of the international and regional response.