by Roie Yellinek
In the interests of the Syrian people as well as the West, including Israel, it is wise to support China in its efforts to lead the reconstruction.
Syrian girls in al-Shaar neighborhood of Aleppo, by Jordi Bernabeu Farrús, via Creative Commons
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 750, February 25, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The
fighting in Syria, which began in 2011, between President Bashar Assad
and the opposition forces, seems to have reached its final stages. It is
almost certain that Assad will remain in power. He will be the one to
lead Syria in the coming years, and he will have to deal with the
reconstruction of the ravaged country. In the interests of the Syrian
people as well as the West, including Israel, it is wise to support
China in its efforts to lead the reconstruction.
The fighting in Syria that began in 2011 between
President Bashar Assad and the opposition forces seems to have reached
its final stages. It is almost certain that the Syrian president will
remain in power. Assad will be the one to lead Syria in the coming
years, and he will have to deal with the reconstruction of the shattered
country.
From a national building point of view, Assad will
need to create a new dynamic among all the groups that fought among
each other and are now required to return to living together.
Physically, Syria needs an extensive reconstruction of its destroyed
infrastructure. The UN estimates that $250 billion would be required to
make Syria livable once again for its citizens. At present, the Western
countries, as well as the Arab Gulf States, refuse to accept that Assad,
who massacred his people, will remain in power. This means that the
major countries will want to take part in the reconstruction are Iran,
China, and Russia.
It is in the interests of the Syrian people and the West, including Israel, that China lead the reconstruction.
Diplomatic relations between China and Syria were
established in 1956, but the first visit by a Syrian head of state was
Assad’s on June 24, 2004, demonstrating Syria’s “Eastward Direction.”
After this visit and until 2010, China became one of Syria’s five
largest arms suppliers. Apparently, the flow of weapons continued during
the years of fighting, without much publicity.
Beijing’s interests include maintaining stability
in Syria’s neighboring states and containing extremist elements within
Syria. Also, the population and the secular Baath regime are a better
match to China’s communist ideology than other Middle Eastern regimes,
and the anti-western ethos in Syria is compatible with Chinese
philosophy.
The Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang province in
northwest China, and an unknown number of its descendants (estimates
range from a few hundred to five thousand and sometimes more) have
joined the anti-Assad jihadists. Beijing’s interest that the Syrian
regime will prevent the return to China of these trained and highly
motivated fighters is another reason for Beijing to support Assad.
Of course, China’s desire to win large-scale
rehabilitation contracts in Syria is a key interest no matter who wins.
If many projects are funded by Chinese loans or grants to the Syrian
regime, Beijing will gain a strong footing in Syria. This is valuable
for the Chinese president’s main project, the Belt and Road Initiative.
Furthermore, Beijing would gain an advantage over the US, whose
intervention in Syria failed.
Of the three countries mentioned, China is the
most balanced and was the least involved in the fighting. Russia and
Iran, on the other hand, were deeply involved in fighting on behalf of
the Assad regime, as well as for their own interests. If these countries
lead the reconstruction of Syria, the Syrian opposition will continue
to suffer from Assad’s oppression, as he is supported by Moscow and
Tehran.
Iran’s interests in leading the reconstruction are
the desire to gain a military foothold in Syria, first and foremost
against Israel; to be closer to their Lebanese ally, thus strengthening
the Shiite Crescent under its leadership; and to keep its ally, Assad,
in power. Russia’s interests include its desire to keep the naval
facility in Tartus and forestall Western regional aspirations, which
include the removal of Assad.
In contrast, China’s interests are generally
connected to economic development and maintaining stability. They are
less personal. Therefore, if Beijing leads the reconstruction, all
parties would be able to contribute to mutual economic growth. China’s
policy of non-intervention in the countries it does business with can be
a stabilizing factor that could bring together Syria’s factions. The
Chinese also know how to conduct simultaneous relations with sworn
enemies, which could be very helpful in this particular case.
Also, from Israel’s perspective, it would be much
better to see a Chinese aid program and Chinese companies rebuilding the
Syrian Golan Heights rather than Iranian ones. Of course, China’s
economic capacity is superior to that of Russia or Iran, but since the
other two have great influence over the Assad regime, they might tilt
decisions in favor of a reconstruction program that would benefit them
more than the Syrian people.
Chinese companies have already shown interest in
the reconstruction. On January 24, 2017, the Syrian Minister of
Transport discussed with a Chinese economic delegation ways to promote
cooperation in the fields of air transport, ground transport, and
railway construction.
It is hard to know what Assad and his allies
really want, but their attitude towards China is quite positive. They
will most likely be happy to adopt a reconstruction program that keeps
them in power for years to come. The Chinese option seems able to
provide this, whereas a plan led by Iran or Russia could lead to another
round of fighting.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family
Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/reconstruction-syria/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment