Exclusive – Retroactive, Current and Future Injustices in Syria

Syrians continue to lose millions of years in education as 2.4 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 are out of school. (Reuters)
Syrians continue to lose millions of years in education as 2.4 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 are out of school. (Reuters)
TT

Exclusive – Retroactive, Current and Future Injustices in Syria

Syrians continue to lose millions of years in education as 2.4 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 are out of school. (Reuters)
Syrians continue to lose millions of years in education as 2.4 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 are out of school. (Reuters)

Nine years of war in Syria have left three forms of injustice: retroactive, current and future. Among its manifestations was the spike in economic losses to over half a trillion dollars, destruction of 40 percent of the country’s infrastructure and slide of 86 percent of the population of 20 million in poverty.

New figures have revealed that victims of the conflict have reached 700,000 or double United Nations estimates. These figures are of the injustices of the past. The future injustice lies in the fact that three million Syrian children, inside the country and abroad, are out of schools.

Global ranking

Syria has been described by the United Nations as the greatest humanitarian disaster since World War II, and the data attests to this. It was ranked 180 out of 189 in the human development index and its lies dead last in protecting children. It ranks 174 out of 180 in freedom of the press.

Triple injustice

These are some of the findings reached by the Syrian Center for Policy Research (SCPR) in a report, entitled “Justice to Transcend Conflict”, that provides multidimensional analyses of the impact of the armed conflict in Syria between 2011 and 2019, examining the country’s socio-economic situation and institutional performance. The report should serve as a reference to UN agencies and Arab and foreign governments on the conflict.

“The conflict has created three types of injustices: the retroactive injustice, which refers to the destruction and deterioration of the tangible and intangible wealth of the country that have accumulated through centuries; the current injustice, which represents the production of injustice now, as the conflict shifted the integrated and productive economic and social activities towards the destructive one; and future injustice, as the subjugating powers institutionalizing conflict-centered institutions, relations and economy. These powers build the foundations of injustice in the future to be added to grievances that created during the conflict,” said the report.

Economic injustice

The conflict had led to the emergence of different, fragmented economies within the “fractured state”, said the report. “The economic foundations were transformed into a self-sustaining cycle of violence in which much of the capital stock was destroyed or reallocated to conflict-related activities.”

“The total accumulated economic loss during the conflict by the end of 2019 is projected to reach 530.1 billion USD, compared to the counterfactual scenario, which is equivalent to 9.7 times of GDP of 2010 at constant prices. The total loss consists of GDP loss equal to 420.9 billion USD, the increase in military expenditure is equal to 37.8 billion USD, the capital stock damaged or lost which is equal 64.6 billion USD, and the informal production of the oil and gas is projected to reach 9.9 billion USD by the end of 2019,” it added.

“Public subsidies have witnessed a consistent decrease as a percentage of the current GDP from 20.2 percent in 2011 to 13.1 percent in 2014. Due to the price liberalization, the subsidies dropped sharply to 5.1 percent in 2015 and 4.9 percent in 2019. As a result, the public budget deficit with off-budget subsidies dropped from 23.6 percent in 2013 to 8.8 percent in 2019.”

Three years ago, Russian officials said the cost of rebuilding Syria may reach 400 billion dollars, while the International Monetary Fund put the figure at 300 billion. Since then, studies on Syria ceased as the international community’s attention to the conflict waned even though the violence did not.

Since Russia’s intervention in the conflict in late 2015, regime forces, with Moscow and Tehran’s backing, managed to recapture vast territories from the opposition. Prior to the intervention it held 10 percent of territory, while now it holds 64 percent. Twenty-six percent lies under Kurdish control, backed by the US-led anti-ISIS coalition, and ten percent is held by Turkey-backed factions.

These various “zones of influence” are somewhat stable, but suffer the same economic problems. The Syrian pound has steadily lost its value against the dollar, starting from 2011. It originally traded at 46 pounds to the dollar and now trades at 1,700 to the dollar. Unemployment has also soared. At the beginning of the conflict, 5.184 million people had jobs, but that number has since dropped to 3.058 million.

Human injustice

Syria’s population rose 0.9 percent in 2018 and 1.1 percent in 2019 to reach 19.584 million people. The conflict has led to the displacement of 5.6 million people to Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and other countries. As of August 2019, the internally displaced are estimates at 6.14 million, the highest such figure in the world.

The recent military operations in Idlib have led to the displacement of over a million people towards the Turkish border. Northwestern Syria is home to 3 million civilians, have of whom were displaced at least once before from other areas. Over 3.6 million Syrians in Turkey receive protection, but the Syrian refugees in other countries are suffering. Lebanon, host to 500,000 Syrians, had relentlessly called for their return home and it has taken effective measures to stem their flow into its territories.

Syrians inside their own country are also suffering. Poverty reached its peak at 89.4 percent at the end of 2016 and it has since dropped to 86 percent in 2019. The stifling economic crisis in Lebanon has only exacerbated the economic situation in Syria. The coronavirus has only compounded suffering, as has the European Union’s extension of sanctions against the country. The country is in store for even more hardships as the United States moves to implement the Caesar Act in mid-June.

Priority for military deal

The continuation of the conflict has largely affected the fiscal policies adopted by the government. These policies still prioritize military expenditure and have resulted in the reallocation of available resources from public sector activities and services. The government has aimed to increase its revenue by imposing different fees and taxes, in addition to liberalizing and removing subsidies from some goods, particularly oil derivatives, said the report.

Iran has stated that it spent 20 to 30 billion dollars to back the regime in the past nine years. Russia has called for economic and sovereign compensation for its military contribution.

Development expenditure decreased severely from 7.3 percent of GDP in 2011 to 2.3 and 2.9 percent in 2015 and 2019 respectively. This is because the majority of development expenditure has been reallocated to military expenditure.

During the period 2011-2019, public expenditure dropped substantially from 28.9 percent of GDP in 2011 to 17.6 percent in 2015 and 13.3 percent in 2019. Current expenditure fell from 21.6 percent of GDP in 2011 to 15.3 and 10.5 percent in 2015 and 2019 respectively.

Public subsidies have witnessed a consistent decrease as a percentage of the current GDP from 20.2 percent in 2011 to 4.9 percent of current GDP in 2019. The overall deficit with the military expenditure decreased from 40 percent of current GDP in 2013 to 23.7 percent in 2016, increasing again to 33.5 percent in 2018, and dropping to 26 percent in 2019

Foreign debt

Fiscal policies funded the enormous deficit through foreign and domestic public debt which creates a substantial burden for future generations. The total public debt increased from 30 percent of GDP in 2010 to 208 percent in 2019. This increase was driven mainly by the external public debt that increased from 7 percent of the current GDP in 2010, to 127 percent in 2016, and finally to 116 percent in 2019.

Domestic debt increased from 17 percent in 2010, to 109 percent in 2014, decreased to 59 percent in 2017, and increased again to reach 93 percent in 2019. Domestic debt also caused a substantial increase in inflation rates.

As the loans have been spent on current expenditure and conflict-related activities, more loans will be needed in the post-conflict era driving higher public debt and perpetuating and exacerbating injustice for future generations, said the report.

Lost generation

The Syrians continue to lose millions of years in education as 2.4 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 are out of school. “Almost half of Syria’s children are not in school, becoming a generation that has missed out enrolled on education which will have far-reaching future consequences. The quality of education has also deteriorated substantially,” it said.

“The continuation of the conflict has led to the creation of separate and isolated regions controlled by different powers that imposed their own vision and objectives on the community. This was reflected in the implementation of different educational curriculums and methods that deepen the state of fragmentation and invest in identity politics. These methods differ according to the dominant actor.”

A UN report said 5,427 children were killed and 3,739 wounded in 2019. Nine hundred of the victims were killed in northwestern Syria. A total of 4,619 have been recruited to fight. UNICEF said 6 million Syrian children have been born since 2011. One million were born in neighboring countries, while 7.5 million need aid, including 5 million inside Syria.

700,000 victims

“The increase in mortality among different population groups is one of the most catastrophic impacts of the conflict,” said the report. It revealed a rise in the crude death rate from 4.4 per thousand in 2010 to 10.9 per thousand in 2014. The projections for 2016-2019 reflect a consistent decline, with crude death rates reduced to 9.9 per thousand in 2017 and 7.0 per thousand in 2019.

The projected conflict-related deaths until 2019 is approximately 570,000 deaths, while the projected indirect conflict related death is approximately 102,000, it said.

Kidnapping and forced disappearance represent exceptionally tragic consequences of the ways in which war actors have chosen to assert their power and control over Syrian communities, it added.

Institutional injustice

“The Human Status Index showed the enormous collapse in institutional performance and the deadly struggle between fighting political actors. Throughout the conflict, decision-making processes have been fragmented and internationalized, as multiple internal and external actors engaged in setting contradicting priorities and mechanisms for each of the involved actors,” said the report.

“The different forms of institutions were conflict-centered and adopted extreme strategies to detrimentally affect human beings, social relations, and resources, as well as to subordinate communities.”

“Although the intensity of battles has declined during 2017-2019, the rule of law, participation, accountability aspects of governance continued to deteriorate.

“There are major contradictions between the five internal actors including civil society. The priorities of justice, freedom, transparency, participatory and democracy are at the bottom of the priority list for those in power, which reflects the nature of the conflict centered actors. Only civil society ranked justice, freedom and democracy as top priorities.”

“The organic relations between political actors and new private elite have been deepened and transformed wealth (that which has not been destroyed) to their own benefits in an unprecedented forced redistribution of tangible and intangible capital. Therefore, enormous injustices were created between the political actors and the new private elite on one hand, and the surviving private sector, employees, unemployed, displaced, and poor people, among others.”

Negligible implementation

The report continued: “The global governance system failed to protect civilians in Syria and to activate humanitarian international law and/or effectively enhance the prospect of a just and sustainable settlement.”

“The application of international law during the Syrian conflict has been negligible, which has impeded the alleviation of civilian suffering and set the grounds for a prolonged conflict,” it warned. “The global power struggle has a direct effect on the intractability of the Syrian conflict. This struggle represented in the approaches of the permanent five members of the Security Council in addressing the Syrian war and the impacts thereof. The struggle is reflected in contradicted priorities and policies including political and military interventions, sanctions, and economic and humanitarian support, with substantial involvement of conflicting regional actors.”

The report “suggests the Human Status Framework as a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to analyze the impact and dynamics of the conflict from the justice lens. The institutional, social, and economic diagnoses of the conflict identify injustice as a core root of the conflict, and perpetuation and creation of new and existing injustice as a key outcome of the conflict.”

The report suggested alternative approaches to start the transcending process of conflict, based on the political economy analysis of the key active powers and dynamics of the conflict, such as dismantling conflict economy and achieving justice to children.



China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)

China's test of a nuclear-capable missile last month has exposed the limits of Pacific leaders' ambition to make the region an "Ocean of Peace", free from the crossfire of major-power rivalry.

The July launch, China's first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, was fired into the Pacific just hours after Fiji and Australia signed a major defense treaty, marking Fiji's first ever alliance.

More than a month after the test, Pacific Islands foreign ministers were unable to agree on a collective statement condemning Beijing's missile test, despite individual leaders expressing alarm, publicly and privately, about militarization of the region.

The test was "totally inappropriate", Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko told Reuters on the sidelines of the foreign ministers' meeting in Suva last week.

"China is a very close friend and ally to Papua New Guinea, but we feel this doesn't help at all," he said, adding that Beijing had given PNG advance notice of the launch but no details on where ‌the missile would ‌land.

At the time of the launch, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said it was ‌conducted "safely", ⁠adding: "We hope relevant ⁠countries will not over-interpret the matter."

The missile launch capped a year of more visible military activity across the Pacific, which is fiercely contested between the US and China for influence. That has included Chinese naval deployments and live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea, US-allied exercises around Guam and Hawaii, and a steady flow of warship visits linked to expanding security partnerships.

The United States, meanwhile, retains a substantial military presence across the region, including in Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands.

Tuvalu permanent foreign secretary Pasuna Tuaga, who was speaking in a personal capacity, was concerned about growing militarization, not only because of the missile test but also security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, ⁠Britain and the United States.

UNITED, BUT DIVIDED

In September 2025, Pacific Leaders endorsed the Ocean ‌of Peace Declaration, which committed to safeguard the region, recognized the right of the ‌people to peace, and resolved to contribute to and strengthen international peace and security.

David Peebles of the Australian National University's Pacific Security College said ‌Pacific countries had long resisted having peace and security defined by outside powers and their competing Indo-Pacific strategies. The Ocean ‌of Peace initiative was an attempt to reclaim that agenda, he said.

The regional declaration inspired the defense pact signed between Australia and Fiji last month, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance.

Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not immediately respond to a request for comment on concerns that the growing number of regional security pacts could further militarize the Pacific.

For many governments, security partnerships bring benefits: surveillance against illegal fishing, ‌disaster response, policing support and access to equipment and training. But critics fear a proliferation of bilateral arrangements could leave Pacific countries with little say over how their territory, waters and infrastructure ⁠are used.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister ⁠Rick Houenipwela, who chaired the talks in Suva, said the region's agenda must remain "conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific."

Yet by the end of the one-day meeting, no unified statement in response to the missile test had emerged.

Kiribati and Nauru, which have deepened ties with Beijing since switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan in 2019 and 2024 respectively, did not support the statement's wording, according to an official familiar with the discussions.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters blamed foreign influence for the failure to reach consensus, without naming a country.

The impasse illustrates the central challenge facing these small island nations which have different economic, political and security interests.

In the northern Pacific, where the US has maintained a military presence for decades, some governments want deeper security engagement with the US while others remain wary.

Fiji Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka said Pacific governments faced an unavoidable tension.

Countries wanted "to be free of all these war-making paraphernalia," he said, but also recognized that some security capabilities helped keep them safe. "I believe it's maintaining that balance."

Fiji for the first time participated last month in US-led war games in the Pacific known as RIMPAC.

Pacific leaders will meet in Palau in three weeks for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting, where the missile test and regional unity are expected to return to the agenda.


One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
TT

One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)

In the year since Donald Trump hosted Vladimir Putin on US soil for a summit designed to broker an end to Russia's offensive on Ukraine, the diplomatic initiative has fizzled out and the conflict has escalated.

For months, Russian officials talked up the "spirit of Anchorage" -- a supposed climate of detente, renewed dialogue with Washington and a framework for finding a way out of the deadliest European conflict since World War II, said AFP.

Now there are few traces of that atmosphere. US mediation efforts are at a standstill, both Russia and Ukraine are ramping up attacks and more civilians are being killed than at any point since the first months of the war.

- 'Ending the war'-

On August 15, 2025, Trump broke with the West's policy of isolating Putin, rolling out the red carpet as the Kremlin chief stepped off his plane at the Elmendorf-Richardson air base in Alaska.

It remains unclear what was decided or discussed behind closed doors.

Russia has always maintained some kind of understanding on a peace deal was struck -- "a compromise proposal", as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called it.

Washington has rebuffed any talk of a deal being reached.

"There was a proposal in Alaska, but there was no agreement. If there had been an agreement, we would have had an end of the war," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in June.

Moscow had hoped the summit would lay the foundations for a "lasting peace" by addressing what it calls the "root causes" of the conflict, said political analyst Sergei Markov -- designated a "foreign agent" but still close to the Russian authorities.

For years -- including right before launching its offensive in February 2022 -- Russia has called for a new overarching security deal with the United States over Europe, NATO and arms control.

The "compromise" Russia tabled in Alaska, Markov told AFP, was to limit its territorial claims on Ukraine to the eastern Donbas region in exchange for recognition of Russia's new borders by Washington and the lifting of sanctions.

- Disenchantment -

Those Russian demands were included in a 28-point document drafted by the United States -- later cut down to 19 -- after separate negotiations with Kyiv and Moscow.

The document was never published officially and never came to fruition.

US-brokered direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in early 2026 broke down, chiefly over the issue of territory.

Ukraine refuses to cede land it still controls and wants an immediate ceasefire along the current front line, with territorial status to be decided during fuller peace talks.

And since late February, Washington's attention has been consumed by the war on Iran.

Trump has since issued fresh sanctions on Russia and the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement -- New Start -- has been allowed to lapse.

Having once sensed a window of opportunity to press its demands and been at pains to praise Trump's efforts, Russia has lately allowed itself to publicly question Washington's commitment to diplomacy.

"I don't even want to imagine that Alaska ... was conceived to gain time in order to strengthen Ukraine militarily," Lavrov said in June.

A meeting between Lavrov and Rubio in Manila in July -- their first since September 2025 -- lasted only around 30 minutes.

"We'll have to find new suggestions and new ideas" that both "Russia and Ukraine can agree to," Rubio said after that meeting.

"That's going to require a lot of work," he added.

- Escalation -

The two sides' conditions for peace are irreconcilable.

Russia demands territory alongside political and military concessions that Ukraine rejects as capitulation.

At the same time, both are convinced force can improve their negotiating position.

"The Russian armed forces will continue their mission to liberate the Donbas and Novorossiya in line with the approved plan," Russia's army chief Valery Gerasimov told Putin in a televised meeting in early July -- referring to land stretching across eastern and southern Ukraine.

Buoyed by European support, Kyiv is banking on its long-range strike campaign to tip Russia's economy and society over the edge.

Its attacks triggered a nationwide fuel crisis over the summer, and have forced Moscow-installed authorities to put the annexed Crimean peninsula under a local "state of emergency".

Russia has upped its missile attacks on Kyiv, killing dozens there in recent weeks.

It has also brought Ukrainian exports through the Black Sea to a standstill through a campaign of port and ship strikes.

"The spirit of Anchorage has dissipated," said Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov -- close to the ruling elite -- in August.

The result? "Brutal escalation."


Pleasing No One: Netanyahu Puts Election First with Gaza Decision

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Pleasing No One: Netanyahu Puts Election First with Gaza Decision

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)

Faced with a divisive US-led Gaza plan just before elections that could end his career, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to choose between pleasing his ally Donald Trump or his right-wing base.

In rejecting the plan, he may not please anyone.

The decision is a tactical and PR victory for Hamas, analysts say, with the movement publicly backing the deal under which it would disarm, without taking any steps yet to do so.

Netanyahu, who has built his decades-long career on hawkish security positions, had voiced concerns but softly after the US president on July 30 hailed what he called the historic milestone on ending the Gaza war.

He finally rejected the plan Sunday during a cabinet meeting after pushback from the far-right, which strongly opposes the 15-point deal that would see Israel eventually withdraw troops from much of Gaza.

Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, is by nature "a procrastinator" and is struggling to secure the trust of the hard-right ahead of the October 27 vote, said Yossi Mekelberg, an expert on Israeli politics at London-based think tank Chatham House.

Netanyahu's calculation is to dissuade votes for the opposition by creating the impression that he is "still the only bastion of power that will stop Hamas", Mekelberg said.

"Netanyahu knows that falling out with Trump doesn't serve him or Israel. On the other hand, he knows the minute that he agrees to the 15 points, he would be attacked not only by the right wing, but that some opposition parties will attack him, too," he said.

"He's trying to appease everyone. At the end of the day, he will be appeasing no one."

- Cooperating despite rejection -

Israel will be voting for the first time since the trauma of Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack, the deadliest ever against Israel, which retaliated with an overwhelming offensive in Gaza.

Despite Netanyahu's public rejection of Trump's plan, Israel in practice appears to be complying with a key part of it. Israel has stopped air strikes since August 3, although Gaza authorities report periodic Israeli gunfire.

"These strikes could be resumed and even intensified at any time. It is one of the cards Israel can maneuver with," said Ehud Eilam, a former analyst at Israel's defense ministry.

He noted that Israel had not succeeded in its goal of completely destroying Hamas after October 7.

"Therefore, Israel at least seeks to disarm Hamas, which is also a very difficult task," Eilam said.

"Hamas will anyway refuse to completely disarm, and for now can continue to use Netanyahu as an excuse to avoid or at least slow down this process," he said.

Netanyahu had long campaigned on his close rapport with Trump, who has taken unprecedented steps such as moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and joining Israel in attacking Iran.

But Trump's popularity in Israel took a nosedive in April when he called a ceasefire with Iran and sought a settlement, seeing the Middle East war as politically and economically damaging.

Netanyahu could be willing to take some steps forward on Gaza to please Trump in return for new US action against Iran, Eilam said.

"For Netanyahu, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon too for that matter, are not the most urgent concerns; Iran is," he said.

- Tactical win for Hamas -

Hamas publicly backed the disarmament agreement shortly after it chose a new leader, Khalil al-Hayya.

"I think Hamas, from the get-go, did this for tactical reasons," said Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian Authority official who is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

He said that Hamas wanted to be seen as a "reasonable actor" -- and that Netanyahu's rejection worked in its favor.

"What this does is actually give Hamas and mediators reason to say, look, Hamas has committed, Israel has not committed -- the ball is in Israel's court," he said.

"It lets the pressure off Hamas."