Syria: Solution or Solutions to its Crisis?

Internally displaced children ride in a pickup truck with their belongings in Afrin, northern Syria, Feb. 18, 2020. (Reuters)
Internally displaced children ride in a pickup truck with their belongings in Afrin, northern Syria, Feb. 18, 2020. (Reuters)
TT
20

Syria: Solution or Solutions to its Crisis?

Internally displaced children ride in a pickup truck with their belongings in Afrin, northern Syria, Feb. 18, 2020. (Reuters)
Internally displaced children ride in a pickup truck with their belongings in Afrin, northern Syria, Feb. 18, 2020. (Reuters)

Syria is currently divided into three “zones of influence” and “four governments”. Five armies and thousands of soldiers are deployed on its territories and hundreds of military bases have been set up there. One zone is home to the capital and main cities and another is home of natural wealth and resources.

Syria’s reconstruction requires 400 billion dollars, half of its people are displaced and seven million have sought refuge abroad. Some 14 million Syrians are in need of humanitarian aid and nine out of 10 live in poverty.

Is there one solution or are there several that can end this misery? The state of Syria has become a number of statelets and the “one people” have after ten years of war become divided into “peoples”. Can the solution be found in Syria or abroad?

Political solution: This option was tried many times since the 2012 Geneva declaration. It was tried after the issuing of United Nations Security Council resolution 2254 that paved the way for political transition, which would take place over an 18-month period. It called for “governance”, constitutional reform and elections held under UN supervision. Obviously, it failed. Other attempts were made at Geneva, then at Astana and Sochi with efforts focused on the Constitutional Committee. All these efforts have led to an impasse and no progress.

Statements on preserving Syria’s sovereignty and its borders were drafted in the absence of Syrians and by the “players” and violators of this sovereignty. Talk then started to shift from the transitional authority to the political transition, governance, political process and constitutional reform, leading to the Constitutional Committee. The “players” continue to insist that the solution in Syria was not military. There is a growing conviction that even if the Syrians do agree on a political solution, it really won’t impact the conflict.

Peace with Israel: This option was presented behind closed doors. It calls for the normalization of ties between Syria and Israel, similar to the agreements that had been reached with other Arab countries. Turns out there are hurdles to overcome before this can be possible. First of all, it is out of the question for Israel to withdraw fully from the Golan Heights. It is concerned with “peace in exchange for peace”. Damascus, meanwhile, is demanding that it restore its full sovereignty over the Golan. Discussions have been held about transforming the Golan into an investment and tourism destination that would pave the way for the reconstruction of the whole of Syria.

The conditions for such a deal between Syria and Israel are not yet available. The impression, however, is that roads that are being shut to Damascus and later opened are being paved through Tel Aviv. As the waters are being tested, Russia is carrying out “confidence-building” measures between Syria and Israel through reactivating the disengagement agreement in the Golan, reviving prisoner swaps and repatriating the remains of Israelis from Syria. The greatest obstacle, however, is Israel’s demand that Iran pull out militarily from Syria.

Iran’s withdrawal: This appears to be the demand of many actors involved in Syria. This is Israel’s primary demand. Tel Aviv has carried out hundreds of raids on Syria aimed at preventing Iran’s entrenchment there. Washington and European countries are also demanding Tehran’s withdrawal, which is key to ending Syria’s isolation and contributing in its reconstruction and lifting of sanctions. Arab countries are also demanding that Damascus “reassess” its relations with Tehran and instead return to the Arab fold. Relations with Iran should be normal and balanced, they believe.

Damascus itself realizes that fulfilling these demands will lead to the “political normalization” of the situation in Syria. It will help ease or lift some sanctions, kick off reconstruction and revive diplomatic channels. It is also, however, aware of the cost of meeting such a demand. Some sides are therefore, suggesting that an understanding be reached between Damascus and Tehran over Iran’s role in Syria’s future. This understanding would be part of any potential agreement between the United States and Iran over its role in the region within a nuclear deal. The understanding would see Iran abandon its military agenda in Syria and end its destabilizing role in the region in exchange for playing a political-economic role.

Idlib and east of the Euphrates: Damascus appears persuaded that it will not recapture the Idlib province and the regions east of the Euphrates River any time soon. It no longer has a say over this, rather Moscow does. In turn, Russia’s role in those regions hinges on its relations with the US and Turkey. Any Russian move in the region could lead to a clash with either Turkey or the US.

Some Syrians have suggested a shift in alliances, such as cooperating with Ankara in Idlib to fight Qamishli or negotiating with the Kurds to force Turkey out of the North. Some have suggested military and intelligence cooperation with the Kurds to end the deployment of Turkish forces. Some Arab countries have favored this option and have offered financial assistance in reconstruction.

The threat of sanctions in line with the Caesar Act, which deters investment in Syria and deepen its isolation from the global financial system, has been cited as an obstacle to achieving these suggestions.

The presence of so many options on the table demonstrates that one solution is no longer enough for Syria. No single option is available that can change the course of the conflict. But the solutions can be narrowed down to two paths: An international-regional one that can be achieved through an international conference with the participation of key players. They will agree on the main points of the solution. The second path is inter-Syrian and would seek to provide legitimacy to the desired solution.

The problem is that clock in Syria is ticking over the suffering of its people and deterioration of its economy. It is also tied to the US and Russia, who are setting the tempo of “strategic patience” that is tied to other files.



Things to Know About the UN Special Rapporteur Sanctioned by the US

Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, talks to the media during a press conference at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, July 11, 2023. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP, File)
Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, talks to the media during a press conference at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, July 11, 2023. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP, File)
TT
20

Things to Know About the UN Special Rapporteur Sanctioned by the US

Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, talks to the media during a press conference at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, July 11, 2023. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP, File)
Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, talks to the media during a press conference at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, July 11, 2023. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP, File)

A UN special rapporteur was sanctioned by the United States over her work as an independent investigator scrutinizing human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories, a high-profile role in a network of experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Francesca Albanese is among the experts chosen by the 47-member council in Geneva. They report to the body as a means of monitoring human rights records in various countries and the global observance of specific rights.

Special rapporteurs don't represent the UN and have no formal authority. Still, their reports can step up pressure on countries, while their findings inform prosecutors at the International Criminal Court and other venues working on transnational justice cases.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement announcing sanctions against Albanese on Wednesday that she “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism, and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”

Albanese said Thursday that she believed the sanctions were “calculated to weaken my mission.” She said at a news conference in Slovenia that “I’ll continue to do what I have to do.”

She questioned why she had been sanctioned — “for having exposed a genocide? For having denounced the system? They never challenged me on the facts.”

The UN high commissioner for human rights, Volker Türk, called for a “prompt reversal” of the US sanctions. He added that “even in face of fierce disagreement, UN member states should engage substantively and constructively, rather than resort to punitive measures.”

Prominent expert

Albanese, an Italian human rights lawyer, has developed an unusually high profile as the special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, a post she has held since May 2022.

Last week, she named several large US companies among those aiding Israel as it fights a war with Hamas in Gaza, saying her report “shows why Israel’s genocide continues: because it is lucrative for many.”

Israel has long had a rocky relationship with the Human Rights Council, Albanese and previous rapporteurs, accusing them of bias. It has refused to cooperate with a special “Commission of Inquiry” established following a 2021 conflict with Hamas.

Albanese has been vocal about what she describes as a genocide by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel and the US, which provides military support to its close ally, have strongly denied the accusation.

‘Nothing justifies what Israel is doing’

In recent weeks, Albanese issued a series of letters urging other countries to pressure Israel, including through sanctions, to end its deadly bombardment of the Gaza Strip. She also has been a strong supporter of arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for allegations of war crimes.

Albanese said at a news conference last year that she has “always been attacked since the very beginning of my mandate,” adding that criticism wouldn't force her to step down.

“It just infuriates me, it pisses me off, of course it does, but then it creates even more pressure not to step back,” she said. “Human rights work is first and foremost amplifying the voice of people who are not heard.”

She added that “of course, one condemned Hamas — how not to condemn Hamas? But at the same time, nothing justifies what Israel is doing.”

Albanese became an affiliate scholar at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University in 2015, and has taught and lectured in recent years at various universities in Europe and the Middle East. She also has written publications and opinions on Palestinian issues.

Albanese worked between 2003 and 2013 with arms of the UN, including the legal affairs department of the UN Palestinian aid agency, UNRWA, and the UN human rights office, according to her biography on the Georgetown website.

She was in Washington between 2013 and 2015 and worked for an American nongovernmental organization, Project Concern International, as an adviser on protection issues during an Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Member of a small group

Albanese is one of 14 current council-appointed experts on specific countries and territories.

Special rapporteurs, who document rights violations and abuses, usually have renewable mandates of one year and generally work without the support of the country under investigation. There are rapporteurs for Afghanistan, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, Russia and Syria.

There also are three country-specific “independent experts,” a role more focused on technical assistance, for the Central African Republic, Mali and Somalia.

Additionally, there are several dozen “thematic mandates,” which task experts or working groups to analyze phenomena related to particular human rights. Those include special rapporteurs on “torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” the human rights of migrants, the elimination of discrimination against people affected by leprosy and the sale, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children.