International community must ‘bypass the Assad regime to rebuild after the civil war’

Partners for rebuilding are local and provincial councils, NGOs and the governments that have influence over them

Accepting president Bashar Al Assad as a legitimate partner in rebuilding Syria would be “harmful and self-defeating”, a report said yesterday.

The report by the Atlantic Council said this would “leave untouched the causes of Syria’s instability and would reward those who have helped destroy the country and displace its population”.

“The regime should be bypassed,” it says. “Its corruption and incompetence are established beyond debate.”

Faysal Itani of the Atlantic Council and Tobias Schneider, an international security analyst – the report’s authors – said an international strategy led by the US and focused on empowering Syrian communities was the best option for rebuilding the country.

They also said that Syria was not likely to experience durable, nationwide peace “in the next few years”.

Without a political settlement, rebuilding should focus on areas outside government control, the report says.

Immediate efforts should focus mostly on north-east Syria, which is controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces, southern Syria and the Turkish-dominated Euphrates Shield area in Aleppo province. Rebuilding in non-regime areas will require agreements to keep the areas free of fighting, backed by the threat of force against the regime.

The report urges any rebuilding strategy to place “high priority” on resettling the thousands of Syrians who have been displaced. It also highlights the importance of enabling local communities to take ownership of rebuilding work.

The report outlines ways in which local communities can be revitalised. This includes providing essential services such as health care, water, power and sanitation; renovating or rebuilding houses; access to education and short-term employment; and restoring freedom of movement and trade.

The main partners for rebuilding, the authors say, are local and provincial councils, non-government organisations and the governments that have influence over them.

The ideal outcome would be a “reconstruction plan that strengthens political legitimacy in Syria by upholding the security and dignity of the Syrian people”.

“Western countries have set, as a condition for rebuilding, the need for a fair political settlement that is not on the horizon, and failure to plan for a more complex, less clear-cut scenario might be a missed opportunity,” the report says.

The promise of rebuilding should not be used as a way of securing influence over Mr Al Assad, it says.

“It is unlikely that the promise of stabilisation and reconstruction aid would give donors enough leverage over Assad to convince him to make a political deal with his opponents,” the report says. “Rebuilding should not, therefore, proceed on that assumption.”

The report says there is a “compelling strategic rationale” for the international community to help in rebuilding, given the long-term threats to the US and its allies caused by geopolitical instability, terrorism and large-scale population displacement.

The report also urges against pursuing short-term opportunities for quick results.

This could “reinforce Syria’s dysfunctional political economy, thereby laying the foundations for further exploitation of the population and conflict”.