Proposals for peace and stable government in a post-conflict Syria

Students of the University of Cambridge and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations have produced a joint policy paper for an undergraduate research project which offers a blue print for bringing peace and stable government to a post-war Syria.

In March 2011 crowds gathered in cities across Syria to protest against the torture of 15 teenagers by intelligence services for writing anti-government graffiti. These were the first sparks of civil unrest in a war that, nearly six years later, has become the deadliest conflict of the 21^st century.

A series of shaky ceasefires between various warring factions have so far failed to hold, but when peace is finally agreed in Syria, what steps should be taken to rebuild a country in tatters; to ensure stable government and prevent a re-lapse into civil war?

In a joint undergraduate research project, students from the University of Cambridge and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) have produced a set of foundational guidelines for governance reform and reconstruction in post-conflict Syria. The paper offers policy makers in the UK, America and Russia a united perspective on Syria from two countries that have taken opposing sides in the conflict.

Syria, a melting pot of religions and ethnicities, is currently divided by sectarian violence, but the paper warns against allowing the break-up of the country into autonomous regions. The lessons learnt from the division of Bosnia in the 1990s, they say, indicate that a unified state under a strong government would be the best means of establishing lasting peace.

The paper suggests that in order to protect diverse groups from discriminatory legislation in the future an independent body formed of representatives from Syria’s many communities should be established with the power to veto partisan laws. It also recommends a ‘bottom up’ approach to reconstruction, with local government taking the lead in rebuilding the country’s shattered infrastructure. 

Head of the project and International relations student at St John’s College University of Cambridge, Nora Kalinskij, said: “We know that this paper deals with very complex issues and our guidelines are not intended to be comprehensive. The situation in Syria continues to be unstable and access to local information is limited so specific reform initiatives will be subject to highly-variable local conditions when peace is formally agreed to.” 

Although the paper does not attempt to disentangle the web of foreign interests and involvement in the conflict, the students were specially placed to gain a joint perspective from the West and Russia on the Syrian civil war. The project came about when Nora obtained a summer bursary from St John’s College for a placement at MGIMO. It was there that she met Russian student and co-author of the project, Christian Wollny.       

“Russian politics and foreign policy count amongst my main academic interests and the summer placement was an opportunity to gain an inside view and collaborate with Russian counterparts” said Nora. “Although the results of our work do not form an exhaustive peace settlement, our project is pragmatic rather than value motivated. We have favored order over justice, as without state stability, any prospect of justice quickly evaporates”.

While early protests in the Syrian conflict were often marked by displays of inter-communal solidarity, the civil war quickly descended into sectarian violence -- the flames of ethnoreligious hatred stoked by the agendas of opposing sides.

Historically, some civil-war peace settlements have sought a solution in granting political autonomy to conflicted communities, but the researchers argue for policy that maintains a unified Syria, highlighting Bosnia as an example where decentralisation of power has resulted in a fragile grip on peace.

The Dayton Agreement marked the end of the Bosnian Civil War (1992-1995) and saw the country divided into two entities; the Republica Srpska, occupied mainly by the Serbs, and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, occupied mainly by the Croats and Bosnians. The latter was also divided into 10 autonomous regions. This attempt to satisfy the demands of various regional and sectarian interests led to a dysfunctional and unproductive central government in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In response, the Office of the Higher Representative was established, an office to be filled by a European official of non-Bosnian nationality. While Bosnia and Herzegovina now has a functioning government, its actions and composition are controlled by the Higher Representative, who is unaccountable to the population. 

“The lessons of Bosnia suggest that, at least in the first instance, a “no autonomy allowed” approach should be adopted in a post-war Syria, although we recognise that this may need to be reviewed as negotiations progress, particularly in the case of Syria’s Kurdish population” said Nora.  

In Syria, after recent gains by government troops in key areas such as Aleppo it now seems unlikely that opposition forces will succeed in deposing President Assad. To avoid the creating a power vacuum, the student researchers argue that Assad should be allowed to stay in power temporarily until national elections are held.

As there is a danger that any new government will discriminate against minority groups or even the Sunni majority that makes up around 75% of Syria’s population,the students argue that a Council of Representatives should be established, but unlike Bosnia’s Higher Representative, it must be as indigenous as possible.

“The council would vote on any new laws or amendments to the constitution and have the power to veto laws and pass them back to the judiciary branch to be reviewed. Although the judiciary would hold the most power, their actions would be checked by the Council,” said Nora.

“Each of the ethnic and religious communities in Syria would elect representatives to the Council and any laws passed by the judiciary branch of government would need to be approved by them. Representatives would be distributed to give the Sunni population an absolute majority so that minority groups cannot discriminate against them. However, in order to veto any laws, a three-quarter majority would be necessary, meaning that Sunni representatives could not act without the support of minorities”

The policy paper also argues that reconstruction in Syria must start primarily from a local level: “This would take some of the weight off of the central government that would already have a lot to deal with. Giving people a sense that they can enact change on a local level could also begin to restore faith in the legitimacy of local government.”

Syria: Reforms for peace and stable government can be read in full on Cambridge University’s Wilberforce Society website: http://thewilberforcesociety.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SyriaGovernmentPaper-1.pdf The paper’s co-authors also include Cambridge students Dominic Bealby-Wright and Thomas Carlile.

The Wilberforce Society is the largest student think tank in the UK. It has no political affiliation and works to produce practical, yet innovative proposals to policy makers with their viability and consequences always in mind. For more information visit: http://thewilberforcesociety.co.uk/