Between the Syrian capital, Damascus, and New York, Syrian regime officials focused, during the past few days, on a “new trend” related to “early recovery” projects, from the top of the pyramid, Bashar al-Assad, to his foreign minister, Faisal Miqdad, who held a meeting on the sidelines of the meetings. The General Assembly with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres.
According to the Syrian news agency “SANA”, on Monday, “Guterres pledged to work to ensure the financing of early recovery projects, especially electricity, which is one of the most vital sectors,” and that he “will continue to work with the countries concerned in this regard.”
For his part, Miqdad expressed his thanks to the Secretary-General, stressing “the need for some countries not to obstruct the implementation of UN Resolution 2642, related to recovery projects.”
Last July, the UN Security Council adopted “Resolution 2642”, by which it extended the mandate of the mechanism for the delivery of UN humanitarian aid across the border from Turkey to Syria for a period of six months. He won 12 votes in favor, while three countries abstained, namely the United States, Britain and France.
This came following Moscow used its veto more than once, until it agreed to a six-month extension, to support and continue “early recovery activities” in areas controlled by the Syrian regime, and focus on the transit of aid from its areas of control, within the “transit” mechanism. across the lines of conflict.
The United Nations Development Office (UNDP) defines “early recovery” as “an approach that addresses the recovery needs that emerge during the humanitarian response phase, through the use of humanitarian mechanisms, that are consistent with development principles.”
“This approach enables people to benefit from humanitarian action to seize development opportunities, build resilience, and establish a sustainable crisis recovery process.”
However, Syrian activists and human rights and humanitarian workers, in an interview with Al-Hurra website, consider that despite the Syrians’ need for these activities, at the present time, there are many “gaps” through which the Syrian regime can exploit a lot of space.
This is related to the mechanisms for implementing these projects on the ground, and those related to “monitoring” operations, and the most prominent question, which relates to how it can be ensured that the Syrian regime and its implementation in particular do not benefit from them?
‘Two-fold problem’
Al-Miqdad met Guterres not only in New York, but also held a meeting with the Administrator of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Achim Steiner, and discussed with him “supporting recovery activities, including enhancing access to electricity and critical services, to strengthen the resilience of local communities.”
Before that, al-Assad met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, in the capital, Damascus, and stressed that the “early recovery” in Syria must be accomplished “quickly”, especially in some areas with regard to water and electricity.
This came following the Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister, Bashar al-Jaafari, discussed “recovery” projects with a number of representatives of United Nations agencies, in the capital, Damascus, according to the Syrian News Agency.
It is noteworthy that all these meetings took place in just 10 days.
This coincided with the increasing talk of steps to return Syrian refugees to their country, at a time when human rights, local and international organizations have asked the head of the UNHCR, Grandi, to stop all programs aimed at returning Syrian refugees to their country, on the grounds that Syria is “not safe.”
The doctor, Muhammad Kutoub, who is an activist in the field of humanitarian and human rights work, talks regarding a “two-fold problem”, saying: “First, we do not see the early recovery allocations outside the area of the Syrian regime, while the latter employs everything for its own benefit, and therefore the beneficiary of all the response is and those close to him, not the residents of the areas he controls.
Kutoub added to the Al-Hurra website that “there is a directive for early recovery in the areas of regime control in the United Nations programmes, while in opposition areas there is still an emergency response.”
The visits and meetings that took place in the recent period are considered to have a political background, although they have not been reflected so far. They may also be “the beginning of solutions between the parties,” as the Syrian doctor puts it.
Qazleh continues: “We are starting to see these steps. Clearly, there is a political background to all these changes.”
The United Nations constantly stresses, as is the case with the European Union countries, that their position has not changed, and that they support a political solution in Syria to restore rights, but the human rights and human rights activist believes that what is happening is “otherwise,” and that early recovery may be “a way to restore relations.” “.
Engineer Mazhar Sharbaji, who previously served as the head of the Engineering Division in the capital, Damascus, explains that the issue of “recovery” has been on the table for more than two or three years, and is being worked on, especially in areas controlled by the Syrian regime, in the cities from which families have been displaced.
In the areas of the Syrian opposition, “there are timid projects such as the restoration of windows and doors.”
In an interview with Al-Hurra, Sharbaji considers that “what appears in the political situation is an attempt to satisfy the parties so that there is consensus. The Russian intervention or the decision-making states may have a role to support this file, in order to return people, and for voluntary return.”
“Post-conflict”
Meanwhile, since the beginning of last August, the head of the European mission, Dan Stoinescu, has conducted two visits to the areas of the Syrian regime, targeting three Syrian governorates, which are Aleppo, Damascus and Homs.
These visits were the first of their kind since 2011, and were included among the steps to support “recovery projects” as well, while the head of the mission confirmed in previous statements to the “Al-Hurra” website that his steps were not coordinated with the Syrian regime, and that “it does not mean its legalization.”
The European Union is the largest donor to the Syrian crisis through funded projects across the country, including the three Syrian governorates.
“It is critical for all Syrians to know that, unlike our serious political differences with Damascus, the European Union funds humanitarian projects on the ground that not only save lives, but also improve livelihoods and enhance resilience and social cohesion,” Stoinescu added.
Doctor Kutoub believes that “there is marketing for the post-conflict phase, and that the Syrian government is changing its policy and behavior and improving the human rights situation,” which is translated into “documents that are confirmed in the United Nations.”
Kutoub spoke regarding the “comprehensive international review report presented by the Syrian regime recently, in which it addressed the narrative that Syria is improving the human rights situation, and there are new laws being enacted, and that Syria has only 3 problems: sanctions, terrorism and international interference.”
This report was submitted to the Human Rights Council, and it was accepted.
Kutoub added, “There was also a strategic framework in the United Nations, especially Syria,” and that they “sent reservations condemning it from the resolutions and principles of the United Nations itself,” noting: “The framework promotes a new narrative that the situation is improving in Syria, and the country has entered a post-conflict phase.” Reconstruction and recovery must be made.
“This narrative, which the regime promotes on several fronts and in several reports,” coincides with the steps directed towards “recovery projects.”
On the other hand, Eng. Sharbaji points to “fears for the near future related to the transfer of UN aid from the border crossings to the areas under the control of the Syrian regime, in order to be distributed from within the areas under its control.”
‘Controversy over surveillance’
There is confusion regarding the monitoring mechanisms through which the implementation of projects in areas controlled by the Syrian regime takes place.
According to the Observatory of Political and Economic Networks, “the Syrian regime has a track record of embezzling aid and using it as a weapon, whether through distributing it in loyalist areas alone, or manipulating the exchange rate of aid money transfers, or hiring aid workers and purchases from his close associates.”
Dr. Karam Shaar, director of the Syrian program at the Observatory, says, “The position of the United Nations is clear. It supports these projects with any thanks, and tries to explain to the donor countries that this path is good.”
But he adds to Al-Hurra: “The donor countries do not know how these projects are carried out, and who is behind the implementation process,” as he put it.
Shaar explains that “it must be ensured that the sums provided for its implementation are not robbed by the Syrian regime, and that it is implemented by officials as it should.”
“He says: The Syrian regime has managed in one way or another in the recent period to tame the United Nations, forcing it to work within the borders it knows. This thing worked on it through several tools.”
Shaar considered that “the donor countries are not fully aware of the reality of things on the ground. The same applies to the European Union. It is partially aware of how its money is fully spent in Syria.”
International donor projects are often implemented in areas controlled by the Syrian regime, either through “United Nations agencies or through international organizations.”
Kutoub, for his part, says that “the monitoring operations that take place must be through the mechanisms imposed by the donor, or those mainly existing with the implementing agencies, whether the UN or international organizations.”
He adds that “oversight processes are one of the things that the system can penetrate, especially for projects of United Nations agencies.”
Kutoub explains that “in areas under the control of the Syrian regime, no one can benefit from public service projects through governmental or international tenders unless he is close to, satisfactorily, or influential.”
As for the areas outside his control, the situation varies from one region to another, from the north-east to the far west.
In eastern Syria, there is no involvement of the United Nations, except through the Qamishli office, which is affiliated to Damascus. Thus, projects are implemented through local or international partners, while there is a lack of assistance, organization and expertise.
Meanwhile, following Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham took control of Idlib governorate, most of the “early recovery” projects withdrew following 2018, to remain limited to “emergency response.”
Kutoub points out that “the projects are not wrong, people are not at fault for waiting for complex political solutions, but the recovery must be balanced, not enhance the authority of the Syrian regime, and have clear oversight mechanisms.”
