Russia and Iran's investments in
post-conflict Syria may have a different focus right now, but eventually the
two countries may be competing for influence in the war torn country, according
to a senior academic.
Russia’s
investment in Syria since the civil war started in 2011 has been more focused
on projects that generate foreign exchange revenue, such as precious metals and
phosphates, while Iranian capital injections have focused more on real estate
and agricultural opportunities, according to Steven Heydemann, Janet W Ketcham
1953 Chair and Professor, ME Studies, Smith College.
Speaking to The National at The
Future of Syria: Towards Inclusive Peacebuilding event at Chatham House in
London, Mr Heydemann said: “From an Iranian perspective, there is less of an
interest in actually going head-to-head with Russia and instead trying to
expand on the trading opportunities that has derived from its proximity to
Syria, and trying to expand the tourism and travel opportunities.”
Iran
has been purchasing real estate around Shia shrines and in parts of Syria with
significant Alawite populations, while Russia does not have a large footprint
in Syria’s real estate market.
“I
do think frictions will emerge at some point and tensions between Russia and
Iran as they move towards the zones in Syria where the other has occupied the
leading role, but at the moment we're not seeing that much,” Mr Heydemann
added. “We're not seeing the investment in real estate by Russia that Iran is
making for example.”
Russia has, however, showed some investment
in Syria’s tourism industry, announcing that Moscow-based construction company
STG.LOGISITC will rehabilitate the tourist village of Manara in Tartous
province.
Sinan
Hatathet, Omran Center for Strategic Studies, said: “Both the Russians and the
Iranians are well placed to benefit from the next stage of this conflict, but
the reality is much more complex.”
“When
it comes to rebuilding infrastructure and manufacturing industries – we haven’t
seen much interest come from Moscow. Iran doesn’t have much equity to spare in
Syria in the first place.”
He
said that Iran and Russia adopt “a very opportunistic approach” when it comes
to the Syrian economy, and the former is more selective than latter when it
comes to directly assisting the Assad regime.
Regime's control of aid
Another
panel at the conference covered the NGO sector in Syria. Haid Haid, consulting
research fellow with Chatham House Middle East and North Africa programme, said
that the Syrian regime’s hostility to humanitarian charity operations in
government controlled areas means Damascus exercises almost total control over
aid distribution, often through powerful officially-aligned bodies.
“Most international NGOs are denied access
to those areas by the regime through different tactics – for example, if you
request a field visit on March 15, you’ll only get a response after that date –
and they’ll say they don’t have time to process it.”
The
event takes place on March 15, to mark the eight year anniversary of the Syrian
Civil War.
Local
NGOs in Syria include Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) and the Syrian Trust for
Development, which was set up by Asma al-Assad, the wife of Bashar al-Assad,
the country’s president.
Haid added that many international NGOs are
asked to give money to local organisations, but it presents a problem because
the foreign companies cannot assess the demands of the locals and cannot
monitor the distribution of aid. Mr Haid said that instead of competing with
each other in the region, international NGOs should push principles of being
“neutral, impartial and being able to provide aid to all of those who need it”
harder so that they have a greater impact on the region.
“Their
donors could also provide more leverage – by negotiating with local actors or
by holding those INGOs accountable,” he added, before saying that the UK
Department for International Development could be doing more to hold the UN
accountable for this issue.
Agricultural losses
One
sector international NGOs have been supporting in Syria is the agriculture
industry, which in 2010 before the war, was connected to 46% of the
population’s livelihoods, according to The Food and Agriculture Organisation of
the United Nations (FAO). The organisation, which helps support the Syrian
farming industry, estimated in April 2017 that the conflict had imposed $16
billion in losses to Syrian agriculture.
“The
agricultural sector was reeling from a few problems before the conflict and
that was only exacerbated by the conflict and violence in 2011,” said Basma
Alloush, advocacy and communications officer at the Norwegian Refugee Council
USA, covering the Middle East, west Africa and Afghanistan.
The Syrian farming industry has been
historically closely managed by the government, which has used tools such as
fuel subsidies to exercise control, she said. Before the droughts of 2006, the
government was pushing Syria to be a more self-sufficient producer and not rely
on external actors to sustain its population. The state bought almost all the
wheat produce and set prices, maintaining a close relationship with the
agricultural sector.
The
droughts in 2006 caused a huge influx of migration from rural to urban areas ?
former farmers who did not have transferable job skills.
Ms
Alloush said that the civil war “perpetuated the problems that the sector was
already experiencing”, whereby equipment and tools for farming became scarce
and expensive amid a disruption in supply chain networks. This was compounded
by a depletion of water and fuel reserves that posed significant challenges for
farmers.
During
the civil war, many farms became battlegrounds and farmers found it much harder
to make money.
“You’re
seeing economic losses from the revenues and profits the sector used to
generate. It’s now just becoming a self-sustaining business, to feed your
family whenever you can, instead of trying to benefit the overall economy,” Ms
Alloush added.
As
a result, many Syrians are turning to ad hoc work, such as petty trading or
smuggling goods across borders.