As the continues, the European Union has said it wants to be more involved in Syria, where, after years of war, the is increasingly precarious.
Expanded EU involvement would include more presence on the ground, which is probably why Michael Ohnmacht, head of the EU Delegation to , recently published a sunny video of himself in the capital, Damascus.
But Ohnmacht didn’t get the reactions he might have liked. Wherever his video appeared, reactions were negative.
“Don’t forget to visit the graves of my friends,” Yaman Zabad, a Syrian researcher at an Istanbul think tank, suggested.
“Lucky you,” Shadi Martini, Syrian head of the New York-based charity, Multifaith Alliance, wrote. “I can’t visit my home in Syria or even attend both of my parents’ funerals because of the current president of Syria, who tortured and kill[ed] anyone who didn’t agree with [him].”
EU says no to Syria
Similarly angry reactions have greeted another recent suggestion for more EU involvement in Syria.
In early November, what is known as a confidential “non-paper” was circulated by the EU Commission, the bloc’s governing body. In EU-speak, a non-paper is defined as “an informal document” presented “to seek agreement on some contentious procedural or policy issue.”
This particular non-paper was a response to a July letter signed by eight countries, suggesting needed to adapt to since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011.
Since the war began, the EU has contributed around €33.3 billion ($35 billion) in aid to Syrian causes and taken in up to 1.3 million Syrian refugees. The July letter was sent by Austria, Cyprus, Italy, Greece, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia — countries who have had issues with irregular immigration or whose right-wing governments have become , or both.
The EU’s position on Syria is often referred to as the “three no’s.” That is, “no normalization, no lifting of sanctions, and no reconstruction assistance, until the Syrian regime engages meaningfully in a political process.”
The new non-paper doesn’t move far from that, but Syrian activists point out two significant differences. The paper seems to suggest a relaxation around funding for reconstruction, as long as contacts are only “technical.”
It also suggests the appointment of a “Special Envoy on Syria-related matters” as a way of “maintaining a limited presence on the ground.”
Such an appointment is currently being considered, a spokesperson for the bloc’s foreign office confirmed to DW, but it would not represent a change in existing EU policy on Syria.
Rumor has it the envoy would report directly to the European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen.
The proposal hasn’t been well received by Syrian advocacy groups. “[It] risks signaling international acceptance of the Assad regime,” Laila Kiki, executive director of The Syria Campaign, a London-based rights organization, tells DW. “It sends a brutal message to victims and survivors of war crimes. And it says to international courts pursuing justice against the regime that their efforts are politically fraught.”
Despite this, analysts point out there may be some benefits to taking another look at EU policy on Syria.
“It’s clear that there hasn’t been a meaningful European Syria strategy for quite some time,” Julien Barnes-Dacey, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Affairs, says.
“We’ve fallen into a bit of a trap by saying that any form of engagement is a legitimization of the regime,” Barnes-Dacey continues, “when in many ways, it could be seen as a pathway to help ameliorate the desperate situation on the ground.”
If the EU just continues to stay out of Syria completely, “it can’t do much to support Syrians trying to survive under the regime’s boot, nor can it hope to compete with the likes of Russia and Iran,” he argues.
While doing so, the EU must not legitimize the Assad regime’s “horrific brutality” though, he says.
Good intentions?
For those opposed to the idea of a special envoy, a big part of the problem is who is pushing for it.
“There are clearly some European states, largely motivated by the desire to return refugees, who are not at all mindful of the regime’s coercive practices,” Barnes-Dacey concedes. But that’s why it’s even more important for the EU to update its common position, he says, rather than allowing individual member states to do as they please.
Karam Shaar, a non-resident senior fellow at the New Lines Institute who also runs his own consultancy specializing in the Syrian economy, believes that some EU countries are “genuine in their desire to reconsider the EU’s approach to Syria.”
“You can keep saying Bashar Assad is a criminal, you can keep imposing sanctions — but you also need to have an end in sight,” he says. “I think the problem is that other EU countries — Italy, in particular — really believe that pragmatism should prevail over the EU’s foundational values, something I think everyone should be against.”
No change in a decade
One of the other questions about a special envoy is what they could accomplish, other than perhaps placating critical politicians at home. Neither , the nor has managed to coerce or persuade the Assad regime to alter its behavior.
It really depends what the EU wants to achieve, Shaar told DW. “If [a special envoy] opens channels to the Syrian regime to see how it thinks, what sort of incentive structures it has, then that is understandable,” he says.
“But if they see this as a pathway to settling the conflict, then I think that’s misguided. And what worries me most is that, once you’re willing to work with such a criminal regime, this could be a slippery slope. Without noticing it, you’re on a path to normalization.”
Former lawyer Abdel Nasser Hoshan, 56, who lives in a displaced person’s camp in Idlib, northern Syria and documents human rights violations, says that the original reasons for the EU’s policy haven’t changed.
He gives the example of the arbritary arrest of 450 people who returned to Syria. Six returnees have also died, including under torture in regime prisons, Hosham says.
As large numbers of Syrians fleeing the violence in Lebanbon return home, rights organizations including Human Rights Watch and the Syrian Network for Human Rights are also reporting cases of enforced disappearances and torture, but in fewer numbers.
If the EU does appoint a special envoy in Damascus, Hoshan doesn’t see what good it can do him or other Syrians.
“I don’t believe this office can monitor or influence the regime’s behavior or limit its violations,” he concluded. “The regime sees the EU as hostile, and it’s become expert at using normalization efforts to legitimize itself and justify its crimes.”
The post For better or worse? EU’s controversial plans for ‘special envoy’ to Syria appeared first on Deutsche Welle.
