The Case for Normalizing Relations with Syria

BY: Zach Yan

Sometimes, in order to be hawkish for democracy, you need to be a bit of a dove, too. This is the case I will be making for the US to deal with the undemocratic Syrian regime. This semester, while taking a global studies class, I got to know one of my classmates whose grandmother has not had reliable access to food or medicine for years due to the on-going civil war. And after a once-in-a-century deadly earthquake earlier this year, the situation has gone from bad to worse.

After hearing stories like my classmate’s, I’m writing this op-ed to convince you that the US should normalize relations with Syria. There are two reasons why this is the case: first, it would increase stability and humanitarian conditions in the country; and second, it would moderate the Syria’s international behavior, countering the autocratic influence of states like Iran and Russia  and fostering economic growth — growth that could alleviate the current economic and humanitarian crisis in Syria.

US engagement will create incentives for the Assad regime to accept the reforms necessary for the country to access  reconstruction funding from the EU. If sanctions aren’t working to change Assad’s Behavior, maybe it is time to show what the regime can gain from cooperation. The United Nations special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, has already endorsed normalization, calling for increased engagement in a step-by-step approach. This means making various concessions to the Assad regime gradually over the course of many years in exchange for regime change.

Normalizing relations would also improve the effectiveness of humanitarian aid delivery. Currently, the UN limits the cross-border delivery of aid to just one border crossing. Normalization could alter the relationship between the US and Syria allowing for aid to cross through multiple entry points unhindered. Keeping the status quo means leaving Syrians to die as 80 percent of Syrians live below the poverty line and are at risk from starvation.

Normalization won’t be a free pass for Assad. It would  be contingent on the Assad regime’s support of UN Resolution 2254 and instituting free and fair elections. Assad would be free to run in the election following normalized relations, but this election would be a referendum on his handling of the civil war.

We must accept that, however terrible it is, the US might need to cooperate with the Assad regime for the good of the Syrian people and enduring regional stability. In the immediate future, cooperation can help the US encourage a cease-fire between the Assad regime and rebels while removing chemical weapons. As for the long-term, the US can support negotiations for the safe return of Syrian refugees, support political reform, and contain the power of regional rivals, like  Russia and Iran.

Furthermore, coordinating with Syria will help Washington regain its role as a leader in regional diplomacy. Trying to stop normalization is a losing game and the US should not be left on the sidelines. Failure to engage will undermine the US’s regional position and its position in Syria. The recent moves to pull troops out of Syria means that once they leave, Russia, China, and Iran will move in, meaning that it might be best to strike a deal now before it is too late. 

Hopefully, we can move towards a day when my classmate’s grandmother finally gets the medical care she deserves and Syria is a country where — as the World Health Organization’s envisioned in its 1946 constitution — “[T]he highest attainable standard of health [is] a fundamental right of every human being.”