Talk of Post-War Reconstruction in Syria and Iraq Renews Questions of Christian Allegiance in Middle East Nations

By Martin Accad

News

As ISIS’s existence as a military power to reckon with on the field of battle has dwindled over the past weeks, there is increasing talk of “reconstruction” with regards to Syria and Iraq. In Syria, “reconstruction” has very much been about the reinstatement of the Assad Regime. Russia’s goal is to restore the regime to its pre-war status. From the EU perspective, they are likely to try and use their potential involvement in the reconstruction of Syria as a card to set some conditions on the post-war Assad regime. But the odds of all agendas (Russian and European, in addition to American and UN) being reconciled in the reconstruction process are very low. Moreover, the inability to reconstruct in a way that addresses the original causes of the war are likely to lead to a recurrence of violence. A regime-led reconstruction process is most likely to emerge, which will recompense loyalty and punish non-aligned voices. Non-state armed actors, propped up by Iran, are currently being heavily involved in reconstruction in Syria, following the Lebanon-Hezbollah model after the Israel-Hezbollah war in Summer 2006. But as the Assad regime becomes stronger and more consolidated again in Syria, issues with Iran will likely emerge.

In Iraq, 1.2 million IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) have returned, but 2.6 million are yet to return for a variety of reasons, the most notable of which are security, trust, and significant obstacles to reconciliation.

The issue of security is related to a fear of ISIS’s return, but also to strong fears of reprisal, if IDPs are perceived as having been associated with ISIS in any way. There is a prevalent lack of trust in security actors among IDPs. In order to return, people have to receive security clearance from government actors (army, police, government actors), but also often from non-state actors and militias – Shiite or Kurdish – depending on the area. For people to return, communities need to trust the “vetting” process. We pointed out last month to the lack of due process that has led to mass executions in certain areas. Combined with a lack of clarity about the criteria used in the vetting process, this has not helped in the return of IDPs. Multi-generational and larger family links to ISIS-associated individuals are often used for the indiscriminate punishment of individuals who have possibly not been directly involved with ISIS.

Analysis

The moral cost of western involvement in the reconstruction of Syria under the Assad regime will be very high. It may be better to for western governments to focus exclusively on improving the situation of the refugees, rather than on reconstruction of the country as a whole. The West (US, EU, World Bank) is going to want to set very clear conditions for their involvement in reconstruction. If their conditions are not met, they are likely going to walk away.

Talk, therefore, both in Syria and Iraq should be about political stability that leads to reconciliation, rather than simply about reconstruction. Security and trust are strongly linked with the process of reconciliation in any discussion of return and reconstruction. Inter-tribal negotiations are playing an important role in the post-war situation of Iraq. Where tribes have been involved in negotiations and vetting, this has limited the phenomenon of revenge killings. But inter-tribal reconciliation has been stronger where the state is weak. The outcome of this process of return and reconciliation could be the rise of a healthy type of nationalism if it is carried out well. But where it is not being handled fairly, then feelings of injustice and lack of safety are exacerbated. What is needed at this stage is an approach to justice which is restorative rather than punitive.

Theological Perspectives

What is reconciliation and how is it related to reconstruction? Who decides what reconstruction is? It should not concern only material things, but it should also take place at the political and societal levels. Going back is important, but in the case of Nineveh in Iraq, for example, a region rich in Christian history, you do not want to go back to what was there in 2013-2014. There has been an ongoing competition for power in the Nineveh plain since 2003, which some have argued has contributed to the rise of ISIS. Security and governance are key. Minorities have been pushed out in the pre-2013 period and have taken refuge in the Kurdish areas. Iraqi Christians have lost trust and are driven by fear with regards to returning. That is not the reconstruction that one should be looking for at this point. After the victory of the Iraqi army, there is an emerging sense of nationalism and trust towards the army. A sense of civic nationalism is a good place to start with reconstruction. The May elections will be decisive in the fate of Nineveh. A decentralization with a strong role given to local leadership, yet with strong links to the central government, will contribute in fostering trust in the state.

The wars might end in a formal sense, but the conflicts will not end any time soon. Aid will flow. There will be new forms of development and humanitarian assistance, but these will not go in with neutrality. The sheer scale of physical and human destruction is devastating. In almost every case, the grievances have not been addressed. The situation of every Middle Eastern country is worse today than it was before the recent Arab uprisings.

Missiological Reflection

The questions of return and reconstruction bring back the question of loyalty to the fore. How will the church in Iraq and Syria handle the question of loyalty to the state? Historically, the church in our region has pledged allegiance too quickly to authoritarian regimes. It is one thing for individual Christians to submit to the authority of the law and the state. It is quite another for the church to adopt an official position of allegiance and loyalty to a totalitarian regime. As the church in these countries considers its role with IDPs unable to return, often as a result of misgivings regarding the state, how will the church split its loyalty between human compassion and justice on one side, and regime demands on the other? The Church in the MENA region is once more put to the test.