A Marshall Plan for Syria and the Middle East

With an economic recovery programme for Syria and the Middle East, the EU could boost reconstruction, a transformation from a fossil fuel economy to a climate-friendly one, economic and political integration, and democratisation.

[DE]

By Jürgen Klute

On 24 December 2024, I wrote about the geopolitical shifts in the Middle East that occurred at the end of 2024. (Post-Assad geopolitical shifts: Turkey, Kurds, and EU Policy)

In this column, I will now take a closer look at the common interests that connect the European Union (EU) and the Middle East. In my opinion, this offers opportunities for long-term political stabilisation and democratic development in the region, from which both sides will benefit. The EU could support the development of the Middle East as part of a Marshall Plan, a programme developed in 1947 to facilitate the recovery of Europe after the Second World War.

First of all, it should be noted that without the Kurdish Self-Defence Forces in Northern Syria, IS would not have been defeated. The EU has benefited directly from this, as IS was responsible for several bloody attacks within the EU.

Secondly, it should be noted that for about 10 years there has been a self-government in the Kurdish areas of Northern Syria/Rojava that has functioned well under the given circumstances. During this time, the Kurdish self-administration has gained a lot of experience in peaceful and democratic cooperation with various minorities and in the integration of a significant number of Syrian internally displaced persons – in other words, organising cultural, religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity in both political and practical terms. The Kurdish self-administration in Rojava basically follows the principles of a secular state, the rule of law, human and minority rights and, of course, gender equality, as far as possible under the given circumstances. And last but not least, the Kurdish self-administration is open to an environmentally friendly economy. The northern Syrian Kurds are not pursuing secession from the Syrian state, as Salih Muslim recently emphasised to MedyaNews (A Call for stability, The Kurdish perspective on Syria’s future).

In principle, there is a considerable degree of compatibility between the values and principles of the Kurdish self-administration in Northern Syria/Rojava and the fundamental norms of the European Union. Consequently, the EU should recognise the Kurds in Northern Syria as an important point of contact when it comes to the future development of the region.

What challenges are Syria, but also other areas of the Middle East, facing? After more than ten years of civil war in Syria, the reconstruction of the country is at the forefront: technical infrastructure, state administration, the education system, the health system, the economy. The necessity of rebuilding the economy offers the opportunity to combine this with the phasing out of fossil fuels, in other words, to focus on a sustainable and climate-friendly economy.

More than 10 years of civil war have cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives and made an even larger number refugees within Syria or in other countries, and many people have been physically and mentally traumatised. Caring for the traumatised survivors and reintegrating them into social life is another major challenge.

In order to be able to rebuild the country, many people are needed who can take on the relevant tasks. Some European media report that the new rulers in Syria want to demobilise and disband the armed groups in Syria. This is a key measure for pacifying Syrian society. However, this measure is also a challenge, because the disbanding of the armed groups will only succeed if their members are offered new professional prospects. Service in the armed groups is also a personal source of income. The need for workers to rebuild the country offers members of armed groups – provided they are not integrated into the regular army – a basic alternative career prospect, which, however, needs to be organised. This challenge is comparable to the structural economic change that the European Union has been dealing with for decades and for which it has developed a number of successful funding programmes.

Ultimately, a new state structure must be built that is based on the principles of democracy: human rights and minority rights, as well as gender equality, separation of powers and the rule of law. How this is organised in practice is for the people in Syria to decide and shape.

The European Union sees itself as a response to the widespread devastation caused by Nazi terror in Europe. It therefore has an enormous theoretical knowledge and experience in building societies destroyed by war. The most important thing is that people can regain confidence in state institutions and that the economy can once again provide the goods and services that people need to live in dignity. Building on the Ventotene Manifesto of 1941 (have as well a look here) and the Schuman Plan of 1950, the economic and political integration of European countries has gradually been achieved, and this has ensured stability, prosperity and peace until today.

Of course, it cannot be a question of transferring the European Union one-to-one to Syria or even to the Middle East. But the principles according to which the EU was developed can provide orientation, especially when you consider that Syria is not the only country that needs to be rebuilt. After the act of terror by Hamas on October 7, 2023, Gaza was largely devastated by the Israeli army and the crushing of Hezbollah also left traces of destruction in Lebanon. A sustainable policy for stabilising the Middle East must therefore look beyond Syria’s borders. As the most successful supranational project so far, the EU can provide guidance on a gradual economic and political integration that encompasses very different cultural, economic, legal, linguistic, religious and ethnic groups and traditions. This is not about a blueprint and not about paternalism – this should be emphasised once again. It is about orientation and the exchange of experiences on an even playing field, in the sense of an independent development of the region against the background of its own regional history and conditions!

Of course, the reconstruction of Syria and the entire region requires financial resources. In principle, the European Union and the countries in the Middle East have considerable financial resources. In this respect, too, we can learn much from the experiences of the post-war reconstruction of Europe. The basis for the reconstruction of Europe after 1945 was the European Recovery Program (ERP) – better known as the Marshall Plan, named after the former US Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who launched the plan in 1947. The crucial thing about this economic recovery programme was that it was offered to all European states, including Germany, which was responsible for the Second World War. In order to participate in this recovery programme, the participating European states had first to reach an agreement among themselves and then had to be willing to contribute financially.

In this sense, it would be an opportunity for the European Union to launch an economic recovery programme for Syria and the Middle East. The EU has the necessary instruments at its disposal: the European Investment Bank (EIB) and, in particular, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which was founded in 1991 to support non-EU countries in Central and Eastern Europe in their reconstruction after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

A well-funded economic development programme for the Middle East along the lines of the historic Marshall Plan, provided by the EU, would be a financial incentive for states and governments in the region to participate. On the other hand, self-commitments could be linked to participation in the spirit of the historic Marshall Plan: on the one hand, a willingness to engage in mutual understanding and to make a contribution, and on the other hand, adherence to democratic principles as outlined above, entry into regional economic and political integration and the start of phasing out the use of fossil fuels. The success of the EU is based on the link between economic and political integration from the outset, starting with the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) of 1951, which then became the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957 with the Treaties of Rome and the European Union (EU) in 1993 with the Treaty of Maastricht.

After almost a century of instability following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, such a project would offer the people and societies of the Middle East the prospect of peace, democracy and prosperity. In the longer term, this is also in the interest of Israel and Turkey, which are currently the regional winners in the political power shift in the Middle East. Israel cannot continue the war against Palestine forever. And Turkey is struggling with considerable economic difficulties, which are only being exacerbated by the war against the Kurds. In view of the domestic political tensions in Iran, changes can also be expected there in the foreseeable future. At that point, an economic recovery programme of this kind could also be an option for Iran.

The European Union would benefit from a regulated and socially responsible phase-out of fossil fuel use. This would include the development of sustainable and climate-friendly economic alternatives for the region, which until now largely depends for its economy on the export of fossil fuels. The region is sunny and therefore well suited for the production and export of solar-based energy: electricity and hydrogen, which is indispensable for the time being in at least parts of industry and in shipping, aviation and maritime transport. The transport distances from the Middle East to Europe are shorter than to other sunny regions of the world.

Finally, the project outlined above can be linked to the ‘Road Map for Negotiations’ published by Abdullah Öcalan in 2013 to overcome the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. After all, Öcalan’s ideas do not focus solely on Turkey and the four states in which the Kurdish settlement areas are currently divided (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey), but ultimately on the entire Middle East. His 2013 road map actually broadens the view to include a conceivable economic and political co-operation and integration of the states of the Middle East, which to a certain extent is based on the model of the European Union, but is much more strongly conceived from a grassroots democratic perspective than the European Union.

This text was first published on December 27, 2024, on MedyaNews.