To no one’s surprise, Syria’s recent ceasefire ended quickly, barely two weeks after it began. Immediately after, Qatar suggested that Syria’s opposition needed more money and weapons to counter Russia’s support for the Assad government. In their opinion this would win the war, reduce the number of deaths, and unify the various groups, which Gulf states’ billions have yet to do. Their solution: let’s pour more money into this endless conflict, which has destroyed a country for generations to come.
Why not pour more money into Syria’s opposition? Surely they could use more hand-held rocket launchers? The major problem today in Syria is continual bombing – it is hard to imagine that more weapons, inevitably used on civilians, would help.
Foreign funding is nothing new in Syria: for five years the Gulf states and individuals have been pouring billions into Syria. Aside from the fact that many of these arms eventually make their way to the extreme Islamist opposition, foreign money has generated support for the radical Islamists instead of the prior mostly secular opposition. Aid has expanded the conflict and Islamicized the war beyond its origins, turning nationalist soldiers into political Islamists as they pledge allegiance to the donors’ political and religious ideals. As it happens, access to money and weapons draws fighters away from secular groups, since they have better equipment and higher wages. Syrian rebel groups are complaining about the power of foreign money – changing their compatriots from fighters to warlords, or “princes of war.”
What was once the main opposition current in the Syrian civil war, some nationalist moderate Islamists including those allied to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, has been pushed aside by foreign funding. Saudis, for example, are funding many groups except for the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? For Saudis, Muslim Brotherhood is the worst as it focuses on changing regimes and can at times push for elections. For them, international jihadis are better, since their extremism is rejected by most people. So funding people who are more radical is the solution. Never mind the many jihadists who may come home to Saudi to fight the state – for that they are building a huge wall to contain this future threat.
Meanwhile, Qatar’s funding for the Muslim Brotherhood, and other opposition groups has resulted in double-dipping, overstating numbers of fighters, and changes in ideology to align with the donor. Fighters broke off, or whole groups changed their stance to gain funds from the rich Gulf states. Most of all, the moderate, secular Free Syrian Army has lost out in this battle.
Funding from abroad comes not just from overseas Syrians, but Sunni Arabs in general. Working through social media and tech-savvy individuals, a vast network of funding works through the dark web equivalent of a Gofundme campaign. In return, fighters publicize the donors and pledge allegiance to the donor’s ideology. The civil war that began to overthrow a despot is now a sectarian war.
Syria appears more and more as a déjà vu of Lebanon’s civil war, which served as a playground for Cold War proxies in the 1970s and 80s. Neighboring countries hired, equipped, and attempted to control fighters. Weapons were diverted and sold, would-be soldiers become rich, and became vested in continuing the war. Lebanon’s civil war only ended when the U.S. gave Syria the green light to forcibly take control, resulting in a 15-year occupation of Lebanon by Syrian forces. On its own, it had no internal logic that would cause it to peter out. So, short of a regime change in any of the major supporting countries, a parallel to the end of Lebanon’s war does not seem to be on the horizon for Syria.
Yes, the Syrian government is also helped by outsiders– Hizbullah, Iran, and Russia. But is more aid to the opposition the solution? The opposition has already benefited from billions of USD in aid and weapons. Will more foreign money change the tide of the war? Unlikely. And if it does, how it changes the war may not be the way it was intended.
Financing is not the sole cause of the Syrian civil war’s transformation to a regional sectarian war, but it ranks high on the list of causes. Aid has merely created more civilian refugees and casualties; the refugee crisis began after the extreme Islamist groups gained ground in Syria. Maybe these countries should consider spending the money on resettling those fleeing the bombs instead.
writer: Anne Marie Baylouny