EU’s Syria cooperation revival prioritizes geopolitical stability over structural accountability and humanitarian justice

Indigenous Syrian communities, such as the Druze and Alawite minorities, have historically relied on communal governance structures that prioritize resilience over state authority. These systems were deliberately undermined by the Assad regime’s centralization policies, which replaced local decision-making with patronage networks tied to the ruling elite. The EU’s proposal to resume cooperation with Damascus further erodes these traditional structures, reinforcing a top-down model of governance that excludes marginalized groups.

Syria’s current crisis is rooted in a century of colonial manipulation, Cold War proxy conflicts, and neoliberal economic policies that dismantled public institutions. The Assad regime’s survival strategy—amplifying sectarian divisions and co-opting elite networks—mirrors patterns seen in other post-colonial states like Iraq and Libya. The EU’s willingness to engage with Damascus without addressing these historical grievances risks repeating the failures of past interventions, such as the 2011 Arab Spring’s unfulfilled promises.

In Latin America, similar dilemmas have emerged where governments have engaged with authoritarian regimes under the guise of 'stability,' only to later face backlash from civil society. For instance, Colombia’s peace process with FARC included amnesties that were later contested by victims’ groups. The Syrian case echoes these dynamics, where short-term stability often comes at the expense of long-term justice. Meanwhile, in East Asia, authoritarian regimes have used economic cooperation as a tool to legitimize their rule, a model Syria’s government may seek to emulate.

Research on post-conflict recovery consistently shows that economic cooperation with authoritarian regimes without accountability mechanisms leads to renewed cycles of violence and corruption. Studies on sanctions regimes, such as those imposed on North Korea, demonstrate that unilateral economic engagement without structural reforms often entrenches the status quo. The EU’s proposal lacks evidence-based mechanisms to ensure that cooperation funds do not flow into regime coffers or reinforce patronage networks.

Syrian artists and writers, both within the country and in the diaspora, have long used creative expression to document atrocities and imagine alternative futures. The Assad regime has systematically targeted cultural spaces, from destroying the ancient souks of Aleppo to imprisoning poets like Faraj Bayrakdar. The EU’s engagement with Damascus risks further erasing these voices, while spiritual traditions—such as Sufi mysticism or Yazidi cosmology—offer frameworks for reconciliation that prioritize collective healing over political expediency.

Scenario modeling suggests that the EU’s proposal could lead to three potential futures: a short-term reduction in migration flows but long-term instability due to unaddressed grievances; a gradual normalization of the Assad regime, further isolating opposition-held areas; or a backlash from Syrian civil society, reigniting conflict. The most sustainable path would involve conditional cooperation tied to verifiable reforms, such as decentralization and transitional justice, but this requires a level of engagement with local actors that the EU has historically avoided.

Syrian women, who played a central role in the 2011 uprising, have been systematically excluded from peace negotiations, with their demands for gender justice sidelined. Kurdish and Yazidi communities, who suffered genocide under ISIS and the Assad regime, are also absent from the EU’s calculus. The proposal ignores the grassroots organizations—such as the White Helmets or local councils in Idlib—that have provided essential services despite the regime’s blockade. Their exclusion perpetuates a narrative that prioritizes state actors over the people most affected by the conflict.