German think tank urges cooperation with Türkiye in Syria

The German state should cooperate with the countries of the region, especially Türkiye, in the “reconstruction” of Syria, writes the influential Berlin-based German think tank, the Institute for International and Security Policy (SWP).

In recent days, Berlin and Brussels have intensified their efforts to gain influence in Syria. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier visited Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Türkiye this week to discuss the situation and prospects in Syria, while Chancellor Olaf Scholz discussed all these issues in a telephone conversation with the emir of Qatar on Tuesday.

EU foreign ministers also decided on Monday to suspend certain sanctions against Syria for a period of one year (e.g., those concerning the transport and financial sectors and energy infrastructure). However, the EU will also set up a mechanism for the immediate reinstatement of sanctions.

The EU is also campaigning for the HTS leadership in Syria to expel Russia’s Tartus naval base and the Khmeimim airbase from the region. On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron telephoned Abu Mohammed al-Jolani (Ahmed al-Shara) and invited him to visit Paris in the coming weeks, suggesting that Paris has gained an advantage over Berlin in its quest for influence in Syria.

Years of German aid to Idlib not enough

This is why German government advisers are urging Berlin to work closely with Ankara, Riyadh, and Doha in its efforts to exert influence in Damascus. As German Development Minister Svenja Schulze reported in December, Berlin has for years maintained good relations with Idlib, which is controlled by the “terrorist organization” HTS, by funding aid projects there. However, while the interim government in Damascus is largely drawn from the power circles in Idlib, this is clearly not enough to have the desired effect.

That is why the Berlin-based Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) is calling for cooperation with Türkiye in the “reorganization and reconstruction of Syria.”

Ankara and Berlin propose a ‘geopolitical partnership’

According to an assessment by Yaşar Aydın in SWP, the first area of cooperation could be joint humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects for the reintegration of returning refugees. Another area would be reconstruction assistance for the Syrian armed forces, the disarmament of militias, and the securing and destruction of chemical weapons.

Pointing out that at the EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting Germany advocated the easing of EU sanctions and announced that it might work for their complete lifting in order to strengthen the transitional government and encourage it to accept Syrian refugees “fleeing the civil war,” the SWP writer said: “Berlin and Ankara should also act together geopolitically in the region. Both are interested in pushing back Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, especially in Syria, and in maintaining a balanced position vis-à-vis China, which has recently increased its influence through its mediation efforts between Iran and Saudi Arabia.”

German-Turkish partnership to stop Israeli operations?

Aydin argues that cooperation on Israel is also possible despite differences, arguing that a prolonged Israeli occupation of Syria would “alienate the population” and “push HTS towards an anti-Israel agenda.” Aydın reminds that the German Foreign Ministry has called on Israel not to establish any settlements on Syrian territory and reaffirmed its position that the Golan Heights belong to Syria according to international law, pointing out that Ankara and Berlin may have a common interest in reducing Israeli military operations.

Acknowledging that there may be a disagreement between the two countries on the issue of Kurdish autonomy and the YPG in Syria, Aydın argues that this disagreement can be overcome by Berlin mediating between Ankara and the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces, and writes: “Berlin is already holding talks with the YPG in coordination with Ankara.”

Ankara and Berlin’s Syria statements show ‘surprising synchronization’

“Türkiye is playing a central role in the reconstruction of Syria after the fall of the Assad regime,” Aydın said, arguing that Germany and Türkiye have a common interest in stabilizing Syria and the region “for both geopolitical and humanitarian reasons.” He argues that the Syria statements from Berlin and Ankara show a “surprising synchronization” in terms of content and believes that the two countries should work together despite their differences.

Aydin concludes his assessment as follows:

“The political stabilization of Syria through the reconciliation of interests between Ankara and the YPG in Syria would also create opportunities for the resolution of Türkiye’s armed conflict with the PKK. The advantages for Türkiye are obvious: Renewed economic ties with Syria, dynamic growth in both countries and the prospect of deeper regional economic integration. For Germany there will be opportunities for a development-oriented return policy and a better image in the Arab-Muslim world.”

EU-Gulf cooperation for Syria

Furthermore, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) writes that the EU “will not be the most important player” in Syria in the near future but could take a common position with the Gulf Arab states in shaping Syria’s future.

The ECFR argues that the current Euro-Gulf relations offer great potential to “bring Syria the stability it deserves” and that despite its past, HTS has shown signs of “moderation” and “pragmatism” and that the Gulf countries therefore have a common interest in “making the New Syria work.”

The ECFR argues that the Europeans should seize the opportunity to define a common position with the Gulf on the future of Syria and that they share important interests with the Gulf Arab states in promoting a “stable Syria that contributes to regional stability,” “preventing the country from becoming a base for extremism” and ensuring the voluntary return of refugees.

On the other hand, ECFR writes that both the EU and the Gulf “should press Türkiye and Israel to end destabilizing military interventions that risk undermining the transition.”