Syria between the logic of the market and the logic of justice

The problem isn’t the money, but who sets the conditions.
The dilemma isn’t the loans, but who charts the path that leads to them.
When the World Bank knocks on the door of a country emerging from war, or the International Monetary Fund opens its burdensome files, the question isn’t just about the amount of funding, but also about the political, human, and moral cost that such funding entails.

Syria today, as it stands before the gates of reconstruction after two decades of war and economic collapse, faces one of the most sensitive dilemmas in its modern history: How can it benefit from the tools of the international financial system without becoming its hostage? How can it regain the trust of international institutions without losing its sovereignty over the fate of its economy and society?
The World Bank, with its enormous influence in guiding the economic policies of developing countries, never enters a country without a ready-made recipe for reform, beginning with restructuring and ending with privatization, moving on to shrinking the state and liberalizing the market.

This prescription—even if presented under the banner of “stimulating growth”—often left behind fragmented societies and eroded middle classes, when their governments were unable to balance market imperatives with people’s rights.

The essence of the idea of ​​international intervention:

It goes without saying that the World Bank is neither a charitable institution nor a colonial apparatus in the old sense. Rather, it is an expression of a global economic system that views the free market as the natural way to organize the world. Its stated mission is to support development and financial stability. However, its tools are based on imposing specific policies in exchange for funding, so assistance becomes a form of disguised political guidance.

It is a mistake to view World Bank intervention as an absolute evil, as some ideological discourses do, or an absolute good, as neoliberal advocates see it.
The Bank, in its real form, is a very cold, rational apparatus that cares only about numbers and ratios, not about justice or suffering.
It measures a state’s success by its ability to control its fiscal deficit, reduce social support, and liberalize its markets. The subsequent unemployment, poverty, and unrest on the streets are not its concern.

This purely quantitative logic may work for a stable state with established institutions and a solid social safety net, but it becomes a single-edged sword in a fragile country emerging from war. In such environments, lifting subsidies, liberalizing prices, and reducing public spending are deadly measures, as they are imposed on an economy that has yet to heal its wounds and on a society living on the brink of poverty and destitution.

Previous Experiences: When the Bank Entered, Justice Collapsed:

Since the 1970s, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have entered dozens of countries under the banner of “structural reform.” What happened in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East was a harsh lesson.

In Egypt, implementing the Bank’s recommendations led to massive inflation and a shrinking middle class. In Tunisia, the lifting of bread and fuel subsidies sparked bloody protests in the 1980s. In Jordan, when austerity policies were imposed, people took to the streets because they saw the “reform” as nothing more than a retreat from the most basic elements of a dignified life.
These examples and others are not coincidental, but rather the result of a single logic that holds that if the market is left free, it will find its own balance.
But the market knows no mercy, and it cares nothing for the fate of the poor or the people’s ability to withstand waves of inflation. The market, simply put, is not governed by conscience.
Therefore, the World Bank’s involvement in any country cannot be free of profound negative social impact. It pushes governments toward austerity policies under the pretext of correcting the financial trajectory, but in reality, it empties the state’s role of its essence: protecting its citizens from market fluctuations and ensuring a minimum level of justice.

Syria and the Deserved Reconstruction:

When the question is asked today, “Does Syria need the World Bank?” the answer is complex.
Yes, it needs its technical expertise, its support in managing financial affairs and restructuring infrastructure, and access to international financing networks that provide it with confidence and stability.
But no, Syria doesn’t need his ready-made recipes, which have weakened countries before it.

Syria is not a poor country in the traditional sense, but rather a country exhausted by war, corruption, and sanctions. It needs to rebuild its institutions before rebuilding its streets.
When the World Bank approaches this situation, it will attempt to impose its usual tools: liberalizing the exchange rate, reducing subsidies, opening markets, and shrinking the public sector… This is where the dilemma begins.
Syria’s submission to these conditions without fundamental reform will lead to the disintegration of what remains of the middle class, to exorbitant price increases, and to opening the doors to foreign capital to control the energy, telecommunications, and banking sectors. At that point, the Syrian state will no longer be free to manage its economy, but rather will become an implementer of instructions issued from Washington, Paris, or Geneva.

Between the Market and the State:

Economics is not an abstract science, but rather a system of values ​​and interests.
The market is not a neutral place, as it is often said, but rather a reflection of the balance of power within society.

When it is said that “the state must withdraw from the economy,” what is actually meant is that capital should fill its place. When it is said that “subsidies distort prices,” the truth is that the absence of subsidies distorts justice. A state that does not support its poor, protect its local products, or curb market greed loses its social legitimacy, no matter how strong its security forces are.
An economy left to absolute competition turns into a jungle where the strongest, not the most efficient, wins, and where the weakest, not the incapable, are excluded.
Therefore, Syria is not required to reject the market, but rather to subject it to the standards of justice and development, not to the standards of speculation and quick profit. The market is a tool, not a doctrine, and the state is a guardian, not a competing merchant.

Social Justice Is Not a Luxury:

In times of crisis, governments tend to adopt austerity rhetoric under the pretext of realism, cutting spending, eliminating subsidies, and liberalizing prices.
But modern economic history demonstrates that societies that have faced major crises—from Europe after World War II to East Asia in the 1990s—survived only by combining economic efficiency with social cohesion.

Social justice will not be an obstacle to growth, but rather a condition for it. An economy based on extreme inequalities is unstable, and a society in which the poor are deprived of their most basic rights becomes fragile and explosive.

Therefore, any project to rebuild Syria must make social justice a foundation, not a secondary item.
Subsidies must be redefined not as a financial burden, but as an investment in societal stability.
Progressive taxation must be viewed not as a punishment for the wealthy, but as a means of balancing classes.
Protecting local products must be part of national security, not in violation of free markets.

What can Syria benefit from the World Bank?

On the other hand, the World Bank’s tools cannot be ignored, and they could benefit Syria if used properly.
The Bank possesses extensive experience in managing economic statistics and data, reforming tax and banking systems, and financing major infrastructure projects with relative transparency, provided adequate national safeguards are in place.

Syria can benefit from these technical aspects without opening the door to its dominance over economic decision-making. The key to success lies in developing a national negotiation plan prior to any potential agreement, whereby the Syrian state—after reconstituting its legitimate institutions—has an independent vision, not a recipient of orders.

This vision must set clear guidelines:

1. No tampering with basic food and energy subsidies until national income is stabilized.
2. No privatization of sovereign sectors such as water, electricity, and telecommunications.
3. No full currency liberalization before building a productive base capable of absorbing shocks.
4. No unconditional opening to foreign investment without protecting local producers.

Proposed Mechanism:

To achieve this, we in the Syrian Future Movement propose that Syria adopt a conditional partnership model instead of full engagement in structural adjustment programs.
This means concluding specific sectoral agreements with the World Bank, each subject to an independent national assessment, so that funding does not become a gateway to dependency.

An independent Economic and Financial Policy Council could also be established, comprising national experts from within and outside Syria. This council would negotiate with international institutions and submit periodic evaluation reports to the government to ensure transparency and accountability.
This council would serve as a shield to prevent economic decision-making from being diverted to parties that do not have the best interests of Syrians in mind.
Furthermore, the concept of “investment” should be redefined in official Syrian discourse.
While investment is an influx of foreign capital, it is, in reality, the building of sustainable national capacities.
There is no point in attracting capital if it depletes natural resources and repatriates profits without creating real added value within the country.

For a New Balance:

The world today is no longer divided between capitalism and socialism, but rather between those who put the market at the service of humanity, and those who put humanity at the service of the market.
Syria, which paid a heavy price for its freedom and independence, cannot replace political tyranny with a new financial tyranny that comes in the form of economic reform.
We need a responsible liberalism that believes in individual initiative and competition, but does not abandon the weak to their fate.
An economy free from corruption, not one free from justice.
A green socialism that restores the balance between humanity and nature, between profit and life, between the present and the future.

These are not sentimental slogans, but lessons from the experiences of nations that have followed this path before.
China, for example, despite its economic openness, has maintained the state’s grip on directing the market.
Malaysia overcame its crisis because it refused to fully submit to the conditions of the International Monetary Fund in the 1990s.
Latin American countries, after decades of imposed austerity, have rediscovered that development is not built at the expense of the people, but for them.

For Syria to be a partner, not a subordinate, in its relationship with the World Bank, it must have a clear economic vision based on strict national principles:

1. Economic sovereignty: Financial decisions must be part of the national decision-making process, not a foreign bargaining chip.
2. Transparency and accountability: No loans without oversight, and no agreements without public knowledge.
3. Balanced development: Investments must be distributed to governorates and regions according to their real needs, not the interests of elites.
4. Empowering vulnerable groups: Through productive support programs and real employment, not temporary transfers.
5. First, reform the internal financial system: Before requesting loans, it is necessary to reform the management of resources and combat the internal corruption that has squandered the country’s wealth.

Towards a Fair and Equal Negotiation with the World Bank:

The relationship with the World Bank does not have to be one of subservience or dependence.
If national awareness, expertise, and legitimacy are present, it can be transformed into an equal partnership based on mutual interests.

However, convincing the Bank of fair terms for Syria requires a smart and progressive negotiation mechanism, progressing from building a national position to technical advocacy, according to the following paths:

1. Preparing a comprehensive national vision before starting negotiations, clearly defining: What does Syria need? What are the limits of what is acceptable? And what are the red lines that cannot be crossed?
   The World Bank only respects governments that possess a coherent vision and accurate data.
   Whoever enters negotiations without figures and indicators will inevitably be controlled from the outside.
2. Crafting a rational economic discourse that links justice with efficiency. Syrian demands must not be presented in ideological terms, but rather in terms of results: that supporting the poor maintains stability, that targeted support guarantees production, and that the market cannot function without social security.
   The bank, although a neoliberal tool, has become more sensitive to international public opinion and can be persuaded of “sustainable development” projects with a social dimension if they are formulated with professional rhetoric.
3. Alliance with friendly countries within the World Bank General Assembly: Bank decisions are not made in a vacuum; rather, they are voted on by the Boards of Governors and representatives of contributing countries.
   Syria can build a support network of developing countries that share a vision for just development, forming a negotiating bloc that imposes more balanced conditions.
4. Presenting a transparent self-reform plan demonstrates the state’s seriousness in combating corruption and improving governance, as this weakens the justification for imposing external tutelage.
   When the bank sees genuine reform steps, it becomes willing to grant financing with more lenient conditions.
   However, when it sees ongoing corruption, it imposes its tutelage under the pretext of protecting its assets.
5. Employing Syrian talent abroad in negotiation and advisory teams, who understand the language of international financial institutions and can translate the national vision into numbers and reports.
   Many of the Bank’s previous negotiators are of Arab or Asian origin, and a skilled national negotiator can shift the direction of the discussion if they approach it with professionalism rather than slogans.
6. Fragmenting the issues rather than comprehensive negotiations, so that dialogue with the Bank is opened in specific sectors (such as electricity, education, statistics, etc.) without granting a comprehensive mandate over the economy.
   This approach gives Syria room for review and evaluation before moving to the next stage.
   In this way, negotiating with the World Bank is not a gamble, but rather a calculated, sovereign process managed with a cool head and a warm heart, preserving the interests of Syrians and reintegrating the country into the global economy from a position of equality, not subordination.

We must say here that the Syrian Future Movement believes that independent national decision-making does not mean isolation, and openness does not mean subservience.
A Syria that is rising from the rubble of war does not need new guardianship, but rather partners who respect its will and choices.

Therefore, we, in the Economic Bureau of the Syrian Future Movement, believe that any relationship with the World Bank must be built on a clear foundation:

Social justice is not a negotiable item, but an inviolable national right;

• The market is a means to serve humanity, not a tool for its exploitation; and development that does not preserve people’s dignity is not development, but rather a transition from one ruin to another.
• Accordingly, we call on all Syrian national and economic forces to approach this issue with an open mind and a vigilant conscience, and to realize that the most dangerous thing facing Syria today is not physical destruction, but rather the mental surrender to the idea that the outside world holds the solution. The solution lies within, in good governance, integrity, production, self-confidence, and in the ability of Syrians to tell the world: We do not reject cooperation, but we reject dependency; we need partners, not guardians; and we will build a free and just economy, strong in its humanity, and Syrian in its decision-making.

Conclusion:

It is the duty of any national movement to raise its voice when economic decisions approach the limits of sovereignty. Here, we say: Dealing with the World Bank is a potential necessity, but it is also a test of national awareness. Countries with a conscious negotiating vision can transform a loan into an opportunity for recovery, while countries that enter the loan out of urgent need will emerge burdened with debt and shackled by conditions.

Therefore, the Syrian Future Movement can recommend the following:

First: The necessity of establishing a permanent national committee for international financial relations, which will serve as a reference in any negotiations with the World Bank or others. This committee should include domestic and international experts who have gained experience and national respect, to ensure professional and political balance.

Second: Reject any international financial commitment that does not pass through an elected parliament or a legitimate national body with the right to accountability.

Third: Adopt the principle of “reform from within first,” meaning addressing financial imbalances through the redistribution of resources and combating corruption before resorting to foreign loans.

Fourth: Launch a comprehensive national economic dialogue involving the private sector, unions, and civil society to determine reconstruction priorities, so that this task is not left to international experts alone.

Fifth: Build a new economic discourse that makes social justice a core component of growth, not a byproduct.

Sixth: Conditional cooperation with the World Bank in the areas of infrastructure, statistics, and administration, while strictly preserving strategic sectors within the control of the state.
The new Syria we dream of cannot be built on the logic of dependency or isolation, but rather on a wise balance between openness and sovereignty, between the market and the state, between profit and responsibility.

No nation can thrive on an economy without people, and no economy can thrive in a nation without justice.