Between Need and Suspicion
Amid a complex and pressing economic reality, where daily challenges weigh heavily on the Syrian citizen, recent voices have emerged warning against — and at times even labeling as treason — every economic initiative that comes from abroad under the banner of “investment.” This coincides with a wave of populist rhetoric that treats terms such as “free market,” “privatization,” or “foreign investment” as if they were acts of national betrayal, rather than legitimate economic tools used worldwide to build the future.
The purpose of this article is not to defend specific contracts or justify any past or future shortcomings. Rather, it is an attempt to place things in their proper context, to understand the nature of the modern economic system, and to recognize Syria’s position in this critical phase—where foreign investment has become one of the few viable tools for rescuing and rebuilding both the state and society.
We will begin by defining foreign investment and why countries need it.
Amid the economic crises sweeping across many countries—particularly those emerging from long wars and conflicts, like Syria—the term "foreign investment" often surfaces in public discussions. However, it is frequently met with deep suspicion, or even outright accusations of betrayal and “selling the country.” For this reason, it is crucial to pause and examine this fundamental concept, to understand it as it truly is—not as it is promoted or feared. A clear and accurate understanding of any issue is the first step toward forming a conscious and responsible position.
What is foreign investment?
Foreign investment, simply put, is the process of injecting money or resources by a foreign party—whether a state, company, individual, or international institution—into another country with the goal of achieving mutual benefit. This benefit may involve profits for the investor, but it often translates into developmental or productive projects for the host country, such as the construction of industrial facilities, infrastructure, hotels, airports, hospitals, energy networks, ports, and more.
Investment is neither a donation, nor a form of colonialism, nor a loan.
It is a mutually beneficial relationship based on clear agreements and conditions that are negotiated in advance and signed by state institutions.
Why do countries need foreign investment?
The reason is simple and clear: the state's resources are limited, while its needs for development, reconstruction, and public services are enormous.
Syria, for example, is emerging from more than a decade of war and is suffering from:
- The erosion of infrastructure.
- The collapse of the industrial sector.
- The migration of skilled professionals.
- A severe shortage of liquidity and local investments.
- Enormous pressure on public services.
In such a reality, it is unrealistic to expect the government or the local public sector to bear the full cost of comprehensive reconstruction alone. This is why foreign investment emerges as a necessary lifeline—not a luxury, nor a political choice, but an economic necessity.
Foreign Investment Throughout History: Is It Something New?
Foreign investment is not a modern invention; it has been part of global economic activity for centuries.
- In Egypt, the Suez Canal was built with foreign capital in the 19th century, yet it later became one of the most important pillars of Egypt’s economic sovereignty.
- In China: Before it became an economic power, China welcomed foreign investment in "special economic zones" to acquire technology and expertise, and today China has become one of the largest investors in the world.
- In the Gulf countries: These nations have undertaken giant projects funded by foreign investors from all over the world, and the result today is a strong economy and an advanced service model.
But... isn't investment a sale of the country?
This is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts. Investment does not mean selling state assets; rather, it means that the state allows a company or specific entity to develop a resource, service, or project under clear conditions and for a specified period of time, after which ownership of the project or net profit returns to the state.
Those who sell the country are the ones who sign corrupt or non-transparent agreements, or who squander the rights of future generations, not those who open the door to a responsible partnership organized by clear contracts and under the oversight of the law and society.
Types of foreign investments
Foreign investments can be classified into several types:
- Foreign Direct Investment (FDI):
For example, a foreign company may build a factory, hotel, or power farm in Syria, employ local workers, and share the revenues with the government. - Participatory investment or through contracts (such as BOT):
This is what we will discuss in detail in the next section, where the project is built, operated by the investor for a certain period, and then fully transferred to the state. - Investment in markets (financial – banking – real estate):
Such as buying shares in banks or companies, real estate development, or even financing local entrepreneurial projects.
Each type of these has different regulations, different risks, and different returns, but the common denominator among them is that they contribute to injecting liquidity, creating job opportunities, providing services, and driving the economy forward.
Who benefits from foreign investment?
There are three parties that usually benefit from foreign investment:
- The state: by providing infrastructure and projects that it cannot currently finance, and collecting taxes and revenues later.
- Society: by creating job opportunities, improving the quality of services, and reducing pressure on the public budget.
- The investor: by obtaining a profit from a successful project, which is natural in any business operation.
But the important thing is that the contracts are:
- Transparent.
- Subject to supervision.
- Balanced so that the weakness of the state or legal chaos is not exploited.
Foreign investment is not the opposite of sovereignty... but rather a protection for it
National sovereignty is not measured by the rejection of investors, but by the state's ability to set fair and national conditions for any investment and to recover its full rights in a timely manner. An isolated and closed economy does not protect the country; rather, it makes it fragile and unable to face crises.
In the Syrian case, well-planned foreign investment may be the only lifeline available, amid sanctions, liquidity shortages, and the destruction of productive sectors.
BOT system (Build-Operate-Transfer) is a partnership, not a sale
After clarifying the concept of foreign investment and its importance, it is essential to pause at one of the most common and effective models for implementing infrastructure projects and major services, which is the BOT model. This model is often misunderstood or deliberately distorted, presented as a "sale of public utilities" or "handing over state assets," while the reality is far from this bleak image.
What does BOT mean?
The term BOT is an abbreviation for Build - Operate - Transfer, which means:
- Build: The investor finances and constructs a specific project (for example, an airport, a highway, a power station, a hospital...).
- Operation: Manages the project for a specified period agreed upon in the contract (usually between 10 to 30 years), during which he is entitled to recover his costs and achieve profits.
- Transfer: Upon the expiration of the contract, ownership of the project will fully transfer to the state without any compensation.
We are here facing a temporary and organized contractual model, with no sale or permanent privatization. Rather, it is closer to a long-term lease that allows the state to obtain a service or modern facility without having to pay the cost of its construction directly from its already burdened budget.
Why do countries use the BOT system?
The BOT system emerged and expanded globally after the 1980s, when countries – even the wealthy ones – began to face challenges in financing large infrastructure projects without straining their treasuries or increasing public debt. In countries emerging from wars or crises – as in the case of Syria – this system becomes one of the smart solutions for reconstruction and providing services without waiting for miracles from the public budget.
Global examples:
- Turkey has established many of its airports and road networks through BOT.
- Egypt has developed massive power stations using the same system.
- India has built hundreds of kilometers of highways through investors under the BOT system.
- The Jordan completed the Disi Water Project using the same model.
How does the state benefit from a BOT project?
- The state acquires advanced infrastructure without directly bearing the costs of its construction.
- During the operating period, you receive a percentage of the profits or franchise fees.
- Upon the expiration of the contract, the ownership of the project shall fully transfer to the state, equipped, operated, and complete.
- This model ensures the transfer of financial and technical risks to the investor, thereby protecting the state from losses.
Example:
If the state needs to build a new airport at a cost of 500 million dollars but does not have the liquidity, it can contract with an international company to build and operate the airport for 20 years, after which it will be handed back for free. During these years, the state will work on organizing air traffic, oversight, and security, and will collect taxes and fees, while the company manages the operational services of the airport.
Does that mean the state is relinquishing its sovereignty or selling the facility?
The definitive answer: no.
The state sets the conditions, determines the prices or their ceiling, monitors the implementation, and retains full authority over the project in terms of direction and supervision, such as:
- Impose environmental conditions.
- Defining quality standards.
- Organizing employee work.
- Price monitoring and preventing monopolies.
- Termination of the contract in the event of major breaches.
In fact, some contracts include a clause known as "early transfer of ownership," meaning that the state retains the right to reclaim the project before the end of the term, in the event of a vital national interest arising, in exchange for a previously agreed-upon compensation.
Where does the investor’s profit come from? And is that normal?
Yes, the investor makes a profit, and this is normal because:
- He funded the project.
- He is the one who took the risks.
- He is the one who committed to operating and developing the project.
But on the other hand:
- He doesn't own the project.
- He does not control the prices alone.
- He cannot be extended automatically.
- He is not entitled to transfer ownership or sell the project to a third party without the approval of the state.
Thus, we achieve a smart partnership that takes into account the interests of the state without burdening its budget or forcing it to resort to external borrowing.
What makes BOT a suitable option for Syria right now?
In the Syrian case, we are faced with a devastated structure, a strained budget, and suffocating sanctions. At the same time, there are enormous needs in all sectors:
- Water, electricity, and alternative energy.
- Hospitals and health centers.
- Ports, airports, highways.
- Service sectors such as transportation, communications, and tourism.
It is difficult – indeed impossible – to rebuild all of that through the state budget or loans that will burden future generations. Therefore, the BOT model is a realistic and practical gateway to salvation, especially if accompanied by:
- Transparency in contracts.
- Popular and institutional oversight.
- Civil society participation in performance monitoring.
Final word: BOT is not privatization, nor is it a sale, nor is it a conspiracy
Those who promote the idea that BOT is a sale of the country either do not understand the essence of the model or are exploiting this ignorance for short-term political and populist purposes.
We need a balanced economic reading that starts from the actual needs of the people and places the interest of the nation above all slogans of betrayal and doubt.
The BOT system is a bridge between limited capabilities and strong ambitions; it is an opportunity if utilized well, and a risk if its conditions are corrupted.
Foreign Investment in Syria: An Opportunity for Advancement, Not for Waste
After more than a decade of war and destruction, Syria seems as if it has emerged from a deep economic and social earthquake. There is hardly a province that has not been affected in its infrastructure, and no sector has escaped losing part of its operational capacity or the human resources that sustain it. Under these harsh conditions, traditional solutions—such as relying solely on the state or limited international aid—are no longer sufficient or sustainable. Therefore, foreign investment becomes not just an option, but one of the tools for survival and recovery in the short to medium term.
A glimpse into the current Syrian economic situation
We will not present the complete figures, but it is enough to point out:
- High unemployment rates
- Major collapse in public services (electricity, water, transportation...).
- The decline in the purchasing power of the Syrian pound.
- Many industrial facilities are out of service.
- Significant decline in agricultural production.
With the blockage of official funding channels – whether through external loans or UN aid – opening the door to foreign investment becomes an urgent national necessity.
What are the actual opportunities available in Syria?
Despite the difficulties of the current phase, Syria still possesses a number of factors that make it an attractive investment environment if guarantees are provided:
- Strategic location: it connects Asia and Europe, and has vital maritime and land outlets.
- Underutilized natural resources: solar energy, gas, phosphate, extensive agriculture.
- Efficient human capital: Despite migration, there are still thousands of skilled individuals both inside the country and in the diaspora ready to contribute to reconstruction.
- Local consumer market with millions of residents: especially in the sectors of health, food, housing, and energy.
How does foreign investment contribute to stimulating the local economy?
- Inject new financial liquidity into the market instead of relying on printing money or borrowing.
- Reviving the stalled sectors such as construction, agriculture, and industry.
- Creating real and sustainable job opportunities for Syrians within their country, instead of pushing them towards migration or forced unemployment.
- Knowledge and technology transfer, especially in vital sectors such as renewable energy, water, and transportation.
- Encouraging local investors by creating a competitive environment and improving working conditions.
Practical example:
If a solar power station is established through foreign investment in the countryside of Homs, this project will employ dozens of workers, provide clean energy to large areas, relieve pressure on the public grid, and spare the state long-term operating expenses. All of this without the state having to pay a single penny upfront.
Why should we not be afraid of "foreign control"?
This is one of the most common fears, especially after years of conflict and political turmoil. But the truth is that every foreign investment is ultimately subject to:
- Official contract signed with the Syrian state.
- Local legal and legislative oversight.
- Specific time frames and clear operational criteria.
Then there is a big difference between:
- Investment for the purpose of development and employment.
- And between political and military influence.
The problem is not in the nationality of the investor, but in the terms of the contract and governance. Even a local investor may exploit the state if oversight and transparency are lacking.
How do we protect investment so that it serves the state rather than exploiting it?
Simply through:
- Writing clear and transparent contracts that are even presented to the public or legislative bodies.
- Inclusion of national protection clauses (such as Syrian labor ratios, use of local resources, ownership restoration, fair pricing...).
- Establishing an independent authority to monitor major investments, ensuring that no project turns into a monopoly or an instrument of unlawful influence.
- Involving the public sector and civil society in evaluation and monitoring, because transparency is not only imposed from the top, but is also built through community oversight.
Why is investment in Syria being attacked?
The reasons are multiple:
- The general ignorance of economic concepts is the result of years of isolation and directed education.
- The negative memory of people regarding some corruption and privatization projects in the past, which were implemented in the name of "reform" but were merely organized plunder.
- Investment as a propaganda tool for political bidding, as some voices resort to stirring national sentiments by portraying any economic cooperation as "betrayal" or "squandering."
But the challenge today is to break this image and present a national vision that tells the people:
"We do not sell the homeland... rather, we rebuild it through partnership, dignity, and economic intelligence."
Open Economy: Free Market and Balanced Development
If foreign investment is a tool for advancement, then the environment in which this investment is embraced is the foundation that determines its success or failure. Here we come to one of the most economically misunderstood concepts in Syria – unfortunately – in a distorted or one-dimensional way: open economy and free market.
In the collective Syrian mind, these terms are often associated either with the savage liberalism that strips the state of its role and turns the citizen into a helpless consumer, or with "privatizing everything" and "selling the country to the rich." However, the reality is quite different, filled with examples that confirm that a regulated and open market can be the strongest incubator for both justice and development if it is well organized and directed.
What is an open economy? And why do we need it today?
The open economy is simply an economic system that allows for a diversity of actors in the market, where the state does not own everything alone, but there are:
- Strong and productive private sector.
- Organized and effective public sector.
- Cooperative and community sector.
- Mechanisms to regulate the relationship between these parties in a way that ensures the interests of the citizen, not the interests of the few.
This does not mean that the market is unregulated, nor does it mean unleashing prices and services without oversight; on the contrary, an open economy needs:
- Strong regulatory institutions.
- Fair judicial system.
- Transparency in contracts and projects.
- Fighting against monopoly and corruption.
What is a free market? And is it economic chaos?
The free market does not mean that everything is left to randomness or corporate greed, but rather that the opportunity is provided for anyone who wants to produce, invest, or take initiative, without being forced to engage in political affiliation or corruption in order to complete a project or obtain a license.
In the free market:
- The state does not sell everything, but it does not monopolize everything either.
- The public sector is not abolished, but it is redefined to become more efficient and service-oriented.
- Prices are not left to chance; they are monitored to achieve a balance between the interests of the producer and the consumer.
This model has succeeded in countries such as:
- Tunisia and Morocco in North Africa.
- Indonesia and Malaysia in Asia.
- Brazil and Chile in Latin America.
All of them are countries that chose to open their markets to partnerships and investments, without giving up the role of the state in care and regulation.
The open economy is not complete privatization... but a rational partnership
One of the biggest mistakes in the current Syrian discussion is the confusion between a free market and complete privatization.
Privatization means the sale of state assets and the withdrawal of the state from productive or service sectors, and this often occurs under corrupt political conditions that lead to the concentration of wealth and monopolies.
But an open economy does not mean that at all; rather, it is a system:
- It allows for private sector participation in services.
- Encourages partnerships between the two sectors (Public-Private Partnerships).
- Everyone is subjected to oversight and accountability.
- It protects the citizen from encroachment and protects the state from deficiency.
The Role of the Public Sector in the Free Market: From Adversary to Enabler
Instead of viewing the public sector as a bloated entity or a competitor to the private sector, it is more appropriate to redefine it to become:
- Market regulator, sets laws and policies.
- Supporting the most vulnerable groups through limited and smart support for essential services.
- A fair competitor in some strategic sectors that the state needs, such as transportation or energy.
- A strong regulator that prevents monopolies, regulates markets, and ensures social justice.
Thus, the public sector becomes a national guarantee rather than a burden, and a supporter of the free economy, not an enemy of it.
Impact of an Open Economy on Services and Job Opportunities
In a closed economy, services are often slow, centralized, expensive, and scarce.
In an open economy, services improve because:
- Competition drives companies to provide higher quality.
- The existence of multiple options gives the consumer the freedom to choose.
- The private sector invests in modern technologies to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
- The state benefits from taxes and operating fees without bearing the full burden of the service.
As for job opportunities,:
- Every private project is a new job opportunity.
- Every new establishment means a series of accompanying services (delivery, maintenance, marketing...).
- Every foreign investment requires training and qualification, which means developing local skills.
But... how do we protect people from "market greed"?
The answer is not to close the market, but to regulate it.
And here comes the role of what is known as "social market controls," such as:
- Setting basic prices for some services (electricity, water, transportation...).
- Prevention of monopolies.
- Impose a progressive tax on large profits.
- Directing support to the most in-need groups.
- Establish labor laws that protect workers.
With these mechanisms, the market can operate freely, without turning into a monster that devours people.
The open economy transforms into a tool for justice and dignity, not a tool for impoverishment.
The public sector: the incubator and the regulator, not the competitor
In every successful economic experience throughout history, the state has played a pivotal role in regulating the market, supporting the weaker segments of society, and maintaining a balance between economic profit and social justice. In the Syrian case, the public sector still constitutes the backbone of society, despite the weaknesses and setbacks it has faced over the past decades.
With the transition to an open economy and the attraction of investments, it becomes essential to redefine the role of the public sector, not to eliminate it, but to qualify it to become more effective in a renewed environment.
The public sector is not a company... but a national responsibility
When we talk about the public sector, we are not only referring to the economic institutions owned by the state, but:
- Schools, hospitals, and public transportation.
- Municipalities and social services.
- Local administrations.
- Social security and health insurance system.
These are all tools for the state that enable it to care for the community and regulate the market, even in the presence of competition from the private sector or the presence of foreign investments.
The problem does not lie in the existence of the public sector, but in the weakness of its management, its politicization, or the spread of corruption within it. Therefore, its development is part of the reform project, not a bypass of it.
How can the public sector be a supporter rather than a competitor?
- By establishing fair economic policies:
- Setting development priorities.
- Drafting legislation that ensures justice.
- Support for national productive initiatives.
- By monitoring and regulating the market:
- Consumer protection from greed and monopoly.
- Regulating strategic prices.
- Impose fair taxes on major activities.
- By creating a balanced work environment:
- Providing stable employment opportunities in sensitive sectors (education, health, food security).
- Facilitating small and medium enterprises, not stifling them.
- Linking training and education to market needs.
- By building smart partnerships with the private sector:
- Like the BOT projects that were explained.
- or joint operating contracts for ports or power stations.
- or support local investment in land or infrastructure.
Privatization is not the solution... and the public sector alone is not enough
In the 1990s, several countries underwent rapid and chaotic privatization experiments, which resulted in the transfer of national wealth into the hands of a few influential individuals. In contrast, other countries that viewed the public sector as the sole savior failed, drowning in bureaucracy, corruption, and the collapse of production.
The solution is not in comparing the "public sector" and the "private sector," but in finding a rational partnership model that places the citizen's interest at the center.
Reforming the public sector is a necessity, not an option.
In order for the public sector to be a true guarantor of justice and development, it must be rebuilt according to the following principles:
- Efficiency: Professional employee, smart management, flexible systems.
- Integrity: Combating corruption in all its forms, from employment to contracts.
- Flexibility: Transitioning from stifling centralization to smart decentralization.
- Accountability: Regular performance evaluation and transparent accountability for officials.
Developing the public sector does not mean dismantling it, but rather freeing it from the distortions that have made it a burden instead of a lever.
A strong state is not one that owns everything... but one that knows how to organize everything.
The strength of a state is not measured by the number of companies it manages, but by its ability to protect its citizens and organize economic and social life fairly.
The strong state is the one that:
- You observe the market, but you do not control it.
- Encourages innovation, without neglecting its duty towards the poor.
- Establish partnerships with both domestic and foreign entities, without compromising sovereignty.
- Investment should be regulated, and not left to devour the economy in the name of quick profit.
In Syria, where citizens suffer from accumulated crises, there must be a new public sector that is not operated for the benefit of the elites, but is managed to serve the people, and coordinated with the private sector instead of competing with it.
A message to the dissenting voices: You have the right to be afraid… but not of investment
No genuine national project can be built on denying popular fears or ignoring the difficult questions that people have, especially in a country where almost everything has been broken for over a decade: trust, institutions, dreams, and even the common language between the state and society.
Today, with the return of discussions about investments, projects, and partnerships, many voices are emerging saying:
"Isn't what happened enough for us?"
"Isn't this a new sale for the country?"
"Who guarantees that these projects won't go to the corrupt?"
These are legitimate questions, even necessary, if raised with the intention of reform rather than destruction.
Yes, fear is legitimate... but generalization is a mistake
People are afraid because they have been tried before and have faced disappointment. And because the word "investment" in their memory is associated with corrupt deals, monopolies that have drained them, and "family" projects presented in the name of development. Therefore, the fear of repetition is understandable.
But fear should not turn into paralysis and rejection of everything.
And we must not confuse between:
- Carefully planned foreign investment with a transparent contract,
- And between the disposal of public assets through under-the-table deals.
Nor between:
- Partnership with a global company to build a power station,
- And between the looting of a public facility and its handover to a group of influential individuals.
Whoever rejects investment... what alternative do they propose?
Rejecting foreign investment without providing a real alternative sometimes reflects a populist stance that cannot support a state project.
- Do we have enough internal funding?
- Can we wait decades to rebuild what has been destroyed?
- Is it required for our institutions to remain dilapidated and our services to be poor under the pretext of "not being wasteful"?
The wisdom says: We open the doors to partnership... but we keep the keys in the hands of the state and society.
We do not want a beggar state... we want a capable state
Foreign investment, if conducted with transparency and fairness, is not betrayal, but rather economic courage.
The strong state does not mean a state that rejects all support or cooperation, but rather a state that:
- Negotiate with honor,
- Organized with strength,
- And is monitored fairly.
The national project is not just a slogan, but a set of courageous decisions – political and economic – that rebuild trust and lay the foundation for a capable Syria.
Let us redefine sovereignty... in its realistic dimension
Sovereignty is not about saying "no" to everything, but about having the ability to make the right choices, set appropriate conditions, and achieve the public interest without submission or humiliation.
In this context, foreign investment is not a diminishment of sovereignty, but rather a part of the tools that empower it, if used wisely.
The real fear should be from stagnation... not from partnership
In light of what we are experiencing today, the greatest threat to Syria is not the "foreign investor," but:
- the complete economic collapse.
- Erosion of state institutions.
- Decline of services.
- Brain drain.
- Poverty and despair have taken root.
Here, partnership with both domestic and foreign entities, as well as investment in national and international capacities, becomes a moral and humanitarian necessity before it is an economic one.
Investment is a national partnership... there is no compromise on sovereignty
On the path out of the crisis, it is not enough to denounce the reality or merely describe the collapse; we must possess the courage for practical thinking and the responsibility of national action. At the heart of this action are foreign investments, an open economy, and balanced partnerships as essential tools for reconstruction – not only the concrete rebuilding but also the building of trust, institutions, and a decent life.
This article has attempted to dismantle the haze surrounding the concepts of foreign investment, the BOT system, and the free market, and to reintroduce them to the Syrian street as opportunities rather than threats, and as tools for recovery rather than means of plunder, provided they are managed with the state's intellect, under the people's oversight, and within a clear and transparent legal framework.
The fear of manipulation is legitimate, but the fear of rising is a mistake.
While the concern about predatory privatization is understandable, confusing it with fair developmental investment loses us our compass at a moment when we are in dire need of clarity, courage, and sound planning.
We are not faced with a choice between sovereignty and development, but rather an opportunity to link sovereignty with capability, independence with achievement, and belonging with hard work.
The country that cannot afford the luxury of waiting, and cannot tolerate more stagnation, must move – not to the rhythm of chants or accusations – but to the beat of a realistic economic vision and responsible national decision-making.
Today, we are not just building an economy; we are redefining the relationship between the state and society, between trust and expertise, between resources and ambition.
And the Syria we aspire to will not be built on slogans, but on projects, on fair contracts, on opportunities granted to its citizens before anyone else, and on the doors opened to the world without compromising the rights of any of its children.