POLITIQ

On December 7th, Syria's capital, Damascus, was the last city to fall to the opposition forces, primarily the Sunni Islamist group Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), marking the official end of the dictatorial regime by the Assad family that ruled the country for over 50 years. While the scenes of celebrations erupting on the Syrian streets do serve as an indicator to how brutal the previous regime was, there is still much ambiguity around whether the new government will be the country’s saviours.

There is a real danger in being overly optimistic about Syria’s new rulers. It is worth remembering that Bashar al-Assad himself was initially seen by many in the West as a reformer who could modernise the Middle East. In hindsight, this could not have been further from reality.

Initially viewed as a ‘geeky IT guy,’ Assad and his wife soon embarked on a charm offensive in the West, presenting themselves as a glamorous couple. In 2002, they were invited on a state visit to Britain, hosted by Queen Elizabeth and the future King Charles. According to the Sunday Times, Assad demanded ‘as much pomp and ceremony as possible’ during the visit. At the time, Tony Blair even considered asking the Queen to grant the Syrian guest an honorary knighthood.

Yet, this illusion of reform and modernity unraveled quickly, as the Assad regime's brutality became apparent during the Syrian stage of the Arab Spring. When faced with demonstrations, Middle Eastern leaders differed in their approaches: while some opted for concession, others responded with brutal violence. As the events would show, Bashar Assaad found himself in the latter camp.

Many observers at the time speculated whether Bashar would replicate the infamous brutality initiated by his father. In 1982 Hafez al-Assad ordered the killing of at least 20,000 Hama citizens who opposed him. Decades later, Bashar dropped over 82,000 barrel bombs on rebel-held areas during the first decade of the Syrian Civil War. He also called former US President Barack Obama’s bluff on the ‘red line’ regarding chemical weapons use.

The Assad regime also did not shy away from kidnapping, killings, and torture. Saydnaya Prison, locally referred to as the ‘human slaughterhouse’, was designed specifically for the opponents of the Assaad family’s rule.

This, however, is not the full story to the rebels’ enormous success. As is often the case in political upheavals, economic factors played a critical role. Syria had long struggled with financial instability. And while Assaad tended to blame his economic mismanagement on the US-imposed sanctions, his own $2 billion net worth and the struggles of ordinary Syrians are almost impossible to reconcile.

However, even until November of this year the situation in Syria seemed to be quite stable for Assaad. Even more surprising then is the lighting-pace advances by the opposition rebels. In just a space of a couple of days, Assaad went from controlling more than 60% of the country’s territory to facing strong revolts on three fronts. HTS was advancing through the north, Kurds through the east and other rebel factions from the south. With both of his main allies Russia and Hezbollah preoccupied with their own battles - Ukraine and Israel, respectively - Assaad was essentially left isolated.

The turning point came when HTS captured Homs, the last stronghold of the Alawite religious minority to which Assad belongs. After that, facing relatively low resistance, rebels reached Damascus and with that marked the end of the Assaad regime.

Apart, perhaps, from Turkey who did not try to hide their support for the rebels, many states exhibited ‘cautious optimism’ around the fall of the regime. Perhaps it is ‘caution’ that must be the leading sentiment going forward.

It might seem tempting to support anyone who overthrows an oppressive regime, however, the new Syrian government faces a monumental challenge. Syria is, perhaps, one of the most culturally and religiously diverse places on the Earth, and protecting the freedoms of its minorities will be an extraordinarily difficult task, at least for some fractions within the newly-formed government.

Whether there is even any genuine willingness to do that is questionable. The leader of the HTS Abu Mohammed al-Jolani infamously was affiliated with the offshoots of Al-Qaeda in the past. And while in his recent interview to CNN he signalled his remorse about participating in the organisation and vowed to respect the rights of minorities, there should be a healthy amount of skepticism around the sincerity of his words, as he desperately needs international support (not least because he himself has a $10 million bounty on his head by the US State Department).

There is essentially an optimistic and a pessimistic take here. On the optimistic side, the new leaders of Syria could prove to be moderate in their approach, allowing for religious and civil freedoms. On the pessimistic side, as seen too often in the Middle East, leaders might promise protection for minorities but ultimately betray these commitments. Balancing the pan-Islamist factions within the rebel coalition will undoubtedly be a significant challenge. For now, ‘cautious optimism’ appears to be the most reasonable stance.