Regime change in Syria: Dogmatic misperceptions

Quite unexpectedly, Bashar al-Assad’s regime was swept away by the revolutionary Sunni Islamic organization Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa. Until recently, this group occupied a small area in northern Syria around Idlib. It formerly had ties to al-Qaeda, recognized in the West as a terrorist organization, and a bounty was set on its leader’s head.

The group’s astonishing success was driven by Turkish support, compounded by Iran and Russia’s inability to assist Bashar al-Assad due to their focus on other issues, and bolstered by growing internal opposition. While nearly 15 years of international politics, sanctions and threats failed to effect change, HTS toppled the regime in just a few days.

Mr. Sharaa initially declared his group’s intention to respect religious and regional differences. However, given his track record and the unfortunate but extensively demonstrated fact that revolutions against oppressors frequently lead to new oppression, it is justified to doubt his intentions.

The reality is that when people overthrow an autocrat or autocratic regime, the old governance is seldom replaced by a system allowing freedom. Rather, new autocrats establish themselves.

What can be done to avoid oppression?

What people generally want – regardless of cultural differences – is security and a degree of prosperity. Individual freedom and cultural, traditional and religious customs are additional elements. Consequently, a functioning, sustainable society based on individual freedom can only succeed by integrating security and prosperity with cultural, religious and traditional aspects. Otherwise, freedom cannot be attained.

We can observe that phenomena such as migration unsettle established norms, heavily destabilizing even mature liberal democracies. This disruption is further exacerbated when politics and media fail to respect the foundational elements of society derived from culture, tradition and religion.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and her French counterpart Jean-Noel Barrot traveled to Damascus to represent the European Union in a meeting with the new leader. Due to his religious beliefs, which forbid touching the hand of a woman who is not family, Mr. Sharaa refused to shake hands with the German official. European media were prompt to describe the incident as a diplomatic scandal, and Ms. Baerbock declared later that “women’s rights are a yardstick for the future.” Yet, it is possible to fully agree that women’s rights are crucial while also recognizing that the way men and women interact can vary across cultures.

European and American perceptions will never become universal.

 

Europeans and Americans often feel entitled to educate the world with their values, shaping “universal” human rights to fit their perceptions, not realizing that these views are subjective. This arrogance and narrow interpretation of rights undermines the very goal of promoting these values and individual freedom globally.

People need to recognize that initiatives should primarily enhance security and prosperity. While the strategy of Wandel durch Handel (change through trade) has failed due to a limited, utilitarian perspective – namely the belief that rising prosperity in emerging countries would automatically lead to democratic reforms – it still offers valuable lessons.

Human rights cannot be effectively promoted solely through enforcement measures like sanctions or through condescending education. They require a genuine understanding of local and regional contexts, which must be respected and integrated into any human rights agenda.

HTS has established new realities in Syria, making it necessary to engage in dialogue. Yet, the overt arrogance and lack of professionalism shown in critiquing and provoking a new leader for adhering to his traditions illustrate a broader issue. This behavior is another example of how Europeans and Americans are increasingly alienating the global majority.

The advancement of human rights is being thwarted by dogmatism, arrogance and one-sided perspectives. European and American perceptions will never become universal.

If Europeans were really interested in the well-being of the Syrian people, they would have done at least a modicum of research to know that such an outcome could be expected. There are ways to avoid such diplomatic faux pas, without compromising one’s own values. The EU could have sent a male contingent or found a way to avoid the handshaking part of the meeting altogether. This would not have meant a compromise of values, but rather would have shown an understanding of the current situation.

As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. A level-headed approach could have helped pull the new Syrian leadership closer to Europe, potentially easing the way for a more nuanced influence on policymaking. Supporting peace and prosperity in the Middle East is in Europeans’ vital interest.

This comment was originally published here: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/syria-human-rights/