Where will Syria end up under Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) rule? This is the question that all circles concerned with sociology and politics must ask themselves. In particular, Syrian intellectuals and those demanding democracy should reflect on it. Yet some Syrian intellectuals and circles seem to have little expectation left. They say, “We do not have enough power, we cannot be effective. The forces influential in Syria act according to their own interests. The people are unconscious and unorganized; in this situation, there is not much we can do.”
In short, they are worried about the future of freedoms and democracy; they are not very hopeful.
HTS is not seeking to play an inclusive or unifying role in Syria; they do not even have such a worldview. They are in pursuit of a rigidly sectarian and centralized power. They do not want those outside their ranks to exist in political life. Their mentality is: “We came to Damascus, we took over the administration; therefore, the state and power belong to us.”
Most of the groups within HTS are composed of members and remnants of Al-Nusra and ISIS. Although Ahmed Al-Sharaa (Al-Jolani) and his leadership told everyone that they had “changed,” it has been proven in practice that they have not, and that they continued to act as before. In the Alawite regions, they responded to problems with massacres. They did the same against the Druze.
Can those who say “we have changed” commit massacres, burn homes and resort to looting? Can they abduct women and execute people, including the elderly and children? It has become clear that they have no regard for the laws of war, considered a shared legacy of humanity, nor do they uphold any moral standards.
Did HTS become like this only after coming to power, or were these their earlier practices as well? No; they were the same before. That is why they are listed as terrorist organizations by the United Nations (UN), the United States, Europe and many other states. A bounty of millions of dollars was placed on al-Jolani’s head. Even after declaring that they had “changed,” HTS continued the same practices. These actions are their true mirror.
HTS carried out these massacres at a time when it did not yet control Syria. They were seeking to gain recognition from international powers and to repair their image. If they committed such atrocities during this transitional period, when they were still weak, what might they do if they gained control over Syria and established a rigid centralized rule?
On March 10, Al-Jolani signed an agreement with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) command. According to this agreement, Kurds would be recognized as a founding component of Syria, and their rights would be placed under constitutional guarantee. A ceasefire would be established throughout Syria. However, only a few days after this signing, in the draft interim constitution prepared by HTS, there was no mention of Kurds or the rights guaranteed to them in the agreement. The interim constitution completely ignored Kurds and their rights.
A ceasefire was supposed to prevail across Syria, yet within a month a massacre was carried out against the Druze.
When the interim government was established, Kurds, the people of the autonomous region, and other groups such as the Druze were excluded. Since the formation of the interim government, there has been no improvement in Syria.
Even though there were clashes with the Druze and the problems were not resolved, they are citizens of Syria. Somehow, they should have been engaged in dialogue, agreements should have been sought, and the issues resolved. This administration has a responsibility towards the people. However, because the Druze did not act in line with the wishes of HTS, they were subjected to an embargo. The Sweida (Suwayda) region is currently under embargo and surrounded. To escape massacres, the Druze sought refuge in Israel.
For this reason, HTS blames the Druze, inciting the Syrian people against them and portraying them as traitors and collaborators with Israel. Yet they do not question their own practices that excluded the Druze and left them face to face with massacres; they do not acknowledge their own share of responsibility. By distorting reality, they blame those they have excluded.
To cover up the massacres committed against the Alawites, they established a so-called committee. Reports indicated that civilians were killed there in one way or another. However, it was clear from the beginning that this committee would not reveal the truth, because it was appointed by the HTS administration itself. Although they created the committee to whitewash their image, it was forced to acknowledge some of the crimes. Even so, has anyone been arrested or prosecuted? No.
The interim government exploits the argument borrowed from Turkey that “the Kurds will establish a separate state and divide Syria” for its own purposes. Yet the Kurds and the SDF have repeatedly expressed that they are open to dialogue with Damascus and ready to work jointly for a solution. They viewed initiatives by states such as the United States and France, as well as their mediating roles, positively. It was the government itself that avoided and obstructed the talks, withdrawing from the Paris meetings. Despite this, the Autonomous Administration declared that it remained open to taking confidence-building steps and continued to express its readiness to pursue negotiations with Damascus.
The Damascus administration is now intensifying siege and embargo practices against the autonomous region. While trade and the flow of goods are free in their own areas, vehicles, goods, and commerce moving from the autonomous regions to their side have been banned. The Raqqa–Aleppo road has been closed to crossings. They are working for the economic collapse of the autonomous region and preventing the people’s right to free movement.
Those living east of the Euphrates and in the autonomous region are citizens of Syria. So, who are the separatists? Is it those who impose borders inside Syria and divide the regions from one another, or those who demand an end to this? In practice, the party dividing Syria, besieging certain areas and enforcing embargoes, is the interim government itself.