Protests erupted in Syria following calls by Alawite leaders. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) once again responded to unarmed, peaceful demonstrations with the use of force. As is known, Alawites were subjected to massacres in March. The Alawite community was entirely unorganized and uncertain about how to respond. Fear, uncertainty, and anxiety became widespread. HTS, meanwhile, had no mentality of recognizing or embracing Syria’s different social and cultural realities. Instead, it chose a path of suppression, coercion, and enforced submission.
Weapons, repression, and disinformation do not resolve social problems. They may serve a tactical purpose, but they offer no possibility of achieving a healthy or lasting outcome. These methods have been used extensively in Turkey, in Syria, and across the region. For a century, Turkey insisted that “there are no Kurds, everyone is Turkish,” branding those who identified as Kurdish as separatists and traitors. Incalculable suffering and destruction followed. Yet in the end, this strategy of denial and falsehood failed to deliver the desired result. The Baath regime followed a similar path. It relied on repression and denial to the very end, engaged in social engineering, and implemented the so-called “Arab Belt” policy to dilute the Kurdish population. It suffocated Syrian society and established a harsh one-party regime. Ultimately, the Baath regimes in both Iraq and Syria collapsed.
In Syria, a regime change took place, but unfortunately there was no change in mentality. HTS, which holds a more reactionary worldview than the Baath regime, was brought to power. An extremely centralized and authoritarian structure is being imposed, combining Arab nationalism with religion to create an even more rigid ideological framework. HTS could have formed a transitional government that included Kurds, Alawites, Druze, Christians, and Arabs who demand democracy. Syria needed a national consensus government capable of leading the country to elections. Peace and unity cannot be achieved through a governing model that concentrates all power in its own hands while excluding all other forces, and indeed, they have not been achieved. The Druze community was also subjected to massacres and was forced to seek protection in Israel to ensure its survival.
Can submission and enforced obedience be considered a model of governance in this day and age? In recent days, Kurdish neighborhoods in Aleppo have once again come under attack. What problem of Syria will be solved by crushing Kurds who have lived there for many years and become part of the city’s social fabric and identity? Moreover, talks had already been held regarding these areas, and agreements and compromises were reached around a model of coexistence. Yet there is no commitment to the principles of living together, nor any genuine will or sensitivity in this direction.
Turkey’s negative role in this is, of course, undeniable. But explaining everything solely through Turkey does not resolve the problem either. There are provocations by armed groups affiliated with the Turkish army on the ground. There are also plans aimed at cleansing those neighborhoods of Kurds. At the same time, the Damascus government either becomes complicit in these actions or remains indifferent to them.
We have previously described this by saying that “Turkey is darkening Syria’s future.” But the issue is not limited to hostility toward Kurds and policies of annihilation. The strategy of the Turkish state in Syria is to suppress Kurds, leave them without status, and place them under the control of a rigid regime. If a hardline authoritarian regime is established in Syria, the future of all Syrian peoples will be cast into darkness. If, instead, all peoples, beliefs, and ideas in Syria are free and a democratic system is built, this will be a gain not only for the Middle East but also for Turkey. A Syrian people who have been devastated and oppressed will finally be able to breathe freely and find the possibility of living together in peace. Differences will no longer be treated as reasons for division and conflict but will instead be lived as a richness that adds color to life.
The Damascus administration and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)–Autonomous Administration reached an agreement and signed the March 10 Agreement. One of its provisions accepts a nationwide ceasefire across Syria. Yet the ceasefire has still not taken effect in any real sense. The other articles of the agreement have not been implemented. Talks between the designated negotiation delegations are not being held on a regular basis. In fact, if it were left to HTS, there would be no talk or dialogue at all. Only through the mediation of coalition forces have some meetings been able to take place.
During the talks, insistence was placed on the integration of SDF. Pressure was applied to make this the primary issue. The SDF delegation accepted this as well. An understanding was reached for SDF units to join the Syrian army in the form of divisions. However, the Turkish state continues to block the process and impose war. HTS says “yes,” but the Turkish state says “no.” It insists that “SDF must be dissolved and can only join the army as individuals.” By prioritizing its own security concerns, it continues to darken and endanger Syria’s future.
Turkey supported the massacres against Alawites and Druze. It issued no condemnation or criticism and declared that it would support the Damascus government under all circumstances. This stance negatively affects any flexibility on the part of HTS and undermines efforts to seek paths toward internal peace. HTS is being incited against the Kurds and pushed toward war.
Alawites have also come to see that fear and panic bring them no benefit. They have reached a point of organizing and openly expressing their reactions. The majority of Syria does not share the HTS mentality. As forces demanding freedom and democracy come together and organize, the path toward Syria’s democratization can be opened. External intervention and occupying forces can be rendered ineffective.