Hello from London,
Some days bring news. Others deliver history. Don’t underestimate the significance of the toppling this weekend, after two generations and more than five decades, of the Assad regime in Syria. The monstrous Bashar al-Assad, who had replaced his tyrannical father, Hafez, as Syria’s leader, was utterly ruthless. He used chemical weapons against his own people. He locked away (or killed) thousands and thousands of political prisoners. This appalling family ruled through fear and violence. Many ordinary Syrians celebrated today. (It may be worth recalling, meanwhile, that Bashar’s wife, Asma, is British. Read our profile of her, from 2021)
As often happens with repressive figures who are secretly despised even by their closest circle of supporters, when the end came, it came quickly. Almost nobody is truly loyal to the leader. As city after city fell from government control, Mr Assad secretly fled to Moscow. As our latest article explains, Syrians will be hoping for a peaceful transition now the dictator has gone, but they may not get it.
The ex-leader knew he could easily have faced the same sort of grisly end that met Muammar Qaddafi, in 2011. He ruled Libya for 42 years, no less repressively than the Assads did in Syria. In the end he was caught, after a battle, hiding in a sewer and then tortured and killed by rebels. The great weakness of authoritarian systems is that peaceful succession is virtually impossible. Either the leader dies in office, or he must be forced out with violence.
The sudden ending of Syria’s vile regime carries similar resonance for me as other turning points in modern international politics. Some—the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the toppling (and execution) of the Ceausescus in Romania, both in 1989—led directly to improvement in the lives of millions. The end of repression is undoubtedly to be cheered. I still recall how ordinary Syrians whispered anxiously to me and my wife as we travelled, over two decades ago, in Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Daraa and Palmyra. People were so fearful that Mr Assad’s spies and informers were everywhere that they would not say a word about Syrian politics. Yet they were cut off and desperate to talk about the outside world.
But look back at other, similar moments of political high drama, and the sudden removal of repression often triggers violent disorder. The more repressive a place has been, the less able it is to cope with whatever comes next. There may be too few social or political structures to help politics to function. After Qaddafi fell, Libya suffered years of brutal civil war. Repression also held Yugoslavia together until it didn’t, and bloody conflict followed. Iraq, after Saddam Hussein’s long and nasty rule, fell into a bloody mire (despite the presence of American forces). The collapse of the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan at the start of the 1990s was the spark for decades of war.
Outsiders care greatly about Syria. The fall of Mr Assad is painful for Iran and for Russia (another reason to celebrate his departure), which has two strategically important military bases in Syria. These could now become vulnerable. Turkey, which has backed HTS, probably the most powerful group of rebels, may expect growing influence and, perhaps, that Syrians now in Turkey will go home. I assume, too, that Israel is mostly pleased to see the end of an Iranian-backed regime next door. The West, while generally backing Kurds who dominate the east of Syria, is watching warily. Cheer the departure of the tyrant, therefore, but brace for what comes next.
How do you think the departure of the Assad regime will change the Middle East? Write to me at economisttoday@economist.com
Meanwhile, our games are live: play Dateline, to guess the year when notable events happened, and our news quiz, if you prefer to test your knowledge of the events of the past week. |
No comments:
Post a Comment