Three months after the fall of Bashar al-Assad, the nightmare continues in Syria. The results of the victims of violence in the west of the country continues to increase. This Monday, March 10, the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (OSDH) reported the death of 1,068 civilians since March 6, which, for many, belonged to the Alaouite minority, a branch of Shiite Islam from which the overturned president came.
According to the NGO, these victims were killed by the “security forces and allied groups […] On denominational bases “, while the tensions between the Alawite community and the power in place have been winning the region of Lattaquié and Tartous for several days. A responsibility in which the interim president has been trying to escape, Ahmed al-Charaa, inviting to” national unity “. But for Myriam Benraad, professor in international relations at the International University Schiller, this promise of” pacification ” that “illusory”.
L’Express: was this wave of violence predictable after the fall of Bashar al-Assad?
Myriam Benraad Of course. From the start, I said that it was necessary to be wary of this notion of liberation, that we were on a movement of latency. Any change of regime, in particular in a dictatorial context, provokes this type of momentum of collective revenge against all those who have been associated not only with the regime, but in the present case, which were associated with the war crimes committed by the latter. This is typically the situation in which the Alawites are. This was also the case in Iraq and Libya. We have this latency movement during which we do not know where we are going. Violence is silent. Weapons are silent in the face of the shock caused by the event. Then, very quickly, the ghosts reappear.
What do you mean by “ghosts”?
I’m talking about the fourteen years of civil war, communities that have been completely unstructured. And above all, I think of the Alawite community which was very early assimilated, indiscriminately, to the regime. It has already paid the price of these Islamist or jihadist insurgents in the past. When they held a number of territories, there were already abuses committed by the Syrian opposition. At that time, we did not say things in a sincere and objective way: that is to say that war crimes were certainly attributable to the regime, but also to the opposition. It was invised. All those who were familiar with this context, and violence already committed against a certain number of minorities, knew that this change of diet would not be made in calm and without violence.
The acting president Ahmed al-Charaa undertook on Sunday to continue those responsible for “bloodshed”. Is it a credible promise?
No way. For two reasons: the first is material. Today, there is no established transitional justice system. Everything was dismantled by civil war. Second, what is the interest for Al-Charaa to recognize the extent of the killings and therefore, potentially its level of responsibility? He who presents himself as the man of reconstruction, of pacification.
Precisely, despite the numerous speeches inviting to “national unity”, is there a risk that Syria is sinking into a new civil war?
Syria has never left the civil war. There has never been peace. We observed a moment of latency after the reversal of the regime by the men of HTC [NDLR : Hayat Tahrir al-Cham]. We were announced a political calendar in an erratic way, with the organization of elections, the idea in February to write a constitution on the horizon of five years, while in December we were promised four years. Speeches have multiplied, the notions of pacification, reconciliation and reconstruction followed one another in a rhetoric which aimed to reassure inside the country and outside, but without real advance, since the objective was the lifting of the sanctions of the international community. This calls into question a narrative that shocked me, which was too optimistic, which I found disconnected from what was observed on the field. This narrative perhaps suited a fringe of the Syrian opposition which obviously wanted to get rid of the regime but which sold from illusion to the international community.
There is an ambivalence in the discourse which raises the question of the sincerity of commitments. Despite all his declarations of reforms, abandonment of violence, of renouncing revenge, Ahmed al-Charaa nevertheless campaigned in the most violent groups. He is himself responsible for abuses against civilians. We are not talking about a militant commitment of a year or two, he was already in the ranks of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He has a relation to violence which is that of an “old” jihadist. I say “old” since the real question today is how far these violence has been allowed by power? Al-Charaa may be discarded, to say that he will translate the culprits into justice, that there is nothing to do with it, I do not know if it is necessary to trust him. We will have to ask real questions about his commitments. But above all, has he ever lost control over his men?
Could the fallen president, Bashar al-Assad, take advantage of this disorder to return to the country?
It would be very complicated. Today there is no longer a viable Syrian national army. No Syrian would see Assad as the solution, as the answer. Its card is completely folded.
Is the power in place still able to restore order or run to failure?
There are not 36 scenarios. Either he will make very important concessions beyond the speeches, go from real agreements, implement his commitments. Either the civil war in Syria will persist.
.