On December 8, 2024, a coalition of Syrian revolutionary and rebel groups overthrew then-president Bashar al-Assad, ending 24 years of his rule and 53 years of rule by the “Assad dynasty.”
Syria’s internal political state remains volatile, with Ahmed al-Sharaa serving as the de-facto leader of Syria. He was previously leader of the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Sunni Islamist political paramilitary organization that led the Military Operations Command, a coalition of Syrian rebel groups responsible for the 2024 rebel offensive.
The global West has historically had a difficult relationship with revolutionaries and rebel groups in the global South, often dependent on which groups serve the West’s interests at the time. For instance, both the US and UK financially backed the Afghani Islamist guerilla fighters, or “mujahideen,” during the Afghanistan War because they were fighting communist regimes. Though, both countries would later be involved in the “war on terror” primarily targeting Islamist military groups.
Therefore, it is valuable to retain this perspective when analyzing Western governments’ stances on Syria, and we must remain intellectually vigilant in the face of simplistic political narratives. Any argument that presents a unitary position on Syria deserves maximum scrutiny, particularly when it comes from Western governments.
Historically contextualizing Syrian politics
Since 2018, the US has considered HTS a terrorist organization, and the UN has labelled its predecessor, the Al-Nusra front, as a terrorist organization since 2015. Al-Sharaa has also been designated a terrorist by the UN since 2013 due to his membership of and work with the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, from 2003 to 2016. He then reformed Al-Nusra — initially the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, which he founded in 2012 — into what became known as HTS.
HTS then absorbed most members of the reformed Al-Nusra, along with Ahrar-al-Sham, another coalition of rebel groups fighting against the Assad regime. Soon after, HTS distanced itself from its Al-Qaeda affiliations, even going so far as to arrest former Al-Nusra members who didn’t switch to HTS.
According to Islamic scholar Sheikh Hassan Dgheim, these efforts represented a broader “Syrianization” policy aimed at completely severing HTS’s ties to Al-Qaeda. It also marked a shift away from an absolute commitment to Jihad — a Muslim’s obligation to struggle to realize the will of God, lead a virtuous life, and defend their community against aggression — with the goal of becoming a politically legitimate entity by toning down their rhetoric and infiltrating civilian structures.
Five years later, al-Sharaa is now in power, with Syria’s ministerial positions occupied by members of HTS. For many, the fall of Assad and the rebels’ rise to power has been cause for celebration, symbolized by the al-Maslakh al-Basharia prison’s recently freed inmates, who ran in celebration upon being released by rebels. Translating to “human slaughterhouse,” the prison was notorious for its inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Syrian political reforms
The new government’s rhetoric appears to be significantly more liberal than Assad’s so far — though, of course, that would apply to anyone, short of Stalin or Louis XIV. These liberal stances include pledges for press freedom and respect for religious and cultural diversity, which I believe reflect positive changes to Syria’s sociocultural and political landscapes.
There has also been a shift in economic policy toward a free-market structure. Market liberalization may strengthen Syria’s weakened economy, though in a country already ravaged by inequality, I believe introducing free-market reforms could counterproductively perpetuate existing disparities, as economic inequalities tend to benefit the wealthy.
The release of political prisoners and the overall more liberal rhetoric from Syria’s political figures may ignite tentative hope — but not necessarily for everyone. In a television appearance, an HTS spokesperson suggested that women’s ‘Biological composition’ made them unsuitable for certain jobs, such as Minister of Defense, and stated that the role of women in parliament would be “left to legal and constitutional specialists.”
To me, this signals a stagnation of women’s liberation alongside the progression of men’s in Syria.
Canada-Syria relations
Remaining vigilant of any single government’s framing of Syria’s current political situation is essential. As of writing, Canada’s current position expresses a “commitment to the Syrian people,” and urges “All parties to work toward an inclusive political process under the United Nations framework.”
Such a statement, I believe, purposefully leaves room for interpretation. For example, the UN’s recognition of HTS as a terrorist organization could theoretically serve as justification for legitimizing violence against Syria, similar to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The invasion was organized under the pretense of a “war on terror” which involved numerous human rights abuses by the invading forces.
Furthermore, Israel has occupied parts of Syria’s Golan Heights since 1967, and has extended its reach following the fall of Assad. Canada does not recognise Israel’s occupation of the Golan as legitimate, though in a December 9 statement on Syria, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre stated that it is crucial for Canada to “Support its allies, including Israel, against terrorists.”
If Syria attempts to drive out Israeli occupation forces through military means, would this, according to Poilievre, justify Canada supporting its allies against designated terrorists?
We should avoid subscribing to a totalizing view of Syrian politics. When viewed through a Western lens, HTS appears as a militant group of jihadists with strong ties to international terrorism, and their rule over Syria is seen as illegitimate and unjust. But then, what should we make of their seemingly earnest attempts to build a more inclusive, freer Syria?
If one adopts an exclusively anti-Western position, al-Sharaa becomes a hero fighting for Syrian liberation, whose methods are beyond reproach due to his accomplishments. But what, then, do we make of the clearly troubling governmental positions on the women’s rights of women in Syria? It is undeniable that it will take time before HTS’s and al-Sharaa’s backgrounds are forgotten, but this need not mean that we automatically default to the Western equation of “terrorism” with evil.
On the flipside, the fact that a group or individual was responsible for the overthrow of an oppressive government does not mean they are entirely righteous. After all, history is full of revolutionaries who were commendable for their early opposition to unjust rule, yet later became symbols of the despotism they once fought against.
Totalization is the enemy of truth, and we should be critical whenever we encounter it.
Oleksii Varlamov is a third-year student at St. Michael’s College studying philosophy. He is the secretary of the Philosophy Course Union and an International Affairs columnist for The Varsity’s Opinion section.
