Syria Govt Pledges 'Rule of Law' after Assad's Overthrow

Mourners hold a funeral for Syrian activist Mazen al-Hamada - AFP
Mourners hold a funeral for Syrian activist Mazen al-Hamada - AFP
TT
20

Syria Govt Pledges 'Rule of Law' after Assad's Overthrow

Mourners hold a funeral for Syrian activist Mazen al-Hamada - AFP
Mourners hold a funeral for Syrian activist Mazen al-Hamada - AFP

Syria's interim government vowed on Thursday to institute the "rule of law" after years of abuses under ousted president Bashar al-Assad, as G7 powers pushed for an inclusive transition.

Assad fled Syria after a lightning offensive spearheaded by the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group and its allies, which brought a sudden end to five decades of iron-fisted rule by his clan.

Syrians across the country and around the world erupted in celebration after enduring an era during which suspected dissidents were jailed or killed, and nearly 14 years of war that killed 500,000 people and displaced millions.

"We were living in oppression, we were unable to speak," Ibtissam Kaab, a resident of Assad's hometown Qardaha, told AFP.
"Whenever we wanted to speak, they threatened to harm us and our children."

The new government's spokesman told AFP on Thursday the country's constitution and parliament would be suspended for the duration of a three-month transition.

"A judicial and human rights committee will be established to examine the constitution and then introduce amendments," Obaida Arnaout told AFP.

Speaking at the state television headquarters, seized by the new opposition authorities, Arnaout said they would institute the "rule of law".

"All those who committed crimes against the Syrian people will be judged in accordance with the law," he added.

- 'Cultural diversity -

Asked about religious and personal freedoms, he said "we respect religious and cultural diversity in Syria", adding that they would remain unchanged.

Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) powers said Thursday they were ready to support the transition to an "inclusive and non-sectarian" government in Syria.

In a statement, they called for the protection of human rights, including those of women and minorities, while emphasising "the importance of holding the Assad regime accountable for its crimes".

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Jordan on Thursday to kick off a crisis tour to address the aftermath of Assad's overthrow.

He has called for an "inclusive" process to form Syria's next government that includes protections for minorities.

The State Department said he would call for a Syria that is not "a base of terrorism or posing a threat to its neighbors".

The joy sparked by Assad's overthrow has been accompanied by uncertainty about the future of the multi-ethnic, multi-confessional country.

HTS is rooted in Syria's branch of Al-Qaeda and is proscribed as a terrorist organization by many Western governments, though it has sought to moderate its rhetoric.

Assad is a member of the Alawite community, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, and long sought to present himself as the sole protector of the country's minorities.

"Precisely because we are Islamic, we will guarantee the rights of all people and all sects in Syria," Mohammad al-Bashir, the transitional head of government, told Italian daily Corriere della Sera in an interview published Wednesday.

The Kurdish adminstration that holds swathes of Syria's northeast said Thursday it will adopt the three-starred independence flag used by the opposition.

In a statement, it described the flag as a "symbol of this new stage, as it expresses the aspirations of the Syrian people towards freedom, dignity and national unity".

The new rulers have also pledged justice for the victims of Assad's rule, with HTS leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani vowing that officials involved in torturing detainees will not be pardoned.

Jolani, now using his real name Ahmed al-Sharaa, also urged "countries to hand over any of those criminals who may have fled so they can be brought to justice".

- 'Starting to feel safe' -

The United Nations' envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, too urged an inclusive process, telling AFP that his "biggest concern is that the transition will create new contradictions in the manner that could lead to new civil strife".

He condemned decades of "unimaginable barbarity" suffered by Syrians in the detention centres that Assad maintained.

In Aleppo, Syria's second city and the first major one captured by the rebels in their offensive, shopkeeper Ramadan Dali said that "we are starting to feel safe".

"It won't happen in a day. With all that has been destroyed in recent years, it will take time for things to return to the way they were," the 70-year-old said.

The Baath party of the deposed president meanwhile announced it would suspend its work "in all its forms... until further notice" and hand over assets to the authorities.

Assad was propped up by Russia, where he reportedly fled, as well as Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah militant group.

On Wednesday, the Kremlin said it wanted to see Syria stabilized "soon" and criticised Israel over hundreds of airstrikes it conducted on its neighbor over the past few days.

For years, Russian warplanes patrolled the skies over Syria, carrying out large scale bombing in support of Assad's government.

- Strikes near Damascus -

Assad had faced down protests and an armed rebellion for more than a decade before his fall.

The rebels launched their offensive on November 27, the same day that a ceasefire took effect in the Israel-Hezbollah war, which saw Israel inflict staggering losses on the ranks of Assad's Lebanese ally.

Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes on Syria since the start of its civil war in 2011.

It has intensified its airstrikes in recent days, and has sent troops into the UN-patrolled buffer zone that separates Israeli and Syrian forces on the Golan Heights, in a move the United Nations said violated the 1974 armistice.

On Thursday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitor reported Israeli strikes near Damascus, where AFP correspondents said they heard loud explosions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he needed to prevent "terrorist" attacks from Syria.



India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
TT
20

India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)

India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. They’ve also had dozens of skirmishes and conflicts, including one atop a glacier dubbed the coldest and highest-altitude battlefield in the world.

The latest escalation follows a deadly gun attack on tourists that India blames Pakistan for — Islamabad denies any connection. But they don’t fight wars like other countries.

The dominant factor is their nuclear weapons arsenal, a distinct way of deterring major attacks and a guarantee that fighting doesn’t get out of hand, even when the situation is spiraling.

Here’s how — and why — India and Pakistan fight the way they do:

Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other “Pakistan and India have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the other side out several times over,” says security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, who is based in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. “Their nuclear weapons create a scenario for mutually assured destruction.”

Both countries have “deliberately developed” the size and range of their stockpile to remind the other about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction, he adds.

Neither country discloses their nuclear capabilities but each is thought to have between 170 and 180 warheads that are short-, long- and medium-range. Both countries have different delivery systems — ways of launching and propelling these weapons to their targets.

The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.

It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.

But the secrecy around their arsenals means that it's unclear if Pakistan or India can survive a first nuclear strike and retaliate, something called “second-strike capability.”

This capacity stops an opponent from attempting to win a nuclear war through a first strike by preventing aggression that could lead to nuclear escalation.

Without this capability, there is, in theory, nothing to stop one side from launching a warhead at the other.

Kashmir at the crux of the dispute India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.

The two archrivals have also fought two of their three wars over Kashmir — a disputed Himalayan region divided between the them where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”

In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.

A conventional military imbalance India is one of the biggest defense spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.

Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.

While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.

Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.

A pattern of escalation and defusing Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.

But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.

They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.

Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.

Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.

The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, US President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.

No desire for conquest, influence or resources Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.

Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.

Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.

Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.