Syrians between the ‘Occupier’, ‘Ally’ and Taliban ‘Victory’

Sweets are handed out in Idlib to celebrate the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. (Akhbar Idlib)
Sweets are handed out in Idlib to celebrate the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. (Akhbar Idlib)
TT
20

Syrians between the ‘Occupier’, ‘Ally’ and Taliban ‘Victory’

Sweets are handed out in Idlib to celebrate the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. (Akhbar Idlib)
Sweets are handed out in Idlib to celebrate the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. (Akhbar Idlib)

Syria is among the countries most affected by the developments in Afghanistan, whether in regards to the American pullout or the rapid Taliban takeover. Syria and Afghanistan are similar in that several countries are embroiled in their conflict.

Various Syrian parties are quick to comment on defeats and victories in other countries, drawing parallels to what is taking place in their homeland.

Damascus watched with bated breath the rapid developments that unfolded in Kabul. Officials expressed their “relief” at the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and its implication on its Syrian allies – namely the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Former minister and leading member of the ruling Baath party Mahdi Dakhlallah compared the American withdrawal from Afghanistan to its pullout from Vietnam in 1975. “There is one lesson to be learned: America very simply and mercilessly abandons its agents,” he remarked, saying the US-backed SDF must be diligent.

Dakhlallah suggested that the SDF take up “resistance because it is better than surrender and compromise.” That was the same suggestion made by president Bashar Assad when he was sworn in for a new term in office last month. He spoke of the need for “popular resistance” to force the US to pull out of Syria.

Syrian officials in Damascus have also refused to engage the SDF in political negotiations over the region east of the Euphrates River and the autonomous administration. Damascus has restricted agreements with the SDF to administrative understandings, providing services and economic exchanges.

US President Joe Biden’s remarks that Washington was not concerned with the building of nations, meaning changing regimes, is music to the ears of officials in Damascus. However, his pledge that the US will continue to fight ISIS means that the Americans are not ready to quit Syria. The Syrian demand for the “American occupier to leave” will still stand even as it ignores the presence of Russian and Iranian forces on its soil.

The Russian and Iranian deployment is seen as legitimate by Damascus that had officially requested this support. This is not a view shared by the Syrian opposition that views the Russians and Iranians as occupiers, “who should be resisted.” This was best demonstrated by the Syrian Islamic Council, which is the political wing of the armed factions, when it congratulated the Afghan people for “expelling the occupier”. It also congratulated them on the Taliban “victory against the colonizer and its agents.”

The Istanbul-based council believes that history has shown that colonizers are destined to be defeated no matter how long they are in power. “We hope the Syrians would enjoy security in their country after it is purified of the filthy Iranian and Russian occupiers and their agents,” it declared.

The extremist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group, which controls the majority of the Idlib province in northwestern Syria, also extended its congratulations to the Taliban and Afghan people on their “victory”. It hoped that the Syrian revolt would also witness such a victory that would see the country liberated from occupiers. It went so far to say that Syria could draw “inspiration” from the Afghan experience and adopt “jihad and resistance to achieve freedom and dignity by toppling the Syrian regime.”

Moreover, members of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham even handed out sweets on the streets to mark the “victory”. Affiliated social media accounts also spoke of deriving lessons from the Afghan experience.

One leading member of the group commented: “The developments in Afghanistan are similar to what the Syrian people are enduring in their demands for freedom from the oppressive regime and its allies, such as the Russian and Iranian occupiers.” Another user said: “Taliban has redrawn global policy.”

Of course, questions now have to be raised about the fate of foreign fighters, who had defected from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and others who were close to ISIS and al-Qaeda. Many of these fighters are Afghans and had come to Syria years ago. Are they thinking about returning to the “land of jihad” – Afghanistan?

Significantly, those among the opposition who are hailing the Taliban “victory” have failed to mention Turkey and its role in Syria, similar to how Damascus ignored Iran and Russia.

However, the American pullout reminded other opposition figures of how quick the US was to abandon them when it signed the agreement on southern Syria that included the scrapping of an American program to train members of the Free Syrian Army. The pullout also reminded the SDF of former US President Donald Trump’s sudden withdrawal from a region east of the Euphrates, effectively giving the green light for Turkey to fill the void.

Indeed, the SDF may be the party most alarmed by the rapid American withdrawal from Afghanistan and its implications on the Kurds. True, Biden’s declaration that he is committed to fighting ISIS may reassure them, but their memory of fall 2019 is still raw.



Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
TT
20

Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.