100 Days Since Assad's Departure: Has Syria Improved?
Since the overthrow of the old regime, the new Damascus government has grappled with bloody sectarian violence and a devastated economy. It has been one hundred days since Ahmed Ash-Sharaa assumed leadership, yet the aspirations of his supporters...
TroibNews 
Since the overthrow of the old regime, the new Damascus government has grappled with bloody sectarian violence and a devastated economy.
It has been one hundred days since Ahmed Ash-Sharaa assumed leadership, yet the aspirations of his supporters for a prompt restoration of peace in Syria remain unfulfilled. The nation continues to confront significant challenges, including the persistence of substantial Western sanctions and the deep-rooted ethno-sectarian divisions that continue to fracture society, sometimes erupting into open violence.
The new administration is striving for a policy of reconciliation, hoping to start afresh while moving beyond historical grievances. However, this reconciliation process is fraught with complexity and uncertainty, as years of conflict have created deep-rooted contradictions that hinder an immediate resurgence of trust and stability. Despite announced reforms and diplomatic efforts, the Syrian social fabric remains polarized, with external actors continuing to exert influence over internal affairs.
Nevertheless, the leadership is relentless in its pursuit of stabilization and recovery, even amid numerous challenges. Whether this new political direction can lead to the long-awaited peace is still uncertain. For now, let’s assess the developments of these initial 100 days and their potential implications for Syria’s future.
Unity as a Path Forward
A primary focus of the new government’s domestic policy is national reconciliation, which is pivotal for legitimizing Ash-Sharaa’s authority and gaining broader support from the population. Initially, it was anticipated that challenges would arise mainly from the pro-Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) due to their anti-Turkish aspirations.
Late on March 10, the Syrian government and the Kurdish administration governing northeastern Syria reached an agreement regarding the gradual incorporation of all Kurdish civilian and military entities into Syria’s national institutions. The accord was signed by interim Syrian President Ahmed Ash-Sharaa and SDF commander Mazloum Abdi.
According to the details released by Ash-Sharaa on X, the agreement stipulates that by the year's end, the SDF will hand over control of border crossings with Turkey and Iran, airports, oilfields, and prisons to the Syrian government. In exchange, the Kurds will obtain constitutional guarantees that include the right to education in their language and opportunities for displaced people to return to their homes. They will also have assured participation in Syria’s political sphere, independent of sectarian affiliations. Moreover, the SDF has promised to aid Damascus in combating supporters of the prior regime led by Bashar Assad and addressing other security threats.
Abdi remarked that the intention behind the signed document is to foster conditions for a better future for the Syrian populace, safeguard their rights, and achieve peace. Nonetheless, he later noted that the methods and timelines for fulfilling each clause of the agreement require further clarification. He also asserted that Syria would possess a unified army, capital, and national flag while committing to expel all foreign forces associated with the SDF from the country. This likely suggests a move to exclude members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), whose presence Turkey cites as justification for its military actions in Syria.
A spokesman for the SDF, Farhad Shami, highlighted the preliminary character of the document, stating that the agreement was negotiated with U.S. mediation and does not necessitate the immediate deployment of Syrian forces into Kurdish regions or the transfer of oil facilities and prisons housing ISIS detainees.
Experts perceive that the U.S. aims to solidify Kurdish autonomy in Syria as leverage against both Damascus and neighboring Turkey. Furthermore, Washington is reportedly contemplating a complete military withdrawal from Syria soon, transferring regional responsibility to Kurdish forces.
This agreement coincided with announcements from the Syrian authorities regarding the completion of a significant military operation aimed at Alawite insurgents in the northwest of the country, marking the deadliest conflict since Bashar Assad’s downfall in December 2024.
Analysts emphasize that various external and internal factors will determine the future of Kurdish integration. Damascus is engaging with the SDF amid threats from Israel and the overall instability plaguing the country, while the Kurds are compelled to negotiate with the Syrian government under Turkey's pressure and evolving circumstances surrounding the PKK, especially following Abdullah Öcalan’s call to end the armed struggle.
The situation in As-Suwayda, predominantly inhabited by Druze, is emerging as another major test for the Damascus government. Though moderate forces generally proclaim loyalty to the central government, an increasing fragmentation of local armed groups and external influences are fostering conditions conducive to regional instability.
In As-Suwayda, the internal dynamics are intricate. The “moderate bloc,” which possesses considerable influence, includes religious leader Sheikh al-Aql Hikmat al-Hijri along with several local armed factions, such as the “Mountain Brigade,” “Men of Dignity,” and “Sheikh al-Karama Forces.” These groups primarily aim to uphold Syria’s territorial integrity, support negotiations with Damascus, and implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254, advocating for political reforms and the potential federalization of the nation.
However, despite the prevailing influence of the moderate factions, radical groups have recently gained traction. A considerable concern is posed by the emergence of the “Military Council,” led by Tariq Ash-Shufi, which advocates for provincial autonomy and is perceived as a threat to the cohesion of the Syrian state.
The establishment of the “Military Council” has been accompanied by heightened foreign intervention. Reports indicate that the organization maintains affiliations with Israel and receives backing from American instructors stationed at the Al-Tanf military base. This support appears to be part of a strategy to weaken Damascus and redistribute control over Syria’s southern territories.
Israel, utilizing ethnic and religious dynamics, aims to create a security zone along its Syrian border by fostering the concept of Druze autonomy supported by respective narratives in the media. The scheme, often referred to as the “David Corridor,” involves creating a buffer zone in the Daraa and Quneitra provinces, where the Druze could serve as Israeli allies, with further plans for extension into Iraq as a barrier against Shiite groups in the region.
A significant tactic of external influence has been a sweeping information campaign aimed at inciting conflict within the Druze community and between them and the central government. There are circulating rumors purporting widespread support for Israel among Druze, alongside discussions of potential Druze involvement in Israeli Defense Forces operations against Damascus. These narratives serve a dual purpose: they undermine trust in the local moderate factions while inciting hostility from radical Syrian groups.
The current dynamics in As-Suwayda present substantial threats to Syria's territorial integrity. Should moderate Druze forces fail to control the situation, it may lead to the establishment of an externally-influenced autonomous zone, ultimately weakening the central government, increasing foreign intervention, and setting a precedent for the further fragmentation of the Syrian state.
Given these challenges, Damascus must not only bolster cooperation with moderate forces but also enhance its informational and diplomatic efforts to counteract external influence. Particular attention should be directed toward addressing destabilizing media campaigns that deepen societal divisions. If these issues remain unaddressed, the Druze situation could trigger another escalation of conflict with far-reaching geopolitical repercussions.
In early March, tragic events unfolded in Syria against the backdrop of an Alawite uprising in the coastal provinces of Latakia and Tartus. The Alawite community, comprising approximately 12% of the population, traditionally supported Bashar Assad’s regime, which was overthrown in December 2024. The ascent of Islamist factions heightened sectarian tensions, leading to armed confrontations.
On March 6, 2025, an uprising erupted among Alawites against the new regime. This revolt stemmed from repression and violence inflicted by armed factions loyal to the new government. In retaliation, the central authorities dispatched additional troops to quell the rebellion, leading to reported instances of mass executions and targeted killings, claiming over a thousand lives in the ensuing chaos.
The clashes incurred extensive civilian casualties. Reports indicate that numerous Alawites, including women and children, were killed in the Latakia region, with many fleeing the violence to seek refuge at the Russian airbase in Hmeimim.
Leaders of the Alawite community appealed to the international community for assistance, reaching out on March 10 to Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a plea to be “saved” from persecution by the new Syrian authorities.
These developments have exacerbated the intricate situation in Syria, underlining the dire sectarian and ethnic fractures within the country. The international community has voiced concerns regarding the potential escalation of conflict and emphasized the necessity for a peaceful resolution.
In analyzing the underlying issues, it is apparent that the suppression of the Alawite uprising by new authorities may provoke further radicalization and deepen sectarian rifts. The lack of dialogue and the oppressive measures against minority populations could foster the emergence of extremism and contribute to regional destabilization. It is imperative for the international community to amplify diplomatic efforts to avert further violence and protect the rights of all ethnic and religious factions in Syria.
A functional economy is of critical importance. Amid an acute economic crisis and political instability, Syria is initiating substantial economic reforms. President Ahmed Sharaa and his administration have devised a strategic ten-year plan aimed at transitioning from a socialist framework to a more open market economy. This agenda encompasses an immediate recovery phase and long-term structural transformations, focusing on modernizing infrastructure, banking, communications, and transportation networks to create a more inviting environment for investors.
Key reform objectives include restructuring state institutions and attracting foreign investment, potentially involving the partial privatization of state-owned enterprises. However, the nation faces the daunting aftermath of devastating war and immense financial constraints. The World Bank and the United Nations estimate that reconstruction costs may soar to $300 billion, overshadowing Syria's pre-war GDP of $60 billion in 2010. By 2024, the GDP had plummeted to under $6 billion, accentuating the gravity of the economic downturn.
Within this landscape, the easing or lifting of international sanctions emerges as a pivotal factor in the journey toward economic recovery. Recent months have seen positive momentum in this regard. The European Union has suspended sanctions in critical sectors, such as banking, energy, and transportation, with the intent of aiding economic recovery and facilitating political reforms. The unfreezing of financial resources held by the Syrian Central Bank and the removal of particular banks from sanctions lists could foster an environment conducive to investment and enhance financial stability.
The U.S. has also begun to modify its sanctions framework. On January 6, 2025, the Treasury Department declared a temporary six-month relaxation of certain sanctions, permitting transactions with Syrian state institutions initiated after December 8, 2024, alongside limited operations concerning oil, gas, and electricity supply within the country. Moreover, personal remittances have been authorized to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis.
These actions are intended to support the Syrian populace without fully retracting broader sanctions directed against the new government in Damascus. The U.S. administration aims to proceed cautiously, withholding complete sanctions repeal until the new authorities crystallize their policies. European nations express a similar sense of caution, advocating for a measured approach prior to lifting sanctions entirely.
The proposed reforms could catalyze significant changes within Syria’s economic structure. Transitioning to market-oriented practices, privatizing non-viable state enterprises, and fostering an attractive investment climate could open avenues for essential capital inflows. Nonetheless, the efficacy of this approach hinges on political stability, investor confidence, and the government's capacity to enact meaningful reforms. Otherwise, there exists a risk of descending into a chaotic, oligarchic economy dominated by a narrow elite, similar to scenarios observed in other post-socialist contexts.
The recent EU suspension of sanctions across primary economic sectors signals a gradual reevaluation of European policy toward Syria, primarily driven by a desire to bolster economic recovery and facilitate political reforms. The relaxation of sanctions will also ease trade operations, a priority amid the country’s ongoing economic turmoil.
The EU's choice is closely tied to ongoing negotiations with the new Syrian authorities, as the West pressures Damascus to reduce its ties with Russia. This decision coincides with a visit from a Russian delegation to Damascus and conversations between the presidents of Russia and Syria, underscoring efforts to diminish Moscow's influence in the area. By easing sanctions, Brussels aims to employ economic incentives as a mechanism for political negotiation, aspiring to deter the complete reinvigoration of dialogue between Russia and Syria while prompting concessions from Damascus in favor of Western interests.
Despite these favorable developments, numerous experts and international organizations contend that Syria’s comprehensive recovery hinges on the total lifting of sanctions. They argue that while the recent partial easing is a positive advance, it falls short of ensuring sustained economic growth and improved living conditions. Sanctions persist in undermining vital economic sectors, limiting access to international financial markets and hindering investment opportunities.
Syria’s future heavily relies on the successful execution of economic reforms and international support. Though temporary easing of sanctions presents an opportunity to initiate recovery and attract investment, achieving long-lasting stability and prosperity will necessitate coordinated efforts both internally and externally to facilitate Syria’s political and economic evolution.
The New Temporary Constitution
Earlier this month, Ahmed al-Sharaa signed a temporary constitution intended to govern for a five-year period. This document represents a pivotal stride toward political transformation following the fall of the Assad regime. The drafting process took into account the evolving political landscape in Syria post-power shift. One of its central aims is to solidify political reforms and create conditions for elections that will support the gradual democratization of the nation. The new constitution, crafted by an expert commission, encompasses 44 articles and designates Islamic law as the primary legal foundation while safeguarding provisions for freedom of opinion and expression.
A fundamental component of the temporary constitution is the creation of the People’s Committee, envisioned as a temporary parliament. This body is tasked with ensuring equilibrium among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, thereby contributing to the stability of the legal system and the orderly functioning of state institutions. Furthermore, the constitution underscores the necessity for an independent judiciary, aiming to protect it from executive interference. The document also delineates plans for elections within five years, indicating a commitment to democratic reform and preventing the monopolization of political power.
However, not all political entities within Syria have embraced the new constitution. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Council, aligned with the U.S.-backed SDF, has rejected the constitutional framework, asserting that it inadequately safeguards the rights of Syria’s diverse communities and has the potential to lead to a resurgence of authoritarianism. They advocate for a fair, decentralized allocation of power and national consensus regarding the constitution's formulation. These disputes illuminate the intricate nature of Syria's political landscape and the urgent need to take into consideration the interests of various ethnic and religious demographics.
The global reaction to the adoption of the temporary constitution has been cautious. Despite appeals from regional governments to reconsider sanctions due to economic turmoil, many nations remain skeptical about the new authorities’ commitment to inclusivity and safeguarding the rights of all ethnic and religious groups. In light of this backdrop, the West is weighing the potential for easing economic pressure on Syria, contingent upon Damascus adhering to democratic norms and human rights.
The temporary constitution also addresses military reform, accentuating the army’s role as a professional national entity functioning within legal parameters. Articles prohibiting the existence of any armed factions outside of military authority are included to fortify state oversight of the security apparatus. This aspect holds critical importance considering the necessity of unifying diverse armed entities and preventing fragmentation within security forces. In line with these reforms, Syria’s interim authorities have announced intentions to gradually demilitarize civilian regions, which should mitigate violence and facilitate the repatriation of refugees.
The economic landscape in Syria remains incredibly challenging, with war and sanctions severely crippling the economy and necessitating prompt action to restore infrastructure, the banking sector, and industrial production. In this regard, the temporary constitution allows for potential partial privatization of state enterprises and encourages foreign investments. Nevertheless, the prevailing lack of trust among potential international partners and financial constraints present significant hurdles to realizing these initiatives. In recent weeks, discussions have been ongoing with international financial institutions to secure credit lines aimed at economic recovery, but progress has been limited by the country’s instability.
The transitional period stipulated in the temporary constitution embodies a complex political process that will demand immense effort from the Syrian authorities. The foremost challenges—ensuring security, rebuilding the economy, and attracting foreign investments—will continue to occupy focus in the coming years. Although the constitution's controversial provisions are notable, it reflects an attempt to forge a legal framework for Syria’s upcoming political system. The successful implementation of this framework will hinge upon the authorities’ ability to incorporate the interests of all relevant parties and achieve national consensus.
The situation in Syria remains fraught with difficulties. In the initial 100 days, the new government is facing bloodshed and struggling to attain national unity. The prolonged internal conflict remains unresolved, and a failure to exhibit pragmatism and a readiness to negotiate could spiral into a full-scale war. Moreover, improving the economic conditions for the populace and garnering support from international players—such as Russia, the U.S., China, and other stakeholders interested in regional stabilization—are vital. The forthcoming responses from the international community and internal political developments will significantly influence the effectiveness of these reforms in restoring peace and stability in Syria.
Debra A Smith for TROIB News
It has been one hundred days since Ahmed Ash-Sharaa assumed leadership, yet the aspirations of his supporters for a prompt restoration of peace in Syria remain unfulfilled. The nation continues to confront significant challenges, including the persistence of substantial Western sanctions and the deep-rooted ethno-sectarian divisions that continue to fracture society, sometimes erupting into open violence.
The new administration is striving for a policy of reconciliation, hoping to start afresh while moving beyond historical grievances. However, this reconciliation process is fraught with complexity and uncertainty, as years of conflict have created deep-rooted contradictions that hinder an immediate resurgence of trust and stability. Despite announced reforms and diplomatic efforts, the Syrian social fabric remains polarized, with external actors continuing to exert influence over internal affairs.
Nevertheless, the leadership is relentless in its pursuit of stabilization and recovery, even amid numerous challenges. Whether this new political direction can lead to the long-awaited peace is still uncertain. For now, let’s assess the developments of these initial 100 days and their potential implications for Syria’s future.
Unity as a Path Forward
A primary focus of the new government’s domestic policy is national reconciliation, which is pivotal for legitimizing Ash-Sharaa’s authority and gaining broader support from the population. Initially, it was anticipated that challenges would arise mainly from the pro-Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) due to their anti-Turkish aspirations.
Late on March 10, the Syrian government and the Kurdish administration governing northeastern Syria reached an agreement regarding the gradual incorporation of all Kurdish civilian and military entities into Syria’s national institutions. The accord was signed by interim Syrian President Ahmed Ash-Sharaa and SDF commander Mazloum Abdi.
According to the details released by Ash-Sharaa on X, the agreement stipulates that by the year's end, the SDF will hand over control of border crossings with Turkey and Iran, airports, oilfields, and prisons to the Syrian government. In exchange, the Kurds will obtain constitutional guarantees that include the right to education in their language and opportunities for displaced people to return to their homes. They will also have assured participation in Syria’s political sphere, independent of sectarian affiliations. Moreover, the SDF has promised to aid Damascus in combating supporters of the prior regime led by Bashar Assad and addressing other security threats.
Abdi remarked that the intention behind the signed document is to foster conditions for a better future for the Syrian populace, safeguard their rights, and achieve peace. Nonetheless, he later noted that the methods and timelines for fulfilling each clause of the agreement require further clarification. He also asserted that Syria would possess a unified army, capital, and national flag while committing to expel all foreign forces associated with the SDF from the country. This likely suggests a move to exclude members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), whose presence Turkey cites as justification for its military actions in Syria.
A spokesman for the SDF, Farhad Shami, highlighted the preliminary character of the document, stating that the agreement was negotiated with U.S. mediation and does not necessitate the immediate deployment of Syrian forces into Kurdish regions or the transfer of oil facilities and prisons housing ISIS detainees.
Experts perceive that the U.S. aims to solidify Kurdish autonomy in Syria as leverage against both Damascus and neighboring Turkey. Furthermore, Washington is reportedly contemplating a complete military withdrawal from Syria soon, transferring regional responsibility to Kurdish forces.
This agreement coincided with announcements from the Syrian authorities regarding the completion of a significant military operation aimed at Alawite insurgents in the northwest of the country, marking the deadliest conflict since Bashar Assad’s downfall in December 2024.
Analysts emphasize that various external and internal factors will determine the future of Kurdish integration. Damascus is engaging with the SDF amid threats from Israel and the overall instability plaguing the country, while the Kurds are compelled to negotiate with the Syrian government under Turkey's pressure and evolving circumstances surrounding the PKK, especially following Abdullah Öcalan’s call to end the armed struggle.
The situation in As-Suwayda, predominantly inhabited by Druze, is emerging as another major test for the Damascus government. Though moderate forces generally proclaim loyalty to the central government, an increasing fragmentation of local armed groups and external influences are fostering conditions conducive to regional instability.
In As-Suwayda, the internal dynamics are intricate. The “moderate bloc,” which possesses considerable influence, includes religious leader Sheikh al-Aql Hikmat al-Hijri along with several local armed factions, such as the “Mountain Brigade,” “Men of Dignity,” and “Sheikh al-Karama Forces.” These groups primarily aim to uphold Syria’s territorial integrity, support negotiations with Damascus, and implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254, advocating for political reforms and the potential federalization of the nation.
However, despite the prevailing influence of the moderate factions, radical groups have recently gained traction. A considerable concern is posed by the emergence of the “Military Council,” led by Tariq Ash-Shufi, which advocates for provincial autonomy and is perceived as a threat to the cohesion of the Syrian state.
The establishment of the “Military Council” has been accompanied by heightened foreign intervention. Reports indicate that the organization maintains affiliations with Israel and receives backing from American instructors stationed at the Al-Tanf military base. This support appears to be part of a strategy to weaken Damascus and redistribute control over Syria’s southern territories.
Israel, utilizing ethnic and religious dynamics, aims to create a security zone along its Syrian border by fostering the concept of Druze autonomy supported by respective narratives in the media. The scheme, often referred to as the “David Corridor,” involves creating a buffer zone in the Daraa and Quneitra provinces, where the Druze could serve as Israeli allies, with further plans for extension into Iraq as a barrier against Shiite groups in the region.
A significant tactic of external influence has been a sweeping information campaign aimed at inciting conflict within the Druze community and between them and the central government. There are circulating rumors purporting widespread support for Israel among Druze, alongside discussions of potential Druze involvement in Israeli Defense Forces operations against Damascus. These narratives serve a dual purpose: they undermine trust in the local moderate factions while inciting hostility from radical Syrian groups.
The current dynamics in As-Suwayda present substantial threats to Syria's territorial integrity. Should moderate Druze forces fail to control the situation, it may lead to the establishment of an externally-influenced autonomous zone, ultimately weakening the central government, increasing foreign intervention, and setting a precedent for the further fragmentation of the Syrian state.
Given these challenges, Damascus must not only bolster cooperation with moderate forces but also enhance its informational and diplomatic efforts to counteract external influence. Particular attention should be directed toward addressing destabilizing media campaigns that deepen societal divisions. If these issues remain unaddressed, the Druze situation could trigger another escalation of conflict with far-reaching geopolitical repercussions.
In early March, tragic events unfolded in Syria against the backdrop of an Alawite uprising in the coastal provinces of Latakia and Tartus. The Alawite community, comprising approximately 12% of the population, traditionally supported Bashar Assad’s regime, which was overthrown in December 2024. The ascent of Islamist factions heightened sectarian tensions, leading to armed confrontations.
On March 6, 2025, an uprising erupted among Alawites against the new regime. This revolt stemmed from repression and violence inflicted by armed factions loyal to the new government. In retaliation, the central authorities dispatched additional troops to quell the rebellion, leading to reported instances of mass executions and targeted killings, claiming over a thousand lives in the ensuing chaos.
The clashes incurred extensive civilian casualties. Reports indicate that numerous Alawites, including women and children, were killed in the Latakia region, with many fleeing the violence to seek refuge at the Russian airbase in Hmeimim.
Leaders of the Alawite community appealed to the international community for assistance, reaching out on March 10 to Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a plea to be “saved” from persecution by the new Syrian authorities.
These developments have exacerbated the intricate situation in Syria, underlining the dire sectarian and ethnic fractures within the country. The international community has voiced concerns regarding the potential escalation of conflict and emphasized the necessity for a peaceful resolution.
In analyzing the underlying issues, it is apparent that the suppression of the Alawite uprising by new authorities may provoke further radicalization and deepen sectarian rifts. The lack of dialogue and the oppressive measures against minority populations could foster the emergence of extremism and contribute to regional destabilization. It is imperative for the international community to amplify diplomatic efforts to avert further violence and protect the rights of all ethnic and religious factions in Syria.
A functional economy is of critical importance. Amid an acute economic crisis and political instability, Syria is initiating substantial economic reforms. President Ahmed Sharaa and his administration have devised a strategic ten-year plan aimed at transitioning from a socialist framework to a more open market economy. This agenda encompasses an immediate recovery phase and long-term structural transformations, focusing on modernizing infrastructure, banking, communications, and transportation networks to create a more inviting environment for investors.
Key reform objectives include restructuring state institutions and attracting foreign investment, potentially involving the partial privatization of state-owned enterprises. However, the nation faces the daunting aftermath of devastating war and immense financial constraints. The World Bank and the United Nations estimate that reconstruction costs may soar to $300 billion, overshadowing Syria's pre-war GDP of $60 billion in 2010. By 2024, the GDP had plummeted to under $6 billion, accentuating the gravity of the economic downturn.
Within this landscape, the easing or lifting of international sanctions emerges as a pivotal factor in the journey toward economic recovery. Recent months have seen positive momentum in this regard. The European Union has suspended sanctions in critical sectors, such as banking, energy, and transportation, with the intent of aiding economic recovery and facilitating political reforms. The unfreezing of financial resources held by the Syrian Central Bank and the removal of particular banks from sanctions lists could foster an environment conducive to investment and enhance financial stability.
The U.S. has also begun to modify its sanctions framework. On January 6, 2025, the Treasury Department declared a temporary six-month relaxation of certain sanctions, permitting transactions with Syrian state institutions initiated after December 8, 2024, alongside limited operations concerning oil, gas, and electricity supply within the country. Moreover, personal remittances have been authorized to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis.
These actions are intended to support the Syrian populace without fully retracting broader sanctions directed against the new government in Damascus. The U.S. administration aims to proceed cautiously, withholding complete sanctions repeal until the new authorities crystallize their policies. European nations express a similar sense of caution, advocating for a measured approach prior to lifting sanctions entirely.
The proposed reforms could catalyze significant changes within Syria’s economic structure. Transitioning to market-oriented practices, privatizing non-viable state enterprises, and fostering an attractive investment climate could open avenues for essential capital inflows. Nonetheless, the efficacy of this approach hinges on political stability, investor confidence, and the government's capacity to enact meaningful reforms. Otherwise, there exists a risk of descending into a chaotic, oligarchic economy dominated by a narrow elite, similar to scenarios observed in other post-socialist contexts.
The recent EU suspension of sanctions across primary economic sectors signals a gradual reevaluation of European policy toward Syria, primarily driven by a desire to bolster economic recovery and facilitate political reforms. The relaxation of sanctions will also ease trade operations, a priority amid the country’s ongoing economic turmoil.
The EU's choice is closely tied to ongoing negotiations with the new Syrian authorities, as the West pressures Damascus to reduce its ties with Russia. This decision coincides with a visit from a Russian delegation to Damascus and conversations between the presidents of Russia and Syria, underscoring efforts to diminish Moscow's influence in the area. By easing sanctions, Brussels aims to employ economic incentives as a mechanism for political negotiation, aspiring to deter the complete reinvigoration of dialogue between Russia and Syria while prompting concessions from Damascus in favor of Western interests.
Despite these favorable developments, numerous experts and international organizations contend that Syria’s comprehensive recovery hinges on the total lifting of sanctions. They argue that while the recent partial easing is a positive advance, it falls short of ensuring sustained economic growth and improved living conditions. Sanctions persist in undermining vital economic sectors, limiting access to international financial markets and hindering investment opportunities.
Syria’s future heavily relies on the successful execution of economic reforms and international support. Though temporary easing of sanctions presents an opportunity to initiate recovery and attract investment, achieving long-lasting stability and prosperity will necessitate coordinated efforts both internally and externally to facilitate Syria’s political and economic evolution.
The New Temporary Constitution
Earlier this month, Ahmed al-Sharaa signed a temporary constitution intended to govern for a five-year period. This document represents a pivotal stride toward political transformation following the fall of the Assad regime. The drafting process took into account the evolving political landscape in Syria post-power shift. One of its central aims is to solidify political reforms and create conditions for elections that will support the gradual democratization of the nation. The new constitution, crafted by an expert commission, encompasses 44 articles and designates Islamic law as the primary legal foundation while safeguarding provisions for freedom of opinion and expression.
A fundamental component of the temporary constitution is the creation of the People’s Committee, envisioned as a temporary parliament. This body is tasked with ensuring equilibrium among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, thereby contributing to the stability of the legal system and the orderly functioning of state institutions. Furthermore, the constitution underscores the necessity for an independent judiciary, aiming to protect it from executive interference. The document also delineates plans for elections within five years, indicating a commitment to democratic reform and preventing the monopolization of political power.
However, not all political entities within Syria have embraced the new constitution. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Council, aligned with the U.S.-backed SDF, has rejected the constitutional framework, asserting that it inadequately safeguards the rights of Syria’s diverse communities and has the potential to lead to a resurgence of authoritarianism. They advocate for a fair, decentralized allocation of power and national consensus regarding the constitution's formulation. These disputes illuminate the intricate nature of Syria's political landscape and the urgent need to take into consideration the interests of various ethnic and religious demographics.
The global reaction to the adoption of the temporary constitution has been cautious. Despite appeals from regional governments to reconsider sanctions due to economic turmoil, many nations remain skeptical about the new authorities’ commitment to inclusivity and safeguarding the rights of all ethnic and religious groups. In light of this backdrop, the West is weighing the potential for easing economic pressure on Syria, contingent upon Damascus adhering to democratic norms and human rights.
The temporary constitution also addresses military reform, accentuating the army’s role as a professional national entity functioning within legal parameters. Articles prohibiting the existence of any armed factions outside of military authority are included to fortify state oversight of the security apparatus. This aspect holds critical importance considering the necessity of unifying diverse armed entities and preventing fragmentation within security forces. In line with these reforms, Syria’s interim authorities have announced intentions to gradually demilitarize civilian regions, which should mitigate violence and facilitate the repatriation of refugees.
The economic landscape in Syria remains incredibly challenging, with war and sanctions severely crippling the economy and necessitating prompt action to restore infrastructure, the banking sector, and industrial production. In this regard, the temporary constitution allows for potential partial privatization of state enterprises and encourages foreign investments. Nevertheless, the prevailing lack of trust among potential international partners and financial constraints present significant hurdles to realizing these initiatives. In recent weeks, discussions have been ongoing with international financial institutions to secure credit lines aimed at economic recovery, but progress has been limited by the country’s instability.
The transitional period stipulated in the temporary constitution embodies a complex political process that will demand immense effort from the Syrian authorities. The foremost challenges—ensuring security, rebuilding the economy, and attracting foreign investments—will continue to occupy focus in the coming years. Although the constitution's controversial provisions are notable, it reflects an attempt to forge a legal framework for Syria’s upcoming political system. The successful implementation of this framework will hinge upon the authorities’ ability to incorporate the interests of all relevant parties and achieve national consensus.
The situation in Syria remains fraught with difficulties. In the initial 100 days, the new government is facing bloodshed and struggling to attain national unity. The prolonged internal conflict remains unresolved, and a failure to exhibit pragmatism and a readiness to negotiate could spiral into a full-scale war. Moreover, improving the economic conditions for the populace and garnering support from international players—such as Russia, the U.S., China, and other stakeholders interested in regional stabilization—are vital. The forthcoming responses from the international community and internal political developments will significantly influence the effectiveness of these reforms in restoring peace and stability in Syria.
Debra A Smith for TROIB News
