From eye doctor to dictator – the rise and fall of Assad’s presidency

Published

1 month ago

December 8, 2024

admin

Bashar al Assad’s downfall marks an end to more than half a century of family rule, as rebel forces turned the tide in a civil war he had embraced.

The authoritarian president ruled Syria for 24 years, five years short of his father’s time in power, but the plan was never for him to take over the dynasty.

Before his political career began to take shape, Assad was based in the UK, where he had an ophthalmology practice.

Damascus ‘freed’ of Assad – live updates

A family tragedy would soon thrust him into the political fray – and his early days in Damascus stood in stark contrast to his exit.

Eye doctor and computer geek

Before Damascus, Assad was an eye doctor in London and his only official position in his home country was as head of the Syrian Computer Society.

In the UK capital, he met his future wife, Asma Akhras, a former investment banker at JPMorgan who grew up in Acton, west London.

She ditched her career for Assad after a trip together to Libya as a guest of then leader Muammar Gaddafi.

In 1994, Assad’s older brother – and heir to the presidency – Bassel was killed in a car crash in Damascus.

Assad was promptly ordered back home, where he was put through military training and elevated his rank to colonel to establish his credentials for ruling.

But there was never any doubt he would take over. When his father Hafez al Assad died in 2000, parliament quickly lowered the presidential age from 40 to 34.

To top it off, his elevation was confirmed after a nationwide referendum pitted him as the only candidate.

Hopes for a young reformer

Assad began his presidency with promises to fight corruption and to open up the media. He inherited a dilapidated country and lacked support from his father’s loyalists.

Viewed as something of a geek, the lanky Assad constantly tried to prove himself despite his gentle demeanour, not least to his fearsome mother, whom the president’s wife also struggled to impress.

He had quickly freed political prisoners and allowed more open discourse. In the “Damascus Spring” – briefly sprung after his father’s death – salons for intellectuals emerged to discuss art, culture and politics.

But these were snuffed out after 1,000 intellectuals signed a public petition calling for multiparty democracy and greater freedoms in 2001.

He slowly lifted economic restrictions, let in foreign banks, made way for imports and empowered the private sector.

Syrian cities began to see shopping malls, new restaurants and consumer goods, while tourism rose.

Foreign policy blow

But abroad, he stuck to the line his father had set, based on an alliance with Iran and a policy of insisting on a full return of the Israel-annexed Golan Heights.

In 2004 the UN Security Council ordered Syria to end its long occupation of neighbouring Lebanon, leaving Assad with a choice: comply and ruin some of his father’s legacy, or ignore it.

He chose the former – this angered his family.

Gradually, Assad started to believe the West was weak and believed the more he demonstrated strength, the more he would achieve.

In 2005, former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated, killed by a bomb while driving in Beirut. The Syrian government was blamed.

Syria was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and a pro-American government came to power instead.

Syrian civil war

A few years after going against his father’s legacy, Assad would draw on his brutal tactics when protests erupted against his rule in March 2011, during the Arab Spring.

He had until that point denied the wave of Arab uprising would spread to Syria, and even emailed a joke mocking the Egyptian leader’s refusal to step down two days after his fall.

But reality soon bit, after protesters in the southern city of Daraa were shot dead by government forces, sparking nationwide unrest.

Full-blown civil war would break out, which would become the world’s largest refugee crisis, according to the UN.

More than 14 million Syrians have been forced to flee their homes in search of safety, the body reports.

Atrocities

Since then, Assad’s rule has been dogged by widespread accusations of atrocities, including the use of chemical weapons such as sarin, chlorine, and mustard gas.

In 2013, a gas attack on rebel-held eastern Ghouta near Damascus killed scores of civilians.

There have also been widespread reports of rape, beheadings and torture.

Assad was propped up largely thanks to Russia – who stepped in to carry out decisive airstrikes in 2015 – and Iran, who both backed Syria militarily.

In 2020, Moscow backed a government offensive, which ended with a ceasefire with Turkey and froze most front lines.

Assad held most territory and all main cities, appearing deeply entrenched, while rebels held the northwest and a Turkey-backed force stayed at a border strip.

Kurdish-led forces, meanwhile, controlled the northeast.

After government forces bombarded the northwest rebel-held region of Idlib in 2020 – killing civilians in the process – Assad had appeared to consolidate his iron-fist rule.

The downfall

Few saw an end to his presidency in the near future, but just as Assad’s fortunes relied on Moscow and Tehran, so too was his fate tied to their geopolitical priorities.

With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine lasting almost three years and Iran rocked by Israeli attacks on its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syrian government defences were exposed.

Rebel forces launched an attack on the northern city of Aleppo, which the government had held since 2016, and within days stormed through the country.

Assad had initially vowed to fight back, with the military claiming they were preparing a counter-offensive.

But the insurgents continued to sweep their way to Damascus, where Assad had insisted he remained as recently as Saturday evening.

He has not been seen in the capital since rebels claimed full control and Russia has said he has left the country – adding he gave “instructions to transfer power peacefully”.

While Syrians took to the streets to chant for freedom and celebrated his downfall, what comes next for the country – and who governs it – remains shrouded in uncertainty.

World

Donald Trump refuses to rule out military force over Panama Canal and Greenland – as he warns NATO to spend more

Published

3 hours ago

January 8, 2025

admin

Donald Trump refuses to rule out military force over Panama Canal and Greenland - as he warns NATO to spend more

US president-elect Donald Trump has refused to rule out military or economic action to seize the Panama Canal and Greenland – as he said he believes NATO spending should be increased to 5% per member state.

Speaking at Mar-a-Lago, Florida, Mr Trump made a series of sweeping claims on what his policies could look like when he takes office on 20 January.

He said he believes NATO spending should be increased to 5% per member state, while he also declared US control of Greenland and the Panama Canal as vital to American national security.

The 78-year-old Republican also spoke of relations with Canada, as well as addressing his position on the Middle East and the war in Ukraine.

Sky News takes a look at some of the key claims brought up during the conference.

NATO

Mr Trump claimed “nobody knows more about NATO than I do”, before adding: “If it weren’t for me, NATO wouldn’t exist right now.

“I raised from countries that weren’t paying their bills, over $680bn. I saved NATO, but NATO is taking advantage of us.”

The president-elect also said members of NATO should be contributing 5% of their GDPs (gross domestic product) to defence spending – the previous target has been 2%.

Greenland and Panama Canal

Asked if he can reassure the world he won’t resort to military action or economic coercion in trying to get control of the areas, he said: “No, I can’t assure you on either of those two.”

“But, I can say this, we need them for economic security.”

He didn’t add any further detail around Greenland – which he has recently suggested the US should own or control – but he said the Panama Canal “was built for our military”.

He said the canal was “vital” to the country and China was “operating” it.

Mr Trump criticised the late Jimmy Carter for his role in signing over the Panama Canal to Panama during his presidency, saying it’s “a disgrace what took place” and “Jimmy Carter gave it to them for one dollar.”

Canada

A day after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was stepping down, Mr Trump said he believed the US’ northern neighbour should become the 51st US state.

He mocked Mr Trudeau by calling him “governor” rather than prime minister.

He argued the US and Canada combined would amount to an “economic force” that would “really be something”.

“There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States,” Mr Trudeau responded.

Israel-Hamas war

Israel has been waging a 15-month war on the militant group ruling Gaza, Hamas, since they launched an unprecedented attack on southern Israel on 7 October which saw 1,200 people massacred and about 250 taken hostage, many of whom remain in captivity.

Mr Trump said: “If those hostages aren’t back by the time I get into office, all hell will break out in the Middle East.”

Nearly 46,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s assault on Gaza, according to Hamas-run health officials in the enclave.

Analysis: Trump’s warning risks becoming less threatening

Ukraine war

Referring to Russia’s ongoing full-scale war against its smaller neighbour, Mr Trump said a “big part of the problem” was Russian President Vladimir Putin had said for many years he did not want Ukraine involved with NATO.

“Somewhere along the line [outgoing President Joe] Biden said you can join NATO,” he said.

“Well, then Russia has NATO right on their doorstep.

“When I heard the way Biden was negotiating I said ‘you are going to end up in a war’ and it turned out to be a war.”

Asked if he would commit to keep supporting Ukraine during negotiations with Moscow, Mr Trump quipped: “Well, I wouldn’t tell you if that were the case.”

Offshore drilling

Mr Trump repeated one of his favourite phrases from the campaign trail, “drill, baby, drill”.

On Monday, outgoing President Biden moved to ban new offshore oil and gas developments along most US coastlines.

But Mr Trump, who has vowed to boost domestic energy production, said he will undo it.

“We’re going to be drilling a lot of other locations,” he said.

World

Donald Trump’s threats could be a make-or-break test for NATO

Published

6 hours ago

January 7, 2025

admin

Donald Trump's threats could be a make-or-break test for NATO

The public articulation by Donald Trump of a new desired target for NATO allies to spend 5% of national income on defence will surely plunge governments across Europe into crisis mode – not least here in the UK.

Britain presents itself to the world and in particular to the United States as the biggest defence spender in Europe and NATO’s most powerful European military.

Yet Sir Keir Starmer has not even managed to set out a timeline for what he describes as a “path to 2.5%” of GDP being invested in his armed forces, up from just over 2% today.

If the prime minister merely sticks to this pledge, he risks being viewed by the new administration as woefully unambitious and not credible on defence.

Then there is the extraordinary threat by Mr Trump to seize Greenland by force if necessary, even though this valuable piece of territory belongs to a fellow NATO ally in the form of Denmark.

The move – were it to happen – would demonstrate the limitations of the alliance’s Article 5 founding principle.

It is supposed to guarantee that all allies would come to the defence of any member state which is under armed attack.

But what about if the aggressor is also meant to be an ally?

The president-elect also appeared to dash any hope of Ukraine being offered membership to the alliance anytime soon – a core request of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Instead, Mr Trump sounded sympathetic to Vladimir Putin’s absolute opposition to such a move.

He said he would meet the Russian president after taking office – reiterating a promise to end the war in Ukraine, though again without spelling out how.

The outbursts came in a lengthy press conference on Tuesday that marked the starting shot in what could be a make-or-break test for NATO – an alliance of transatlantic friends that rose from the ashes of the Second World War.

European members of NATO, as well as Canada, already took a battering the last time Mr Trump was in the White House – and rightly so.

The US had for far too long largely bankrolled the security of Europe, while the majority of its allies – including the UK – reaped the so-called “peace dividend” that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, swapping expenditure on defence for peacetime priorities such as economic growth, healthcare and education.

Mr Trump made clear during his first term his displeasure about what he saw as Washington being ripped off and vowed to make Europe take its fair share of the burden.

He even warned member states that the US would not come to the aid of an ally that was not hitting at the very least a minimum NATO spending targeting of 2% of GDP – something they had previously pledged to do by 2024 but were slow to deliver on.

Such language electrified allies in a way that even Putin’s initial 2014 invasion of Ukraine, with the annexation of Crimea and attacks in the east of the country, had not.

Yet, with the threat from Russia growing in the wake of its full-scale war in Ukraine in 2022, coupled with conflict in the Middle East and the challenge posed by China, it has become clear that this heightened level of expenditure by allies was still far short of what is required to rebuild militaries across Europe that have been hollowed out over decades.

Mark Rutte, the new secretary general of NATO, set the stage for what is expected to be another push to ramp up investment when he delivered a landmark speech last month in which he called on allies to return to a “war mindset” and “turbocharge” defence spending.

He said this was to counter growing threats, but observers said it was also a pre-emptive response to the anticipated demands of the next Trump administration.

Either way, it poses a huge challenge for all allies, in particular for Sir Keir Starmer.

He and Rachel Reeves face a choice: change course when it comes to their top priorities of economic growth, hospital waiting lists and new housing and instead invest more in defence or defy what will doubtless be growing demands from the United States to spend billions of pounds more on the UK armed forces – and maybe even leave the country in a position whereby the US would not come to its aid if attacked.

World

Rapid Support Forces (RSF) accused by US of committing genocide in Sudan war

Published

6 hours ago

January 7, 2025

admin

Rapid Support Forces (RSF) accused by US of committing genocide in Sudan war

The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and its allied militias are committing genocide in Sudan while waging war against the army for control of the country, Joe Biden’s US administration has determined – two weeks before leaving office.

In a statement sharing the designation on Tuesday, US secretary of state Antony Blinken said the RSF and its aligned militias had “systematically murdered men and boys – even infants – on an ethnic basis” and “deliberately targeted women and girls from certain ethnic groups for rape and other forms of brutal sexual violence”.

He announced that Washington would impose sanctions on RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo and seven RSF-owned companies located in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The UAE is credibly accused of backing and arming the RSF – something it has strenuously denied.

When reached for comment by Reuters, the RSF rejected these measures and said: “America previously punished the great African freedom fighter Nelson Mandela, which was wrong.

“Today, it is rewarding those who started the war by punishing (RSF leader) general Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, which is also wrong.”

The RSF has been fighting Sudan’s army for territorial control of the country since war erupted in the capital, Khartoum, in April 2023.

The ensuing devastation has been described as the worst humanitarian crisis ever recorded – with over 11 million people forced out of their homes, tens of thousands dead, and 30 million in need of humanitarian assistance.

In December 2023, Mr Blinken announced that both warring parties had committed war crimes, but that the RSF in particular had committed crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

He mentioned this precedent in this latest announcement, adding: “Today’s action is part of our continued efforts to promote accountability for all warring parties whose actions fuel this conflict.

“The United States does not support either side of this war, and these actions against Hemedti and the RSF do not signify support or favour for the SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces).

“Both belligerents bear responsibility for the violence and suffering in Sudan and lack the legitimacy to govern a future peaceful Sudan.”