Syrian president addresses UN General Assembly for first time in nearly 60 years

Turning the page for his country, Syria’s president addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday 24 September, marking the first time any president from his country has done so in almost 60 years. As he spoke, AP reported that hundreds of people gathered in front of giant screens in Syrian cities and towns to witness the speech while waving the country’s flags. 

After six decades of dictatorship that killed 1 million people and tortured hundreds of thousands, “Syria is reclaiming its rightful place among the nations of the world,” Ahmad al-Sharaa told the international community.  Al-Sharaa became the first Syrian head of state to speak at the United Nations since Noureddine Attasi gave a speech in 1967 shortly after the Arab-Israeli war, during which Damascus lost control of the Golan Heights. Israel annexed it in 1981.

Since the Assad family came to power in Syria in 1970 in a bloodless coup that overthrew Attasi, relations with the United States have been mostly cold, as Damascus was an ally of the former Soviet Union. Over the past decades, Syrian foreign ministers represented the country at the U.N. General Assembly.

The Assad family dynasty’s autocratic 54-year rule abruptly collapsed in December, when then-President Bashar Assad  was ousted in a lightning insurgent offensive led by al-Sharaa. Assad’s fall marked a major shift in the 14-year civil war.

Al-Sharaa blasted Israel in his speech, saying that it did not stop its threats to his country since Assad’s fall and adding that its policies “contradict with the international community’s support to Syria and its people” and endanger the region.

Negotiations have been ongoing for a security deal that al-Sharaa has said he hopes will bring about a withdrawal of Israeli forces and return to a 1974 disengagement agreement. While al-Sharaa said last week that a deal could be reached in a matter of days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday appeared to downplay the odds of a breakthrough.

Later Wednesday, according to AP, Netanyahu’s office said in a statement that negotiations are underway, adding that their conclusion “involves ensuring Israel’s interests, which include, among other things, the demilitarization of southwestern Syria and maintaining the safety and security” of the Druze religious minority in the country. 

Since assuming power, al-Sharaa has preached coexistence and sought to reassure Syria’s minority communities, but the country has been threatened by outbreaks of sectarian violence that left hundreds dead earlier this year. Gunmen affiliated with the new government were also accused of atrocities against civilians from the Druze and Alawite religious minorities in southern Syria’s Sweida province and the coastal region.

Al-Sharaa said in his speech that the Syrian state has worked on forming fact-finding missions and gave the United Nations the right to investigate the killings. “I promise to bring anyone whose hands are tainted with the blood of Syrian people to justice,” he added.

Al-Sharaa said Syria’s new authorities have destroyed the drug business that Assad used to fund his government as it was under harsh Western sanctions that, along with the war, paralysed the economy. Assad’s fall revealed industrial-scale manufacturing facilities of the amphetamine-like stimulant Captagon, also known as fenethylline, which experts say fed a $10 billion annual global trade in the highly addictive drug. Over the past months, Syrian authorities have closed Captagon factories in different parts of Syria part of their campaign to end the illegal trade. 

Al-Sharaa urged Western countries to lift the Assad-era sanctions “so that they are not a tool to shackle the Syrian people.” U.S. President Donald Trump met with al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia in May and announced that he would lift decades of sanctions. He followed through by ordering a large swath of them lifted or waived.  However, the most stringent sanctions were imposed by Congress in 2019 and will require a congressional vote to permanently remove them.

Speaking to reporters outside the U.N. after his speech, al-Sharaa said that he hopes that the sanctions would eventually be lifted.  “Syria does not wish the pain it passed through for anyone” and feels “the suffering of war and destruction,” al-Sharaa said, expressing support for Palestinians in Gaza amid Israel’s war there. 

In Damascus, cheering crowds gathered in the central Umayyad Square to celebrate al-Sharaa’s speech. At Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza near the U.N., members of the Syrian diaspora faced off in dueling demonstrations, one in support of the new authorities in Damascus and one against. 

Pro-government demonstrators hoisted the three-starred “revolution flag” that has now become the official flag of Syria. On the other side, many lifted the five-colour Druze flag. Some shouted and cursed at each other across the barricades.

On the Druze side, Farah Taki, originally from Sweida, said her aunts there were displaced by the recent violence and she had come from Chicago to protest al-Sharaa’s visit. “It’s disgrace that New York is welcoming an ex-Qaida member at the U.N., and allowing him even to speak,” she said. The insurgent group that al-Sharaa formerly led was once affiliated with al-Qaida but later cut ties.

On the other side of the barricades, Dina Keenawari, a Syrian American originally from Damascus, had come from Florida to show her support for al-Sharaa. “We’ve lived under tyranny for the past 50 years, and now we’re turning a new chapter, and we’re looking forward,” she said. “And we’re proud of him.”

Source: commonspace.eu with AP and agencies. Photo: UN

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)