For nearly three years, green buses have filed into Syria’s Idlib Province, bringing those evacuated from other opposition enclaves that fell to government forces — thousands of defeated rebel fighters, wanted activists and civilians who refused to go back under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s rule.
They now face what is likely to be the last showdown between al-Assad’s forces and the opposition. Al-Assad has vowed to retake the province and pro-government media promise the “mother of all battles.”
If it comes to an all-out assault, it could bring a humanitarian crisis. Filled with displaced people from elsewhere, the province in Syria’s northwest corner is packed with about 3 million people, the most deeply irreconcilable with al-Assad’s government and including some of the world’s most radical militants.
Illustration: Yusha
They have little option but to make a stand, with few good places to escape.
“Currently, all [opposition] from around Syria came to Idlib. The only solution is to fight. There is no alternative,” Idlib resident Firas Barakat said.
For years he has dedicated himself to civilian opposition activities, but now he must take up arms, the 28-year-old said.
The opposition’s capture of Idlib in 2015 signaled the low point for al-Assad’s government during the course of war that is now nearly eight years old — a time when rebels controlled large parts of two main Syrian cities, major highways, border crossings, dams and oil resources.
Russian and Iranian backing enabled al-Assad’s military to claw back territory.
Most recently, it scored a victory with heavy symbolic resonance in the south, recapturing Daraa, one of the first places to rise against al-Assad’s rule in 2011.
About one-third of the country still remains out of government hands in the north and east, most of it held by US-backed Kurdish-led forces that wrested it from the Islamic State group.
However, Idlib stands as the last significant enclave of the armed opposition that rose up dedicated to ousting al-Assad.
“When we saw the resistance collapse in the south — and we thought it never would give, it was the first to resist the government — fear really prevailed here,” Barakat said.
Squeezed, the opposition is desperate.
However, its forces are not small, and its territory is not tiny and sealed off as other opposition holdouts were. That portends a complex and difficult battle.
The number of fighters in Idlib is estimated at several tens of thousands, including thousands of battle-hardened militants from al-Qaeda-linked groups and from China’s Turkic-speaking Uighur minority.
Although the al-Qaeda-linked group dominates, other non-extremist factions have maintained their presence, including some of the earliest forces to take up arms against al-Assad. With Turkey’s backing, they have formed a “National Liberation Front,” excluding al-Qaeda.
Idlib has seen a wave of lawlessness and assassinations among the various factions, including shootings and car bombs.
Saeed al-Nakrash, a rebel leader originally from near Damascus, was kidnapped and held for 50 days. He blamed al-Qaeda-linked militants and said his family paid US$75,000 for his release.
The opposition-held area abuts the Turkish border on the north and west. Though Turkey has built a wall, the border remains porous, providing a supply line for fighters. That wall could be overwhelmed if massive numbers try to flee Idlib.
To the east is an enclave held by Turkish-backed Syrian fighters, a possible escape route for anyone fleeing, though it is already overwhelmed by displaced people.
Rumblings have started. Activists report government reinforcements arriving at Abu Dhuhur air base in eastern Idlib, which al-Assad’s forces seized early this year.
Troops have been shelling Jisr al-Shughour, a strategic opposition-held town overlooking the government stronghold on the Mediterranean coast.
Just how ferocious an offensive turns out to be depends on diplomatic maneuvering among the power players — particularly Russia. It appears reluctant for an all-out assault.
Russia is juggling between long-time ally Syria and its new friend Turkey, which has become central to the political process Moscow is leading to try to resolve the conflict.
Al-Assad has vowed to restore all of Syria to its control. Turkey fears an assault will send a flood of refugees — and militants — swarming to its border.
Under a deal with Russia and Iran, Turkey has deployed about 1,000 troops at 12 observation points around Idlib to monitor a ceasefire, effectively standing between government forces and the opposition.
It is part of a “de-escalation” zone in the province that ultimately aims to root out al-Qaeda-linked groups as a basis for a future political process.
Turkey has said that a wide-scale offensive will wreck Russia’s efforts.
Its deployment in Idlib is a “trip wire that will start to tug at the [agreements with Russia] if you try to walk through it,” said Aron Lund, a Syria expert with the Century Foundation.
From the other side, the Syrian government is testing the Russia-Turkey relationship.
During the latest meeting in Russia last month, Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Jaafari blasted Turkey, saying it has failed to weed out extremists from Idlib.
Damascus encourages reconciliation with rebels, but not with al-Qaeda militants, Jaafari said, adding that it is Turkey’s responsibility to “fight terrorism.”
“If Idlib returns in reconciliation, this is well and good. And if it doesn’t ... the Syrian army has the right to restore control over Idlib by force,” he said.
That makes Russia’s stance critical, said Sam Heller, a researcher with the International Crisis Group.
“Ultimately what determines the survival of Idlib may be external and they relate to these geopolitical considerations,” he said.
Russia has already said no wide offensive is expected. That has raised speculation over a limited operation to control Jisr al-Shughour or the main highway running through Idlib.
Wael Olwan — a spokesman for one of the strongest Turkish-backed Syrian factions, Faylaq al-Sham — said that Turkey working with Syrian allies can “dissolve” the al-Qaeda-linked factions.
However, “I am not optimistic that Russia can hold back the regime forces long enough for Turkey to dismantle the radical groups,” he said.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS