Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria’s president, spoke to The Economist on January 31st in Damascus. The conversation has been translated and lightly edited for clarity. You can read our analysis of the interview here.
The Economist: Maybe you could start by giving me a sense of your vision for Syria. Where do you expect the country to be in five years? Tell me what it will be like.
Ahmed al-Sharaa: First of all, Syria was under the control of the previous regime for 54 years. During these 54 years, Syria went through many disasters. Syria has retreated regionally on the level of the development of human resources, the level of economy, and also the level of political relationships with neighbouring countries. Previously Syria was a source of concern for all neighbouring countries. At the same time, it was not fulfilling its basic duties towards the people. The most important thing for the previous regime was to maintain power and to use security methods to remain in power. The security method means torture, as you have seen in Saydnaya prison, and arresting and beating people, and when people revolted against him, he used chemical weapons, explosive bombs, and other methods.
At the same time Syria had a kind of social division in the time of the previous regime. The regime depended on a certain group of the people against the other groups, which posed the threat of having a full-scale civil war in Syria.
Regarding the economy, all the economic sectors are almost destroyed because the regime did not work on building an economy for the country itself, but it was trying to steal the wealths of the country to collect the money and export it illegally abroad.
Therefore, the next phase of five years will revolve around rebuilding the state on new and modern foundations. It is going to promote justice and counseling, and it is going to be based on the participation of all segments of society in running the country. The next five years are going to have several milestones. We hope to overcome all these difficulties and obstacles in a smooth manner, and we are counting on the wisdom of the Syrian people and the forgiveness that is shown by all the sections of the Syrian people.
On the political level and regarding external politics, in the time of the previous regime Syria was living in great isolation. On the neighboring level, the regime created many problems inside Lebanon. All significant party leaders and significant figures in Lebanon, who got killed, were killed at the hands of the previous regime in Lebanon. So, its intervention in Lebanon was not right. As a result, when it left Lebanon, it left Hezbollah behind, which controlled Lebanon in a negative manner until things escalated to full-fledged war in Lebanon.
As for Jordan, the regime targeted Jordan with exporting drugs directly, and when it comes to Iraq, there was a long estrangement during the time of Saddam Hussein, and after the American presence—the American occupation of Iraq— Syria in the days of the regime, was exporting trouble to Iraq. Turkey, also, had big troubles with the previous regime, and the gulf states were affected by the Iranian presence in Syria. The European countries were affected, as well, by the regime that used to export human beings to them. It was using humans for gaining financial gains; it depended on human trafficking and intentional displacement of people to European countries.
As you have heard, there are plenty of issues in Syria that need serious, quick, and effective steps to be taken. The most important of these steps is to have the Syrian people inside the country united. This is the most important capital that we have, and, thank God, this has been achieved today. Although we entered Damascus through a military battle, that battle was mostly characterised with mercy and forgiveness. Hence, the manner in which we entered Damascus played the major role in creating civil peace in Damascus although there are still some violations taking place here and there, but they are minimal.
The other thing is that Syria needs to build a strong economy. Today, we are working on rehabilitating the economy in the country. There is also the security challenge to control weapons in the country, and we have come a long way in controlling the weapons in the country, except for the area under the control of the SDF, or the area occupied by the PKK in North-East Syria. We are having negotiations with them, hoping to resolve matters without any confrontation.
Meanwhile, we have worked during the past short period on restoring the relationships between Syria and regional and international countries, and, thank God, we have been very successful until now. So, if things go like this in the coming five years, I believe the future is going to be bright during the next five years, and I believe that the two most important things that could increase the suffering of the Syrian people include, first, the American sanctions imposed by the United States of America on the regime because it was killing its people, and these sanctions are still in place. The other thing is the recent Israeli advancement, which needs to be solved. The Israelis need to retreat because their advancement will cause a lot of trouble in the future.
The Economist: Can I ask, is there a political leader who is a role model for you? George Washington? Mohammed Bin Salman? Who do you look to for inspiration?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: The Syrian context is exceptional, and each country goes through a peculiar situation. Political solutions should be born from the events taking place, so importing political experiences and applying them to the Syrian context, I believe, is not a correct policy. I have read history from all contexts: Arabic, International, and Islamic; and from all places: East, West, North, and South. We tried to benefit from all that has taken place in the world to take lessons from all that happened, especially the past hundred years that included events such as WWI and WWII. In addition, the Arab region has been through a lot of trouble. Hence, the region is rich with lessons, and history is full of lessons. We will benefit from all that, and we will try to have an independent personality in studying matters, in addition to benefiting from other countries’ experiences. All the figures you have mentioned were successful in running their countries, but the Syrian context is different.
The Economist: You talked about a modern, inclusive Syria, but when I watched the pictures of your meeting two days ago, it didn’t feel very inclusive. You were in uniform. It was a group of military leaders. It looked, frankly, more like a military coup than the beginning of a democratic state. Did I miss something? It didn’t give the impression of being the creation of a new inclusive state.
Ahmed al-Sharaa: The meeting was for all the revolutionary factions that contributed to toppling the regime. As you know the regime did not fall through politics, but through a military battle and military means because the regime had closed the door against all political solutions that were proposed. It was always negative in seizing the opportunities that were presented to it regionally and internationally. As a result, the people were left with no option other than military action. When the regime fell through military action, there were a lot of people interested in Syrian affairs. We consulted with a big number of people, including legal counselors and legal experts, and, as you know, there was a power vacuum in Syria during the past two months, and that vacuum had to be filled. Legal experts advised us that international customs say that the power that achieved victory for the revolution is the one eligible to select the presidency. Here, the powers that achieved the victory were the military ones, so I will be in harmony here. I was also in command of the battle that led to toppling the regime, so I have to be in harmony with this situation because the meeting was mostly for the Military Operations Administration and the military factions that contributed to toppling the regime; thus, I choose to be in harmony with them in performance. However, this is not a message that the country will be run by military men. It was, rather, a gateway to military agreement, because one of the major challenges, as I have mentioned earlier, is to have weapons under the control of the state. To have this achieved through consensus is a good thing. It reassures the Syrian people that the factions carrying weapons agreed on the presidency of the country, voluntarily without getting into much trouble. Many countries become threatened with chaos after the victory of revolutions because military factions disagree among themselves. Thank God, the awareness of the Syrian people and the revolutionary awareness of these factions pushed them to meet and agree on the important items that will start defining the future of Syria and fill this vacuum until Syria is ready for free and fair elections.
The Economist: Last night, you laid out the road map forward, and you said there would be a transitional government until free and fair elections were held. When do you expect those elections to be held, and will they include elections for the presidency?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: Thank God, yesterday’s speech was delivered in a suit, not military uniform, but maybe you did not notice this.
First of all, we should know that during the past fourteen years, a very big number, almost half the Syrian people, left Syria and went to different countries. The people who left, most of them, stopped having any legal contact with their country. There are a lot of births and deaths that have not been registered in the state registers. There are also those who have obtained new nationalities and renounced their Syrian nationality, or did not care for it anymore because of the presence of the previous regime back then.
There is also a vast area that is still out of the control of the Syrian state until now. It is under the control of the SDF, and it has a big population. Today, and for fifteen years now, there are no accurate statistics in Syria. No one knows the number of the Syrian population, the number of young men, the number of people eligible for (participating in) the elections. A lot of data is missing right now, and any elections in the time being will not be based on the right and proper foundations.
Therefore, in order for Syria to have free and fair elections that have integrity, it needs a census, the return of the people living abroad, opening the embassies, and restoring legal contact with the people. Moreover, many of the people who were internally displaced or in camps located in neighboring countries are also not registered with refugee commissions, and so on.
Therefore, this process needs time, and I have asked the experts, and they said we need at least three to four years to complete this process. Meanwhile, we are developing the election law, the constitution, and the laws that will regulate the country. We are working on them thoroughly and in consultation with the experts and the United Nations, as well. Hence, when these things are ready, we will have the elections that have integrity.
The Economist: And will there be elections for the presidency?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: Of course.
The Economist: And will political parties be able to compete in these elections?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: It is not something that I decide; there is a constitutional committee that will work on drafting the constitution. It comprises trusted experts with high competency. They will define the Parties Law, who will establish a party, and who can participate in the elections. All this will be carried out according to the laws, and my role in this period is to execute the law that will be drafted.
The Economist: But can I just put it simply? Will Syria become a democracy? I don’t think I’ve ever heard you use that word.
Ahmed al-Sharaa: In our region, there are various definitions of democracy. If democracy means that the people decide who will rule them and who represents them in the parliament, then yes Syria is going in this direction.
The Economist: I see it will take, as you say, several years to draft a new constitution. In the meantime, will the legal system, the courts, be based on the Civil Code, or will it be Sharia law?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: First of all, there will be a constitutional declaration that is a set of principles that define the identity of the state, its form, its futures, and some important matters in this regard. There is also the High Judicial Council. We cannot repeal all the previous laws all at once because there are a lot of open cases. There are over 150 thousand open cases in courts, so we cannot repeal them until a new law is established. However, through experts and specialized committees in judicial laws, new laws will be proposed and old laws that are not in line with the Syrian situation will be replaced. Any law that is to be issued will be presented to an interim parliamentary assembly that will vote whether to pass it or not. In addition, there is the High Judicial Council and the Supreme Constitutional Court, so there is a legal procedure for passing any law in the country. It is not an impulsive process, and the president does not have the authority to say I want this law or that law passed. Instead, the process will be subject to the general laws based on the umbrella guidelines that will be set in the constitutional declaration.
The Economist: So it is possible that it could be Sharia law?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: That is up to the experts to decide. If they approve it, my role is to enforce it; and if they do not approve it, my role is to enforce their decision, as well.
The Economist: The reason I ask is that there is a concern by some in Syria and certainly outside that you will embrace conservative Islamic rule, that there will be no role for women, for example. Will women be in real positions of power in your government? Real positions not just token positions in real power? Will there be women with real power?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: First of all, in the Islamic system women play a role. Whoever says that a conservative Islamic system does not allow a role for women has a misunderstanding of Islam. Of course women are almost half of society, and the majority of the human resources at universities now are women, and the job market is a wide labor market for women. The Syrian women are already working, so if a woman wants to work then the labor market is open to her.
The Economist: Will your wife be the first lady of Syria?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: It is the custom that the president’s wife occupies this position automatically. So, of course, if there is a position called the “First Lady”, it will not be occupied by a random woman from the street who is employed to occupy it. However, our understanding of the First Lady is that she is a servant of society, not a lady on a level above the people of the society.
The Economist: I’ve been in Syria now for five days, and I’ve been talking to many people. One concern I have heard again and again from businessmen, from many people, is that you concentrate too much control, that you are trying to run Syria like you ran Idlib. Is that a fair criticism? And how will you broaden the group of people who are running the country?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: First, Idlib had people from all Syrian communities; it was a place to which most of the Syrian people were displaced. In the first phase, to avoid the collapse of the state, we relied on the big team that we had in Idlib. I did not enter with only the military force. I entered with a civil force that includes people working in sanitation, higher education, education, health, sports, and all other aspects of life.
The Economist: Would you broaden the group of people? Will you include people other than HTS, people from Idlib right now, most of the important people are from Idlib.
Ahmed al-Sharaa: We were keen in the first phase on preventing the collapse of the institutions of the state, so we took control of them through the government that was prepared in Idlib, and we gave it only three months until we collected data from inside Idlib and met with many people. Hence, after three months have passed, there will be a broader and diverse government, with participation from all the segments of society, but the selection process is going to be based on competency not on ethnicity or religion.
The Economist: That’s quite soon. Three months is the beginning of March. That’s when you will have this broader government?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: After a month. That is right.
The Economist: Let’s talk about security. You mentioned it as a priority. Leaders of many of the factions were in the room two days ago, but not all the factions have agreed to join you. How will you persuade men with guns and power to report to you? How will you control them?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: First of all, all the factions were present in the latest conference, and I have had many meetings with them during the past two months. They all agreed to join the army and be part of it, so I do not believe there will be weapons out of the control of the state. Even if there were any, it would be prohibited by a law, and measures will be taken against anyone who keeps a weapon out of the control of the state. You cannot build a state in the future without having a law that controls weapons within a unified military institution.
The Economist: What about the North East? The Kurdish area? Talks have stalled with the SDF. Will you allow for a federal system that the Kurds want, or is there a risk of violence? More violence, Civil war.
Ahmed al-Sharaa: First, a federal system in Syria does not have popular acceptance, and I believe it is not in the best interest of Syria in the future because our communities are not used to practicing federacy, so people’s opinions would go to complete independence in the name of federacy. The other thing is that the region there has an Arab majority that does not approve of SDF rule over it, and the north-eastern area has a presence of some foreign factions that have a long history of conflict with Turkey, and we have given reassurances to all states that Syria will not be a platform for causing harm to neighbouring countries. And we pledged to that. Moreover, Turkey feels a great concern from the presence of the PKK in north-east Syria. It was preparing for launching a full-fledged war there, but we asked them to wait in order to give space for the negotiations. There is also public pressure from the Arabic component there, which is calling for the region to join the Syrian state and remove the rule of SDF.
SDF did not announce calling for a federal system because they know that is not possible to achieve now in Syria. On the contrary, they announced their readiness to join that state and integrate their military forces into the state. But there is discussion over the details; they agree in principle, but there is discussion over the details. We need more time to reach that agreement.
The Economist: So you think there will be an agreement? You are just finalizing the details?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: Let me say, not with that much optimism. We enter the negotiation process and hope to resolve matters peacefully without any damage.
The Economist: Tell me about the risk of Islamic State. I have heard several reports that Islamic State fighters are in cities in Syria, including in Damascus. How big a danger do they pose to you?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: There is big exaggeration regarding the size of the Islamic State, its numbers, its distribution, and so on. I believe the security forces are following the issue of IS with much diligence, and they have prevented many attempted attacks that it could have carried out to cause sedition and disturbance in the country during the past two months. I do not think it has a chance to have a major presence apart from some security cells.
The Economist: I see the Trump administration has put a pause on foreign aid, which means that I understand in some of the camps in the north, they have stopped distributing aid. What will be the consequences of that?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: There are several interconnected matters in the Syrian situation right now. Security stability is closely linked to finding a solution for the IDPs and refugees. On the other hand, the matter of IDPs and refugees is linked to establishing a healthy environment for investment in the country. Without investments in Syria, there will be no economic development, and without economic development, people will soon return to a state of chaos. All these matters are interconnected.
I believe that the gravest risk is the sanctions that the American administration is still imposing on Syria although all the reasons that led to issuing these sanctions have ended. Any prohibition targeting Syria represents a punishment to Syrian people who have suffered enough at the hands of the previous regime.
The Economist: Let’s talk about the economy, because it is in a very difficult situation. You urgently need financial support. You had the Emir of Qatar here. You are going to Saudi Arabia. Will you be getting financial support from the Gulf states now, and will it be enough to help stabilize your economy?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: I am trying as much as possible not to have Syria live on aid and support, but rather build its economy. Syria has a huge opportunity for investment, and these countries can, through their sovereign funds, make wide investments in Syria. There are plenty of opportunities for them here. The KSA and Qatar are countries that love Syria very much, and they hurried to support the Syrian people from the very first moment. We are discussing with them having big investment projects that build the infrastructure and create job opportunities, and at the same time bring them benefit through the investment return of the projects they implement.
The Economist: As you said, you need the sanctions to be lifted, especially the financial sanctions from America. Have you spoken to the Trump administration about this, and are you confident that they will lift them soon?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: The Trump administration has recently taken power, and there has been no communication yet. However, we seek, in the coming days, to restore diplomatic relations between us and the United States of America. And if that happens, we will submit our objection to the continuation of the sanctions, and I believe that President Trump seeks peace in the area, and it is a top priority to lift the sanctions. The United States of America does not have any interest in maintaining the suffering of the Syrian people.
The Economist: You want to re-establish diplomatic relations with America, but right now HTS is listed as a terrorist group by the United Nations. Does that need to be lifted before you can establish diplomatic relations?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: I believe many events change the reality of things, and in the latest conference, there was an item that stipulates the dissolution of all the factions, including HTS, but maybe you just saw the military uniform in that conference (jokingly).
Therefore, there is an item to dissolve all the factions of the Syrian revolution, including HTS. Hence, the classification has become meaningless.
Today, my status is the President of Syria, not HTS; and the relations should be between Syria and America, not between HTS and the USA.
The Economist: The Trump administration, there are reports they would like to remove their troops from Syria. Would you welcome that?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: In light of the new Syrian state, I believe any illegal military presence should not continue. Any military presence in a sovereign state should take place under a certain agreement, and there has been no such agreement between us and the United States of America.
We are now reassessing the Russian military presence, and we might reach an agreement (with them) or not, but in a way or another, any military presence should be with the agreement of the host state.
The Economist: What about the Israelis? They have moved beyond their buffer zone? Is that an illegal presence? And do they need to move back?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: Of course they have to move back.
There is an agreement that was made in 1974 between Syria and Israel through the United Nations. On our first day in Damascus, we sent to the UN informing them that we are committed to the 1974 agreement, and we are ready to receive the United Nations’ force that was in the buffer-zone, the UNDOF. A direct communication took place with the UNDOF, and they expressed their readiness to enter the buffer-zone, but the Israeli forces should retreat to the borders where they used to be before the latest advancement so that the UNDOF can enter the area.
As for what we will do, we have all international pressure with us, and all the countries that visited Damascus, along with the ones that did not, have denounced the advancement of the Israeli forces in the area. There is near-unanimous international agreement that this advancement is not right.
The Economist: Mr. Trump is a man of big ideas. There are reports today that he wants to move Gazans to Syria. He says it’s a place with a lot of empty space. Would you ever accept that?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: I believe the people of each country are more entitled to stay in their country. Why should people be displaced? Displacing people is such a big crime rejected by the law. In addition, Syria has just come out of war, and it is suffering big burdens. Syria should not be overwhelmed with new problems because we need long years to fix the sixty-year legacy of the regime, let alone having new problems added.
The Economist: If there is progress towards a broad Middle East peace deal? Could you imagine normalizing relations with Israel?
Ahmed al-Sharaa: Actually, we want peace with all parties, but there is great sensitivity regarding the Israeli matter in the region, especially after the big wars that took place and that they have been occupying a Syrian region called the Golan since 1967. We entered Damascus only two months ago, and there are many priorities in front of us, so it is too early to discuss such a matter because it requires wide public opinion. It also requires a lot of procedures and laws in order to discuss it, and to be honest, we have not considered it yet.■