The year that has ended witnessed several events of global impact, particularly concerning foreign policy and the economy. Be it the Middle East or Europe, 2024 was full of political and military tensions.

In terms of warfare, perhaps the most notable hotbed of tension and regional instability has been the Arab world where, most recently, Syria saw the end of almost 60 years of Ba’athist rule. In a surprisingly swift onslaught, a group of rebels managed to take over the capital and declare a ‘new Syria’. This concluded the legacy of the Ba’athist ideology in the Arab world, while leaving several questions unanswered.

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Before delving into those questions, a brief history of the Assad rule and Ba’athism in the Arab world must be explored for a better understanding of this conflict and the general nature of conflict in the Middle East.

Perhaps the starting point of this history would be in the early 1950s, while the world was still recovering from the scars and wounds of World War II.

One of the worst affected was the British Empire. By 1952, most of their main empire had collapsed, and with the letting go of India in 1947, there was not much territory left for the once mighty Crown. Areas that they had not left were full of rebellion and uprisings.

The overthrow of Basher al-Assad marks the demise of Ba’athism, leaving Syria’s future — and the fate of Arab anti-Zionism — hanging in uncertainty

This was definitely the case in the Middle East, where many were disgruntled with the colonial occupation. They saw, perhaps justifiably, the rulers installed by the Crown as agents of imperialism, who sought to divide the Arab world amongst itself. With the creation of the Zionist state of Israel in 1948, things did not improve for the Crown in the Middle East, and it is where our story begins.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a new philosophy called Ba’athism was taking root in the Arab world. Its main proponent was Syrian philosopher and nationalist Michel Aflaq, who is now considered its founder. In essence, it described a socialist Arab world independent from imperialist chains and espoused a homeland for the Arabs ruled by the Arabs. This philosophy was also anti-Zionist, which would become more visible during the Suez Canal crisis in 1956 and, later, during the Six-Day War in 1967.

This philosophy was deemed appealing throughout the Arab world, particularly in the Levant region, Iraq and newly independent Syria as well as North Africa.

FLAG BEARERS OF THE BA’ATHIST MOVEMENT

It was specifically the case in Egypt, with one Egyptian influenced by it going on to become the figurehead of this movement. That man was Col Gamal Abdel Nasser who, in 1952, led the Egyptian revolution, deposing King Farouk and establishing the Arab Republic of Egypt.

Nasser’s actions inspired others to rise up and, soon, the world saw other Arab socialist movements taking to power as well, such as the revolutions led by Houari Boumediene in Algeria and Abdel Karim Kasim in Iraq. Although most of these countries were not Ba’athists at the time, Nasser still saw the dream of a unified homeland for Arabs. For this, he formed the United Arab Republic (UAR) with Syria in 1958. This would be Syria’s first official exposure to Ba’athism.

However, this union was short-lived, with Syria seceding from the UAR in 1961 following a coup headed by Nazim al-Qudsi. Ironically, Qudsi would be himself deposed by Gen Amin al-Hafiz, who would then bring into existence Ba’athist Syria in 1963. Amin al-Hafiz was deposed in 1966, in a coup in which Hafez al-Assad took part. Four years later, Assad initiated a third coup, which ousted the de facto leader Salah Jadid, and appointed himself as leader of Syria.

Despite Syria’s secession from the UAR, it maintained close ties with Egypt due to their unifying Ba’athist ideals. These ties would be reinforced during the Six-Day War, with US-supported Israel pitted against Egypt, Syria and Jordan, who were backed by the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). This saw Ba’athism take an extreme anti-Zionist turn and a vehement anti-imperialist stance, to the point where cooperation with the US and other Western powers was not an option.

It warrants mention that relations between Egypt and Syria deteriorated by the late 1970s, following the US-brokered Camp David Accords of 1978, which established a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. This meant Syria became the last ‘true’ Ba’athist nation alongside Iraq, which had now come under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Following the fall of Saddam in 2003, Syria would become the last anti-Zionist and truly Ba’athist nation in the Arab world.

Now, after the de facto dissolution of the Ba’athist party in December 2024 following Bashar al-Assad’s overthrow, several questions have cropped up, not just about Syrian sovereignty, but also the future of anti-Zionism and Arab unity.

Syria, under the rule of the Assads, had a complicated relationship with the terms development and sovereignty. For instance, while the Ba’ath Party ruled with an iron fist, it ensured significant development with regards to Syria being a modern society. There was significant tolerance of different ethnicities and religious groups. There was also a notable lack of petty crime.

Ba’athist Syria also maintained nationalisation of economic resources, including oil. While this showed a sense of economic sovereignty, at the same time, it had leased land to Russian forces and Iranian militias to fight against the rebellion threatening Assad’s rule.

AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE

With the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in power now and speculation rife that the group has the support of Turkey and Israel amongst others, it throws into uncertainty what is to become of Syria and its oil. Perhaps, it might end up in Zionist or Turkish hands, with the latter a stronger possibility, considering Ankara’s long-displayed aspirations towards becoming Europe’s next oil and gas giant, outdoing Russia.

For the Zionists, a weak Syria could allow them to achieve their territorial aspirations of annexing the remaining parts of the Golan Heights, further crippling Syria and compromising its ability to protect its territory.

As far as the question of anti-Zionism in the Arab world goes, the collapse of the Ba’athist government appears to be the final nail in the coffin of Arab socialism. With the last nation to have maintained an anti-Israeli policy — to the point of military confrontation — in turmoil, the cause of anti-Zionism has been reduced to a few groups, who no longer have the numerical, logistical or diplomatic support they once had.

This is because Syria was the only country that was effectively still at war with Israel and could pose a significant regional threat, unlike the rest of its Arab neighbours, who have been neutralised by Israel and the US with promises of trade deals.

So, not only is it premature to say Syria is free, but it also must be feared that Syria may well turn into another Iraq, Egypt or Libya, ie forced to toe the line of the Western powers and their Zionist client.

The current situation also raises questions about the future of the Kurds. The north-eastern parts of Syria are a significant haven for the US-allied Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which have posed significant challenges to contemporary Turkish expansionism. While the SDF were able to coexist with the Ba’athists, it remains uncertain how they will deal with the foreign-backed deposition of their allies and subsequent occupation of their territory.

Now, not only is Syria’s future uncertain, the fall of the Ba’athist regime also marks an end to the legacy of anti-Israeli sentiment as a national policy and, alongside it, the legacy of its greatest advocates, such as Nasser or Aflaq. Ba’athist ideology will be but a relic on display in a museum or gathering dust in the pages of history.

The writer is an A-Level student with an interest in history and research

Published in Dawn, EOS, January 12th, 2025