Calm reported in Syria as truce implemented
With hundreds reported killed, the Sweida bloodshed is a major test for interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, prompting Israel to launch airstrikes against government forces last week as it declared support for the Druze. Fighting continued on Saturday despite a ceasefire call.
Interior Minister Anas Khattab said on Sunday that internal security forces had managed to calm the situation and enforce the ceasefire, "paving the way for a prisoner exchange and the gradual return of stability throughout the governorate".
Reuters images showed interior ministry forces near the city, blocking the road in front of members of tribes congregated there. The Interior Ministry said late on Saturday that Bedouin fighters had left the city.
US envoy Tom Barrack said the sides had "navigated to a pause and cessation of hostilities".
"The next foundation stone on a path to inclusion, and lasting de-escalation, is a complete exchange of hostages and detainees, the logistics of which are in process," he wrote on X.
Kenan Azzam, a dentist, said there was an uneasy calm but the city's residents were struggling with a lack of water and electricity.
"The hospitals are a disaster and out of service, and there are still so many dead and wounded," he said by phone.
Another resident, Raed Khazaal, said aid was urgently needed.
"Houses are destroyed ... The smell of corpses is spread throughout the national hospital," he said in a voice message to Reuters from Sweida.
The Syrian state news agency said an aid convoy sent to the city by the government was refused entry while aid organised by the Syrian Red Crescent was let in. A source familiar with the situation said local factions in Sweida had turned back the government convoy.
Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported on Sunday that Israel sent urgent medical aid to the Druze in Sweida and the step was coordinated with Washington and Syria. Spokespeople for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Foreign Ministry and the military did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Druze are a small but influential minority in Syria, Israel and Lebanon who follow a religion that is an offshoot of a branch of Shi'ite Islam. Some hardline Sunnis deem their beliefs heretical.
The fighting began a week ago with clashes between Bedouin and Druze fighters. Damascus sent troops to quell the fighting, but they were drawn into the violence and accused of widespread violations against the Druze.
Residents of the predominantly Druze city said friends and neighbours were shot at close range in their homes or in the streets by Syrian troops, identified by their fatigues and insignia.
Sharaa on Thursday promised to protect the rights of Druze and to hold to account those who committed violations against "our Druze people".
He has blamed the violence on "outlaw groups".
While Sharaa has won US backing since meeting President Donald Trump in May, the violence has underscored the challenge he faces stitching back together a country shattered by 14 years of conflict, and added to pressures on its mosaic of sectarian and ethnic groups. COASTAL VIOLENCE
After Israel bombed Syrian government forces in Sweida and hit the defence ministry in Damascus last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel had established a policy demanding the demilitarisation of territory near the border, stretching from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights to the Druze Mountain, east of Sweida.
He also said Israel would protect the Druze.
The United States however said it did not support the Israeli strikes. On Friday, an Israeli official said Israel agreed to allow Syrian forces limited access to the Sweida area for two days.
A Syrian security source told Reuters that internal security forces had taken up positions near Sweida, establishing checkpoints in western and eastern parts of the province where retreating tribal fighters had gathered.
On Sunday, Sharaa received the report of an inquiry into violence in Syria's coastal region in March, where Reuters reported in June that Syrian forces killed 1500 members of the Alawite minority following attacks on security forces.
The presidency said it would review the inquiry's conclusions and ensure steps to "bring about justice" and prevent the recurrence of "such violations". It called on the inquiry to hold a news conference on its findings - if appropriate - as soon as possible.
The Syrian Network for Human Rights said on July 18 it had documented the deaths of at least 321 people in Sweida province since July 13. The preliminary toll included civilians, women, children, Bedouin fighters, members of local groups and members of the security forces, it said, and the dead included people killed in field executions by both sides.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, another monitoring group, has reported a death toll of at least 940 people.
Reuters could not independently verify the tolls.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
19 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Viral 'honour' killing in southwest Pakistan triggers national outrage
By Ariba Shahid and Saleem Ahmed , Reuters Human rights activists shout slogans during a protest in Quetta. Photo: AFP / Banaras Khan A viral video of the "honour killing" of a woman and her lover in a remote part of Pakistan has ignited national outrage, prompting scrutiny of long-standing tribal codes and calls for justice in a country where such killings often pass in silence. While hundreds of so-called honour killings are reported in Pakistan each year, often with little public or legal response, the video of a woman and man accused of adultery being taken to the desert by a group of men to be killed has struck a nerve. The video shows the woman, Bano Bibi, being handed a Koran by a man identified by police as her brother. "Come walk seven steps with me, after that you can shoot me," she said, and she walks forward a few feet and stops with her back to the men. The brother, Jalal Satakzai, then shoots her three times and she collapses. Seconds later he shoots and kills the man, Ehsan Ullah Samalani, whom Bano was accused of having an affair with. Once the video of the killings in Pakistan's Balochistan province went viral, it brought swift government action and condemnation from politicians, rights groups and clerics. Civil rights lawyer Jibran Nasir said, though, the government's response was more about performance than justice. "The crime occurred months ago, not in secrecy but near a provincial capital, yet no one acted until 240 million witnessed the killing on camera," he said. "This isn't a response to a crime. It's a response to a viral moment." Police have arrested 16 people in Balochistan's Nasirabad district, including a tribal chief and the woman's mother. The mother, Gul Jan Bibi, said the killings were carried out by family and local elders based on "centuries-old Baloch traditions", and not on the orders of the tribal chief. "We did not commit any sin," she said in a video statement that also went viral. "Bano and Ehsan were killed according to our customs." She said her daughter, who had three sons and two daughters, had run away with Ehsan and returned after 25 days. Police said Bano's younger brother, who shot the couple, remains at large. Balochistan Chief Minister Sarfraz Bugti said it was a "test" case and vowed to dismantle the illegal tribal courts operating outside the law. Police had earlier said a jirga, an informal tribal council that issues extrajudicial rulings, had ordered the killings. The video sparked online condemnation, with hashtags like #JusticeForCouple and #HonourKilling trending. The Pakistan Ulema Council, a body of religious scholars, called the killings "un-Islamic" and urged terrorism charges against those involved. Dozens of civil society members and rights activists staged a protest on Saturday in the provincial capital Quetta, demanding justice and an end to parallel justice systems. "Virality is a double-edged sword," said Arsalan Khan, a cultural anthropologist and professor who studies gender and masculinity. "It can pressure the state into action, but public spectacle can also serve as a strategy to restore ghairat, or perceived family honour, in the eyes of the community." Pakistan outlawed honour killings in 2016 after the murder of social media star Qandeel Baloch, closing a loophole that allowed perpetrators to go free if they were pardoned by family members. Rights groups say enforcement remains weak, especially in rural areas where tribal councils still hold sway. "In a country where conviction rates often fall to single digits, visibility - and the uproar it brings - has its advantages," said constitutional lawyer Asad Rahim Khan. "It jolts a complacent state that continues to tolerate jirgas in areas beyond its writ." The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported at least 405 honour killings in 2024. Most victims are women, often killed by relatives claiming to defend family honour. Khan said rather than enforcing the law, the government has spent the past year weakening the judiciary and even considering reviving jirgas in former tribal areas. "It's executive inaction, most shamefully toward women in Balochistan," Khan said. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in recent months has asked senior ministers to evaluate proposals to revive jirgas in Pakistan's former tribal districts, including potential engagement with tribal elders and Afghan authorities. The Prime Minister's Office and Pakistan's information minister did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Balochistan killings were raised in Pakistan's Senate, where the human rights committee condemned the murders and called for action against those who convened the jirga. Lawmakers also warned that impunity for parallel justice systems risked encouraging similar violence. Activists and analysts, however, say the outrage is unlikely to be sustained. "There's noise now, but like every time, it will fade," said Jalila Haider, a human rights lawyer in Quetta. "In many areas, there is no writ of law, no enforcement. Only silence." Haider said the killings underscore the state's failure to protect citizens in under-governed regions like Balochistan, where tribal power structures fill the vacuum left by absent courts and police. "It's not enough to just condemn jirgas," Haider said. "The real question is: why does the state allow them to exist in the first place?" -Reuters
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Political cosyism behind 3rd medical school decision-making
On 21 May I was introduced to two new words (always a moment of light excitement for me) by Dr Bryce Edwards, Director of the newly established Integrity Institute which publishes regular Integrity Briefings. On this occasion the new word was 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism': Chumocracy and cosyism. He was referring to the work of Auckland University Professor of Economics Robert MacCulloch who was calling out 'soft corruption' by political and business elites in Aotearoa New Zealand. His focus included government, banks, big business and the rightwing 'thinktank' New Zealand Initiative. Such was the strength and persistence of the hostile response from these elites that he felt sufficiently pressured to close his website. The core of MacCulloch's argument is that New Zealand is run by a 'chumocracy' of elites who are connected by what he calls 'cosyism'. Third medical school announcement These were the words that I began to think about after absorbing the announcement by Health Minister Simeon Brown and Universities Minister Shane Reti early in the afternoon of 21 July that it was proceeding with the proposed third medical school at Waikato University: Official announcement. Later that the same day I was interviewed about the decision on Radio New Zealand's The Panel where my main focus was on the poor process which was likely to lead to an eventual poor outcome: Medical school decision based on poor process. Nearly two years earlier I had outlined my concerns about the Waikato University proposal in an article published by BusinessDesk (26 August 2023): Third medical school caution. What is the third medical school The new medical school is to provide a four-year medical degree for students who already are graduates with a non-medical degree to work as general practitioners (or as other rural doctors) in regional and rural areas. The medical degree at the existing two medical schools, Auckland and Otago, is five years. The advocated expectation is that the proposed Waikato Medical School will be graduating 120 doctors a year once it is up and running. With its opening scheduled for 2028 the first graduates should start working as general practitioners or other rural doctors at the earliest in 2037. This gap comprises both the time at the medical school and the time as resident (junior) doctors in training. Last year the Ministry of Health commissioned a report which advised that that Waikato's teaching model would be similar to the model in Wollongong University, south of Sydney. Reportedly 45% of the latter's graduates become GPs of which around 30% proceeded to work in rural areas. In 2017 the Auckland and Otago medical schools had proposed that they be allowed to jointly establish a new joint 'school of rural medicine'. However, while the previous Labour-led government and Ministry of Health was favourably disposed to this initiative, progress was understandably impeded by the Covid-19 pandemic. In a memo to then Health Minister Shane Reti in September last year, Treasury recommended that Auckland and Otago Medical Schools be asked to present a counter-factual argument to the Waikato proposal. However, it appears that no such invitation was made. Analysis by the Integrity Institute The best commentary I have seen on this decision has come from Bryce Edwards in another Integrity Briefing published the same day as the Government's announcement and after my The Panel interview (21 July): Costly case study in policy capture. Edwards also drew upon the excellent investigative work of Radio New Zealand's Guyan Espinar. Consistent with his above-mentioned piece on 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism' he describes the decision as: … not, at its core, a decision about health policy. It is a decision about political power, influence, and the erosion of good process. This project serves as a textbook case study of policy capture, where the interests of a well-connected institution, amplified by high-powered lobbyists, have overridden expert advice, fiscal prudence, and superior alternatives. Later in his piece he adds: This lack of transparency and due process is antithetical to good governance. The entire Waikato med school saga has unfolded via secret contracts, private lobbying meetings, and politically wired relationships – all largely hidden from the public until journalists and watchdogs pried it into the light. Backing this up Edwards draws upon many questionable process features including: Waikato Vice-Chancellor Professor Neil Quigley working 'hand-in-glove' in 'partisan coordination' with Shane Reti before the last election and promising the proposed school would be 'a 'present' to a future National government'. Waikato University helping pay for the National party's campaign announcement of the medical school plan (about $5,000). Government officials seeing 'red flags' in the proposal including alarm bells ringing from Treasury, the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Education warning of bloated costs, duplication risks and logistical hurdles. The use of two of the most well-connected lobbyists: initially former Labour senior adviser Neale Jones and more substantially former National cabinet minister Steven Joyce. Joyce's firm was paid about $1 million over three years by Waikato for 'consultancy' (le, leveraging his political influence). Questionable procurement in the way Waikato University hired Joyce leading to a public 'scolding' by the Auditor-General John Ryan. Ignoring the arguably better alternative of expanding the existing Auckland and Otago medical schools which were already running rural immersion schemes and satellite programs geared toward rural health. Edwards does not hold back: At its core, the Waikato medical school saga is an illustration of how not to make public policy. The process has failed every basic test of transparency, public accountability, and evidence-based decision-making. A public university and eager politicians cooked up a major spending initiative as a political favour, greased by lobbyists and implemented via dubious means. The normal checks and balances – open procurement, independent policy analysis, genuine stakeholder consultation – were subverted or ignored. It's the kind of deal that breeds public cynicism in politics, the sense that big decisions are made on behalf of the powerful or the connected, not the public. Further: By greenlighting this project in July 2025, ministers have signalled that political paybacks matter more than prudent spending. They have effectively rewarded a campaign of lobbying and pressure that sidestepped the usual contest of ideas. That sets a horrible precedent. It tells every other vested interest: hire the right insiders, make the right donations or deals, and you too can get the government to write a big cheque, officials' advice be damned. And: The Waikato medical school greenlight might be a political win for a few, but it's a loss for New Zealand's standards of governance. It undermines confidence that our health investments are made wisely and fairly. And it should prompt some soul-searching in Wellington: if this is how we make big decisions now, what does that say about who really runs the country? Unconvincing contrary views There have been contrary analyses supporting the Government's decision which I find unconvincing. Luke Malpass, Stuff Political, Business & Economics Editor and formerly holding a leadership role in the New Zealand Initiative expressed a negative view of current medical schools describing them emotively, but without substantiation, as a 'duopoly'. Writing in The Post (22 July; paywalled) in a flaky critique he dismisses those critical of the process, presumably including Bryce Edwards, as 'weird': Flaky rather than investigative. Two days later Waikato University ethics professor and philosopher Nick Algar wrote a paywalled opinion piece in The Post abstractly arguing that those critical of the Government's were guilty of 'sloppy thinking'. This reminded me of the expression 'pot calling the kettle black': Sloppy thinking in the debate over Waikato medical school | The Post Sloppy analysis of 'sloppy thinking'. He also reminded me of Oscar Wilde on philosophy although without the latter's famous and infamous wit: 'My philosophy? I'm always right and you are wrong.' The last word Let's leave the last word to the action of the Government in releasing its redacted 'cabinet business case' material at 6.45pm last Friday as reported by the Otago Daily Times the following day: Politically expedient timing of third medical school case. This timing has been a common practice of successive governments recognising that this is the most difficult time for media scrutiny before it is taken over by other news. If the difficult to substantiate claim of $50 million savings per year stood up to rigorous scrutiny it would have been released at a time convenient for media scrutiny. But 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism' necessitated otherwise. Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Why NZ must resist the trashing of international law
Opinion: Last week, the foreign ministries of 30 countries, including New Zealand, belatedly issued a joint statement that acknowledged the 'suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths', demanded 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire', and warned Netanyahu's government of 'further action' if this was not achieved. However, this statement highlights something even bigger than the escalation of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, since the Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023, has led to the death of more than 61,000 people – around 59,500 Palestinians and 1710 Israelis – and cost the lives of hundreds of journalists, academics and humanitarian aid workers. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is a symptom of the post-9/11 erosion of an international rules-based order, enshrined in institutions like the United Nations and norms like multilateralism. The US' illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, China's assertiveness in the South China Sea, Putin's annexation of Crimea and subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as well as recent US trade protectionism are examples of an increasing trend that has weakened the importance of rules in global politics. During this period, the United Nations Security Council, the organ with formal responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, has repeatedly been paralysed by the veto powers of its five permanent members. The biggest offenders in this regard have been Russia, the US and China, three states imbued with a strong sense of national exceptionalism, that have not hesitated to cast a veto or act unilaterally to protect their perceived national concerns even if it undermines international law. It should be emphasised that most states including relatively small players like New Zealand and middle powers like Australia are dependent on an international-rules based order for their prosperity and security. While rules are often seen as an encumbrance by great powers, they are viewed by most small and middle powers as essential in order to conduct their international activities in a relatively safe, equitable and predictable fashion. Nevertheless some observers believe that smaller states like New Zealand are powerless to prevent the slide towards the 'law of the jungle' in the international arena. According to the so-called realist perspective, great powers do what great powers do and 'little' New Zealand has no choice but to quietly accept blatant violations of international law when they are committed by powerful traditional friends like the US or its close allies such as Israel. However, such a perspective exaggerates the role of great powers in the interconnected world of the 21st century. We should recall the founders of the UN in 1945 conferred the right of veto on five great powers of that time to ensure they remained in the organisation and helped solve the world's problems. This logic explains why the Labour New Zealand government, led by Prime Minister Peter Fraser, was prepared to reluctantly concede the necessity of the veto mechanism in the Security Council when the UN was established. Fast forward 80 years. In 2025, it is clear that superpowers such as the US or China cannot run the world – even if they want to – simply because key challenges such as climate change, pandemics, transnational terrorism and financial contagion do not respect borders and are simply too big to be resolved unilaterally or with the assistance of a few allies. This means, despite intensified geopolitical rivalries, small states and middle powers are not doomed to be fast followers and can, if they choose to act strategically in a multilateral fashion, exert some agency and influence on international issues where there is a void in great-power leadership. The precedent of the Christchurch Call in 2020, when New Zealand collaborated with France in a bid to curb online extremism which won the support of more than 55 states, including Biden's America, points to the potential for bottom-up multilateral initiatives in the contemporary era. Confronted with the steady decline of international rules in trade and security matters, smaller powers cannot rely on veto-wielding states in the UN Security Council to reverse this damaging trend. But the New Zealand government does have the option of reaching out to other members of the UN to build international support for a diplomatic initiative to reinvigorate the idea of an international rules-based order. This vision would involve reforming the Security Council to make it a more reliable barrier to war by curtailing the use of the veto by the permanent five states or at least pressing for a new arrangement whereby General Assembly resolutions with more than two-thirds' support become binding and not subject to a veto. Without curbing the use of the veto in the Security Council or significantly increasing the power of the UN General Assembly, certain states will continue to believe they are 'above the law' and the prospect of more barbaric conflicts like Gaza will remain an ever-present possibility in our world.
