Syria’s Forgotten Province: Why Sweida’s Call for Self-Determination Falls on Deaf Ears

As protests for self-determination fade in Syria’s Druze-majority Sweida province, the international community’s silence reveals a stark truth: the global appetite for new borders has evaporated in an era of great power competition.

The Druze Dilemma: Between Damascus and Dreams of Autonomy

Sweida, a mountainous province in southern Syria predominantly inhabited by the Druze minority, has long occupied a unique position in Syria’s complex political landscape. The recent wave of “self-determination” protests represents the latest chapter in the province’s delicate dance with the Assad regime. While the Druze community largely avoided taking sides during Syria’s civil war, maintaining a stance of “positive neutrality,” economic hardship and political marginalization have pushed some residents to voice aspirations for greater autonomy or even independence.

The demonstrations, which began gaining momentum earlier this year, drew participants frustrated by deteriorating living conditions, rampant inflation, and the Syrian government’s inability to provide basic services. Unlike previous protest movements in Syria that called for regime change, Sweida’s demonstrations have increasingly embraced the language of self-determination—a significant shift that reflects both desperation and a growing sense of distinct regional identity.

The International Cold Shoulder

The waning momentum of these protests, as noted by Arab press observers, coincides with a conspicuous lack of international support. This silence is particularly striking given the West’s historical championing of self-determination movements, from Kosovo to South Sudan. Several factors explain this diplomatic indifference. First, the global focus has shifted dramatically toward the Ukraine conflict and rising tensions between the United States and China, leaving little bandwidth for Syria’s internal dynamics. Second, major powers have grown wary of further fragmentation in the Middle East after witnessing the chaos that followed state collapse in Libya and Iraq.

Moreover, the key regional players—including Israel, Turkey, and the Gulf states—have little interest in supporting Druze autonomy. Israel, despite its own Druze population, fears that an independent Druze entity could become a security vulnerability. Turkey opposes any precedent for ethnic self-determination that might embolden its own Kurdish population. The Gulf states, having largely normalized relations with Assad, prefer stability over further Syrian fragmentation.

The Realpolitik of Recognition

The international system’s approach to self-determination has always been selective, but the current moment represents a particularly conservative phase. The bitter experiences of state-building in Kosovo, South Sudan, and Kurdistan have made the international community extremely cautious about supporting new separatist movements. The costs—both financial and political—of nurturing new states have proven higher than anticipated, while the benefits remain questionable.

For Sweida’s residents, this reality check is harsh but unavoidable. Without international backing, military capacity, or economic viability, calls for self-determination amount to little more than expressions of frustration. The Assad regime, strengthened by Russian and Iranian support, can afford to wait out these protests, knowing that time and exhaustion will likely dissipate the movement’s energy.

A Future Without Options

The fading protests in Sweida illuminate a broader trend in contemporary international relations: the era of humanitarian intervention and support for self-determination movements appears to be ending. As great powers return to spheres of influence and traditional balance-of-power politics, small communities seeking autonomy find themselves increasingly isolated. For the Druze of Sweida, this means reconciling themselves to a future within Syria, however unsatisfactory that may be.

As the world watches Ukraine defend its sovereignty and Taiwan assert its separate identity, one must ask: has the international community’s selective application of self-determination principles become so cynical that it only supports movements that align with great power interests, leaving communities like Sweida’s Druze to face their struggles alone?