In a scene that raised many questions, the People’s Palace witnessed two days ago an embarrassing glitch during the presence of Mr. Tom Barrack, with the official attendance of Syrian President Ahmed Al-Shar’, the Syrian government, and palace guests.

The irony was not in the content of the meeting but in the interpreter assigned to this sensitive task, who appeared incapable of performing his duty properly, forcing the attendees to bypass the translation at critical moments, which caused obvious embarrassment for the official team before such a high-profile guest.
This incident is not trivial; it is a glaring revealing sign!!

It once again exposed one of the deepest flaws in the new Syrian administration: prioritizing “the sons of the group” over “the sons of the homeland.”
Although Syria is rich in exceptional competencies among its people inside and abroad, spanning fields such as translation, diplomacy, technology, and media, the ruling mindset still insists on choosing faces belonging to its intellectual, geographic, or “loyal” circles—not those belonging solely to the homeland and competence.

Lack of Trust: A Chronic Administrative Disease

Painfully, trust in others outside this so-called “Idlib school” is almost nonexistent; appreciation for expertise is absent, and capable people who could make a difference are excluded simply because they do not hold the “membership card” of the ruling team, or do not conform to its specific perception of loyalty, or lack the flexibility to enter their special mold—this applies to all sectors without exception.

What happened in front of Mr. Tom Barrack should not be read merely as a linguistic embarrassment but as a decisive sign that the path of the new administration remains plagued by the disease of private interest over the public good, and cronyism over institutionalism.

What Do We Want to Say?

We are not against the sons of the Idlib school (they are respected and valued), nor against any specific Syrian region, but we stand for expertise regardless of its geographic or intellectual origin!

We are not against the ruling team having its close faces, but this should not come at the expense of the state’s image before its partners!
We do not support self-criticism for its own sake, but we demand a swift and decisive review based on the question: Do we prioritize the most competent or the closest? Do we choose who represents the homeland or who represents the group?

This incident gave a sad image of official moment management in the new Syria and could have been easily avoided if one of Syria’s specialized sons among dozens of internationally accredited Syrian interpreters—who are knocking on the new era’s doors seeking a role or job—had been used.

Today, the national interest demands political courage that goes beyond narrow circles of trust and opens up to the nation’s vast energies.
It is not wise to shape the future with the mistakes of the past and tools of loyalty instead of the rules of competence and experience.