On January 3, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot travelled to Damascus to meet with Syria’s interim leader Ahmad al-Sharaa. The visit came less than a month after the sudden downfall of one of the most violent regimes in the Arab world –  the Baathist dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad.

There are a myriad of issues on the agenda of Syrian-European relations, not least regional stability, economic recovery, post-war justice and reconciliation, the refugee crisis and so on.

And yet, Western media chose to focus on al-Sharaa’s decision to greet Baerbock with a nod and a smile instead of extending his hand to her, in observance of Muslim religious norms. Western media pundits characterised the incident as “a scandal” and a “snub”.

A Politico editorial went as far as suggesting that trivialities like shaking hands should become the new “litmus test” on how “moderate” a Muslim leader really is. In the name of inclusivity, the Politico piece implied that devout male Muslim leaders like al-Sharaa should be forced to shake women’s hands – regardless of what their religion instructs – or else, it should set off “alarm bells” in the West. The old adage “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” has become “when in Syria, do as the Germans and French do”.

Advertisement

As a Syrian American whose father was exiled from Syria for 46 years and whose family friends have been tortured and killed by the al-Assad regime, I find the Western “litmus test” of Arab leadership laden with contradictions and simply offensive.

I wonder where was media’s fury when the British royal, Prince Edward, explained he preferred non-physical contact with ordinary Brits trying to greet him? Should we offer grace when the motive is personal preference and anger when the motive is religious observance?

It is not surprising that Western media is trying to impose Western cultural values as the new litmus test for the “moderation” of Muslim Arab leaders. It has done so for decades.

As anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod has argued in her book, Do Muslim Women Need Saving?, there is an assumption in the West “that liberal culture is the acultural norm and should be the universal standard by which to measure societies. Those who fall short are the barbarians outside the gates…”

The very characterisation of Muslim religious norms as “extreme” is a symptom of a hegemonic discourse by which Western norms are masked as universal ones.

The bad news for those who subscribe to this viewpoint is that Western cultural values are not as dominant as they may imagine. Muslims and Arabs also have agency – the agency to choose to observe their religious values even when they defy the dominant cultural expectations in the West – although we’ve seen a willingness to bend those expectations when it comes to British royalty, fear of COVID-19 transmission, etc.

Advertisement

The media’s hyperfocus on trivialities – like al-Sharaa’s dress or personal mannerisms – appears trite in the context of brutal repression that Syrians have endured for 61 years under the authoritarian Baathist regime.

Syrians have their own “litmus test” for evaluating their new leadership, like the government’s ability to deliver democracy and freedom, restore and improve civilian infrastructure, unite Syrians and protect constitutional rights, not whether male government members shake the hands of women. Most urgently, Syrians are concerned about their new leadership’s ability to steer the country towards peace, prosperity and stability.

Half of the Syrian population is currently displaced and more than 90 percent of the people within Syria live below the poverty line. There are extreme shortages of food, water, and electricity. Unemployment is rife and the economy is in tatters.

Then there is also the trauma of living through a 13-year-long civil war and 61-year-long authoritarian rule.

There is not a single Syrian family I know that has not lost family members or friends to al-Assad’s brutal repressive regime. My childhood friends lost their father, Majd Kamalmaz, a psychotherapist and a US citizen, when he went to pay condolences to his mother-in-law in Syria in 2017. A relative from Aleppo lost two teen brothers to torture in al-Assad’s notorious dungeons. My female cousin spent a month in an underground prison for passing out bread in a poor neighbourhood in Damascus during the civil war. Family friends – like Heba al-Dabbagh, who spent nine years in Syrian prison in the 1980s because the regime couldn’t find her brother – shared harrowing stories of torture.

Advertisement

After suffering for decades under one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world, Syrians are desperate for a new beginning, holding on to tattered threads of hope. They may have faced unimaginable horrors – mass killing, torture, systemic rape, repression, and displacement – but they are no helpless victims. They have a clear vision of the future they want.

If the Western media wants to get Syria right, it needs to practice introspection and recognise how its discourse and expectations may be shaped by decades of hegemonic bias. Instead of imposing a Western “litmus test” on Arab leaders, it should ask Syrians what they want in their leadership.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.