Syria: What next for the UK’s relationship with it?

If politicians want to see a stable and secure Syria, they should use the UK’s levers and influence to give Syrians the best chance of building it.

Eve McQuillan is a researcher and campaigner who works on issues ranging from International Affairs to Housing. She has previously worked in parliament as a researcher on Middle Eastern and North African Affairs and speaks Arabic fluently.

Two months on from the fall of Assad, the UK needs to move on from its ‘wait and see’ approach towards Syria. If politicians want to see a stable and secure Syria, they should use the UK’s levers and influence to give Syrians the best chance of building it.

Lammy has set out his political approach to Foreign Policy as one of Progressive Realism. He defines this as working through realist means for progressive ends, rather than accumulation of power for its own sake[i].

For Syria, long a contested country in geopolitical terms, it means understanding the power relations within and outside the country and how these might be influenced to deliver a better outcome for the country.

But for this approach to be genuinely progressive, it needs to be aimed towards poverty alleviation, inclusive and respectful government, and respect for the rights of women and minorities. Fundamentally, it demands an approach that sees Syria as the home of 24 million people, before it is seen as a site of geopolitical contestation.

Syria today

8^th December 2024 marked the end of 53 years of brutal authoritarian rule, as Assad fled to Russia. Many Syrians celebrated, as jubilant scenes of prisoners freed from the most appalling conditions were shared across the world.

Since 2012, following the brutal crackdown on those who participated in the 2011 Arab Spring protests, Syria’s catastrophic civil war has killed at least 580,000 people[ii]. Millions have fled, and the country’s economy and infrastructure have been decimated.

Hayat Tahrir As-Sham (HTS), who toppled Assad when they took Damascus, have now been formally disbanded, with their forces integrated into state institutions. Al Sharaa, their leader is now the transitional president. He has promised a committee will be formed to draw up a new constitution and that the transitional government is a temporary measure.

The Transitional Government

The UK faces a dilemma in how to approach the situation in Syria. Reservations about the transitional government, given HTS’s history in Idlib, are well founded.  There, Human Rights groups reported severe repression against political opponents and restrictions on the rights of women[iii].

Proscribed as a terrorist group, HTS was formed of five militant radical Islamist groups in 2017[iv]. Al Sharaa, known as Al Jolani, has tried to moderate the group, but it was closely associated with Al Qaeda.

There has been a clear effort to differentiate the transitional government from the HTS of the past. Al Sharaa has been signalling that he does not wish to enforce a radical Islamist ideology onto Syria, nor does he want to cement a new authoritarian rule. But he has done so at a time when building Western confidence is crucial to the success of the transitional government he now leads.

The security situation within Syria is far from stable. There have been revenge attacks on individuals and communities perceived as close to the former regime. Given statements from transitional government figures that elections will take 4-5 years[v], some fear this will become another authoritarian regime.

There has also been strong criticism of some appointments to the transitional government. In January, videos emerged of the Justice Minister, Shadi Al-Waisi overseeing the execution of two women who had allegedly been convicted of ‘prostitution and corruption’[vi].

It isn’t clear that leading former HTS figures in the transitional government will leave behind their radical Islamist politics.

What are the UK’s options?

Following the collapse of Assad, David Lammy said in the House of Commons that he would judge HTS on their actions rather than their words[vii]. This is prudent – he is right to be concerned. But Lammy now needs to take a pragmatic approach – to push for a stable Syria.

The question isn’t does the UK believe HTS has reformed. It’s what can the UK do support the transition out of war and dictatorship and the rebuilding of Syria.

Firstly, influence in Syria is limited.  Outside of the EU, the UK had no seat at the table in discussions last week which concluded that sanctions would be gradually withdrawn. It is not a major military actor like the US and Turkey, but it can, nonetheless chart a pragmatic course and work to influence its allies.

On the question of sanctions, the UK needs to distinguish between political caution and an approach that continues to cause economic damage to Syria’s shattered economy.

For ordinary Syrians, 90%^[viii] of whom are living under the poverty line it is imperative that the economic situation improves. Syria’s industrial and agricultural capacity needs to develop to provide employment for those in the country and those who wish to return. At present, the UN estimates 70%[ix] of the population is reliant on humanitarian aid.

Syrians receive an average of 2 to 3 hours electricity each day[1]. With such acute energy shortages, it’s difficult to see how Syrian industry will recover. And yet the UK continues to sanction equipment related to energy generation.

The Assad regime operated by concentrating resources in the hands of this corrupt elite. Whatever comes next – and it remains to be seen – this elite is no longer in control. Economic sanctions no longer serve their function. To use them as political tool to pressure the transitional government risks failing to make the most from the transition in terms of its ability to bring stability and improve living standards.

As Dr Haian Dukhan, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Teesside University argues ‘strengthening the economy is crucial, because without it, there’s an incentive for people to join militias to extract money out of economic desperation’.

He also notes the £163 million the UK has seized from bank accounts belonging to those close to the former regime. Given it can no longer be extracted by the former regime, this money must now be returned to the Syrian people. Where it is returned as humanitarian aid, it should be delivered through Syrian civil society organisations where possible.

Syria’s civil society is a fundamental asset for the country and will be critical in holding the transition to account. Given the importance of civil society to a stable, pluralistic society, the UK should take this opportunity to support Syrian civil society. Organisations that have provided vital services and document grave human rights abuses are also best place to understand the needs of people outside of larger cities.

Restrictions to retain

Whilst it’s important to support the rebuilding of Syrian infrastructure and the economy, certain sanctions should remain in place.

Under Assad, the UK sanctioned the sale of military goods and technology, and equipment used for internal repression. Given the fragile security situation, these restrictions should remain in place. It is too early to tell how the transition will play out, and therefore too early to remove these restrictions.

Retaining the proscription of HTS and associated groups is also a wise move. The EU has chosen to maintain this for the time being. Whilst UK diplomats have met with Al Sharaa and key transitional government figures, the government has not yet recognised them as the legitimate government of Syria.

The presence of Al Sharaa and Asaad Hassan al-Shaybani, Syria’s new Foreign Minister, at Davos was notable. Perhaps this was merely a campaign for economic sanctions removal, a key priority, but clearly there is also enthusiasm for a new Syria to be integrated into the mainstream of the international community.

Targeted interventions that impact on political figures can be used for political leverage. It’s through these means that the UK can push for women’s and minority groups rights. A successful transition relies on more than just ideological commitment to pluralism from key figures. It will rely upon an economic base shared beyond a small elite, improved security and civil society. These, themselves, are protective factors for women’s and minority groups’ rights.

Syrian territory and the UK’s powerful friends

In territorial terms, Syria remains deeply fragmented. Though most of the country is under the control of the transitional government, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) control the North-East. Here they support the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava), which operates under a radical model of direct democracy. In the South, Israel has breached the buffer zone between Syria and the Occupied Golan Heights. Turkey occupies land to the North.

Shortly after the fall of Assad, during its incursion into the buffer zone, Israel destroyed 80% of Syria’s air defence. The UK should robustly challenge Israel here. Given Trump in the White House, the chances of impact here are even more limited than they would previously have been.

Turkey sees the situation in Syria as more than a foreign policy issue. It sees the SDF as an extension of the PKK and therefore a critical threat to its national security. Statements from Ankara tell of its frustration with the US support for the SDF, which they had hoped would be a temporary measure to fight ISIS. US support for the SDF appears stable at present. If they were to remove their forces, this would abruptly tip the balance in negotiations.

These negotiations will be crucial to Syria’s future. In the North-East of Syria humanitarian needs are huge as fighting continues. The water supply has been attacked – people face drought and poor sanitation. The region also contains most of Syria’s oil.

For Hussein Maamo, representative of the Syrian Democratic Committee in the UK, the political body representing the AANES, Turkish influence on the transitional government is concerning.

Both sides have committed to negotiations, but significant stumbling blocks remain. These include the integration of SDF fighters into the Syrian armed forces and the fate of ISIS prisoners held by the SDF.

Without an agreement and a ceasefire across the country, including in the North- East, it’s unclear how improved security and an improved economy will emerge.

With Turkey in talks with the PKK, a breakthrough there could have a positive impact on the situation in Syria. The UK should be clear in its communications with Turkey that they support a negotiated political agreement between the SDF and the transitional government.

If the UK is committed to a pluralistic and stable Syria, it should use its diplomatic influence on its allies to this end. That means pressing on Turkey to support negotiations. An escalation in the North-East will only bring more bloodshed.

It is not yet clear what will happen in Syria. What is clear is that an improved economy is an essential prerequisite for long term security. The transitional government have given some positive indications, but they still need to move towards a settlement that includes all parties.

Hussein Maamo believes that the most important thing is ‘that we have a constitution that respects the rights of all Syrians, minorities, women and children – especially children – our Syrian children have suffered so much.’