UK takes cautious view as G7 seeks Syrian talks framework

Live updates: Follow the latest on Syria

A second discussion in as many days among G7 leaders has set out guidelines for the bloc's involvement in the Syrian transition following the overthrow of Bashar Al Assad's government in Damascus a week ago.

The meeting embraced the change taking place in Damascus, according to a statement on Friday from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's office that stressed the need for all Syrians to be part of the next government.

“All leaders agreed that Syria’s territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty must be respected throughout the transition process and in future,” Downing St said.

A day earlier, a closed doors lunchtime ceremony in Whitehall marked the departure of Mr Starmer's national security adviser Tim Barrow after the return to government of veteran power broker Jonathan Powell, who served as Tony Blair's chief of staff between 1997 and 2007.

Syria represents the first immediate challenge for Mr Powell in the adviser post and officials say that his advice will be central to the approach Mr Starmer will take into the crisis.

After more than a decade of isolating the Syrian regime, the G7 group has a conundrum to resolve after the push to overthrow Mr Al Assad was led by Hayat Tahrir Al Sham, which is proscribed by the US, UN and UK as a terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda. Having declared a three month transition in Syria, HTS is now a determining force in Syria's future.

The G7 leaders said on Friday they were keen to play a role in how the new government takes shape, with Mr Starmer saying the process needed careful handling. “Discussing the unfolding situation in Syria, the Prime Minister said that the fall of Assad’s brutal regime should be welcomed, but we must be cautious about what comes next,” the statement said. “The priority should be the safety of the Syrian people while supporting a political transition which leads to credible, inclusive, and nonsectarian governance on behalf of all Syrians.”

Nicholas Hopton, a former UK ambassador and head of London's Middle East Association, told The National there were advantages for the UK in working with countries that had been consistent in opposing the regime while the current groups in control were fighting it.

“The kind of approach we will be taking will be staying in good company, working with our closest allies and staying in lock step,” he said. “There will be G7 co-ordination to try to stay moving forward at the same speed and to re-engage in similar ways and in similar time frames.”

John Sawers, a former head of MI6, the UK's foreign intelligence service, noted this week that Ahmad Al Shara, the leader of HTS, had distanced the group from Al Qaeda in 2016. He claimed that its actions over the last two weeks had been more of a liberation movement than a terrorist organisation.

“If the new set-up is stabilising things and behaving in a reasonable way then recognition may happen soon or later,” said Mr Hopton.

Mr Sawers said a review should reflect the fact that it would be “ridiculous” to be held back by a move to proscribe the now victorious group more 12 years before.

Mr Powell may well have the same outlook, having told interviewers after he published a book Talking to Terrorists a decade ago that the UK should talk to ISIS, another Islamist extremist offshoot. His return to government has coincided with the dilemma over HTS.

Officials say the 2010 Terrorism Act provides for engagement in areas where radical groups may be operating but the humanitarian or other considerations are grave. The UK has not followed Qatar or Turkey in announcing a reopening of the embassy but it has Ann Snow, UK special representative for Syria, in place.

Western diplomatic sources expect Mr Powell to drive a policy of engagement even as proscription of HTS is reviewed. “He will do as much as anyone to determine what position the British government takes on re-engagement in Syria,” one former diplomat said. “On the question of proscription, he will be as well placed as anyone to judge how far you can go in engaging a prescribed organisation that has taken over.

“At what point do you take them at face value if they say they are no longer affiliated with Al Qaeda as has been said since 2016.

“Keir Starmer has put it quite well, no doubt on advice, what matters is how they behave now. That's what we should judge them on.”

After an emergency meeting on Thursday, Defence Secretary John Healey pushed back on questions of a quick move to delist HTS. By ensuring that was “not a matter for now” he said London could better focus on the transition in Damascus.

“It doesn’t stop us talking to all the parties, and our interest in HTS is that they live up to their promises to protect the rights of all individuals and all groups, to respect international law and to prevent Syria becoming a base for a fresh terrorist threat,” he said.

Mr Healey said that Thursday’s meeting was “about making sure we have, as a government, a laser focus on the role that we can play with allies to see a stable, peaceful transition.

“So that the Syrians get the government they need for the future, and the region can see the stability in the future that it also needs.”

“The most important thing for us now is that the UK plays and will continue to play a full role with allies to see a stable, peaceful, orderly transition and that requires a political process.”

For Mr Starmer's team, the timeline of the Syrian civil war poses other challenges. Downing Street was forced to insist on Friday the government’s position on Syria was not undermined by events in 2013 when the British parliament voted against UK military action in the country.

A rejection of retaliation against regime use of chemical weapons in London led to US president Barack Obama pulling back. Ed Miliband, the then Labour party leader now a cabinet minister, was forced to defend leading the rebuff on Friday. “I welcome the fall of a brutal dictator, but I think the view that some people seem to be expressing about history is just wrong,” Mr Miliband said.

He added the question at the time was not “was Assad a brutal dictator?” but rather whether British military intervention was “the right thing to do”.

“But there was no plan for what this British involvement would mean, where it would lead, and what the consequences would be. I believe that in the light of the Iraq war, we could never send British troops back into combat unless we were absolutely clear about what a plan was, including what an exit strategy was.

“We didn’t know what we were going to get drawn into,” he said.