Government of Syria: Freedom of Expression, Religion and Belief

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the new government of Syria’s commitment to freedom of expression, religion and belief.

My Lords, the interim Syrian President has stated that he will form a transitional Government who are representative of Syria’s diversity and has pledged to protect religious groups. We are monitoring how the interim authorities treat all civilians in areas they control. We will judge them by their actions. We will continue to advocate for the right of freedom of religion or belief in Syria and for a political transition leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful and helpful reply. While accepting that the new rulers in Damascus have taken steps to reassure some minorities of the desire to create an open society, how do our Government intend to monitor the actual situation? How do they intend to verify whether assurances are followed up, bearing in mind the intense disquiet felt in some groups, such as the Christian churches, about increasing Islamisation, particularly as it bears on women, and the creation of an environment unwelcoming to minorities?

I said last week that we have a special envoy who has visited Syria. We are in close contact with the interim authorities. We are working closely with our allies in the region and we are carefully monitoring the situation. As I said, we are judging them by their actions, not simply on their words. We are concerned by reports of attacks on minorities, including Christians, and attempts to stoke sectarian tensions. We are monitoring the situation extremely closely.

Does my noble friend agree that it is early days and that the point is currently in both directions? Would he agree that one potentially positive sign is that Turkey, our good ally, has close relations with the new regime? Should we not therefore be ready to encourage Turkey to play a positive role in influencing the new regime in these areas?

My noble friend makes a good point. We are concerned by increased tensions in northern Syria and the impact that this may have on civilians and stability in the region. Turkey has been playing a critical role there and we have been in regular contact with it, as well as with Syrian democratic forces. Our priority across the board is de-escalation.

My Lords, security and prosperity are vital in Syria. What action is being taken with others to try to halt the spread of revenge attacks? The EU has lifted some economic sanctions. We have always said—and the Minister has always said—that sanctions are more effective if we act together. Why have we not done likewise?

On the latter point, we are reviewing both actions and the Prime Minister has made that clear in the other place. As the noble Baroness knows, we do not comment on future designations or de-designations. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear on that. I think she is right that there are forces within Syria that may stoke sectarian violence and instability. As my noble friend raised, we are trying to work with allies, across the board, to ensure that there is de-escalation, and to take the interim authority at its word and make sure that we monitor it on a regular basis. The noble Baroness is right to point this out.

My Lords, as a former ambassador to Syria, I speak in support of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton. I spent three years as ambassador in Damascus, in the dying days of President Assad, and I saw that regime first hand. His son’s regime was no better. In answer to an Oral Question last Thursday, the Minister described the present time as a

“critical but fragile moment for Syria”.—[Official Report, 6/2/25; col. 803.]

Indeed so; Syria could fold up and the regime would be widely affected. Does the Minister accept that there is a real risk of a backlash against western involvement in Syria, and, accordingly, that we need to be firm but careful about what we say in public and how we say it?

I have been diplomatic in response to the Questions we have had last week and this week. We should not take immediate decisions but rather focus on the interim authorities and their words, which we should ensure they keep to. We are monitoring that situation closely. As I said, we have an envoy for Syria, who is doing excellent work—I think she is engaged with parliamentarians here. The noble Lord is right to suggest caution, but we have some reason to be optimistic for the future for Syria. We must not forget what Syria went through under the Assad regime, during which horrendous crimes were committed.

My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend about the consequences of the withdrawal of 2,000 US troops from Syria, who were working with Syrian Kurdish forces, in particular to contain some 9,000 ISIS—Islamic State—fighters in prison camps. There is a danger of those fighters breaking out and not just damaging religious tolerance but imposing their reign of terror on the whole region.

To reiterate what I said last week, the first duty of every Government is to protect its citizens, and we are certainly cognisant of that in relation to those camps. The United Kingdom notes the decision of the US to pause foreign aid funding for three months pending a review; that is a matter for the United States. As I say, we are working with our allies to ensure that there is stability in Syria and that Daesh’s territorial defeat endures and that it can never, ever resurge. We are working closely with US colleagues and humanitarian partners to understand and assess the impact of the pause, but we are fairly confident that there will be continued support for the IDP camps in the north.

My Lords, on Wednesday, will the Minister carefully follow the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as it continues its inquiry into the failure to bring to justice members of ISIS who were responsible for genocidal crimes against Yazidis, Christians, gay people, and other minorities in Syria and Iraq? In Raqqa alone, the headquarters of ISIS, the number of Christians was reduced from 11,000 to 100, and throughout Syria 80% of that community has disappeared. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has just said about the thousands of people who are still in the camps, can the Minister say what is being done to bring to justice British nationals in those camps who are members of ISIS and responsible for many of these crimes?

I follow the work of the committee and I congratulate the noble Lord on his chairmanship. One thing he knows we have been absolutely committed to is accountability, not just for ISIS but for the crimes committed by the former Assad regime. We have given practical support to NGOs and INGOs, to ensure that we can gather credible evidence and hold these people to account for the crimes that they committed. This year alone, we have committed £1.15 million to accountability and documentation-related programmes. We will continue to work with our international partners and civil society to advocate for the UN charter and support mechanisms to ensure full compliance with it.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the stability and future of Syria are in the interests of not just the Middle East but the entire region? Does he accept that we must avoid repeating mistakes made in earlier experiences in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and learn the lessons? The most important lesson is that any process on the road to stability and a plural democracy should be led by Syrians and supported by the international community, and not the other way round, and especially not by those who supported the murderous Assad regime over the years.