Syria

Statement

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that was made fairly recently in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“My Lords, 10 days have passed since Assad’s departure. This Government welcome the fall of his cruel and barbaric regime and the opportunity that this offers for the Syrians. However, while there is some cause for celebration, fighting and violence continue across the country.

The situation in Syria has developed rapidly over the last week. In the north-east, the US-brokered ceasefire between the SDF and the pro-Turkish SNA has been temporarily extended but the situation remains highly fragile. In Damascus, HTS has appointed a Prime Minister to lead an interim Government until March 2025 but has given very little detail on the shape and focus.

This Government remain committed to the people of Syria. We support a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition process based on the principles of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. We are hopeful that anyone seeking a role in governing Syria will demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, including for women and girls; unfettered access for humanitarian aid; the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles; and combating terrorism and extremism. The United Kingdom urges the transitional Government to adhere to these principles and build a more hopeful, secure and peaceful Syria.

On Saturday, Jordan convened an Arab Foreign Ministers discussion, followed by a meeting with EU, French, UN, US and UK representatives. All involved, including the United Kingdom, reiterated their support for an inclusive political transition process. It is critical that the international community works together in a co-ordinated and complementary manner to ensure the best outcome for the Syrian people. Along with our partners, we want to see a new political process that is comprehensive, representative, inclusive and, more importantly, determined by the Syrian people themselves. We must also ensure that chemical weapons stockpiles are secured, not used, and that the transition to new governance is peaceful.

For all these reasons, it is right that the United Kingdom seeks to use all the channels available to deal with HTS, where we have to. To this end, senior officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office travelled to Damascus. They have underlined the UK’s support for the Syrian people and discussed the pathway to a more hopeful, representative and peaceful future for Syria with the new interim Syrian authorities and civil society.

During their visit, senior officials also discussed the importance of an inclusive transitional political process that protects the rights of all Syrians and prevents further instability. Of course, these words are important but they must be supported by actions. The humanitarian situation on the ground remains dire, with over 16 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria alone. That is why, on Saturday, the Government announced a new package of international aid to help the most vulnerable Syrians, including in Jordan and Lebanon, coming on top of that announced by the Prime Minister on 9 December. The United Kingdom’s £61 million in aid will help to provide emergency healthcare and nutrition, and support displaced Syrian children. We call on more of our partners to join us in committing greater humanitarian support”.

That ends the Statement. There has been a summary of developments since, but I think that is for my briefing, so I will leave it there.

My Lords, I understand the Minister’s difficulty when the Statement was given so recently in the Commons. I used to have a similar problem repeating Statements during the Brexit years, particularly if the Secretary of State would ad lib on their feet. They often varied from the Written Statements we were given to read out, so he has my sympathy. I thank him for repeating the Statement to the House.

There can be no doubt that the Syrian conflict has left a tragic and enduring scar on the region, displacing millions, destabilising neighbouring countries and drawing in international actors with competing interests. While I am sure that the whole House welcomes the end of the Assad regime, this moment must not be seen as the conclusion of our responsibility. The question now becomes one of ensuring that what follows is a stable, inclusive and prosperous future for all the Syrian people.

I note with particular interest, as mentioned in the Statement, the reports that Ann Snow, the UK’s special representative for Syria, met the leader of HTS on 17 December. Given its somewhat controversial history, to say the least, and its designation as a proscribed terrorist organisation, this development raises significant questions about the scope and intent of these engagements. Can the Minister give the House a little further detail on the nature of these discussions? Specifically, what assurances, if any, were sought of or provided by HTS regarding its commitment to a peaceful and inclusive political transition in Syria? Furthermore, what safeguards have the Government put in place to ensure that this dialogue does not inadvertently confer legitimacy on an organisation whose past actions have been far from consistent with international norms and human rights?

In light of this engagement, I urge the Government to outline their overarching priorities when entering into diplomatic contact with HTS or any other non-state actors in Syria. Is the focus purely on counterterrorism and security concerns, or is there a broader strategy to integrate these groups into a framework that aligns with international law and the aspirations of the Syrian people? We also have to consider the implications of those talks on the UK’s relationships with many of our key allies, particularly those in the region. How do the Government intend to navigate the sensitivities of such engagements, especially given the differing stances of international partners on the role of HTS in Syria’s future?

My Lords, we normally thank the Minister for advance notice and sight of a Statement. I sympathise, as I do not think he had it himself today, but I am grateful for the text. I agree with its content and the Government’s position that the future of Syria should be for the Syrian people, that there should be territorial integrity and that there should be a political process.

The reporting on the prisons and mass graves draws attention, again, to the venal barbarity of the al-Assad regime. As he sits in his multimillion-dollar apartment in Moscow, he should know, as should other facilitators of grievous crimes against humanity, that there are many—including in this House on all Benches—who believe that there should be no impunity for his horrific crimes against humanity. However, the new appointment to replace the al-Assad regime appears to be from an extremist element in Syria. I would be grateful for His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of those taking positions in the potential new regime.

The terrible scenes of the mass graves reminded me of the situation that we saw in Mosul after ISIS’s occupation. Are the Government willing to provide technical assistance around data capture and evidence building for those who fell victim to the previous regime, including what the UK did so well for those victims in Iraq—using DNA sampling to identify loved ones so that there can be decent burials, as well as evidence building for the potential prosecution of crimes?

We hope that there will be a move away from the levels of corruption of the previous regime. However, the early signs are that al-Jolani’s brother, who has been appointed as Minister for Health, and his brother-in-law, who is now in charge of a major crossing with Turkey, will see these positions as a major source of personal income and from which they can siphon off potential humanitarian assistance. What measures are in place to ensure that the welcome additional humanitarian assistance will go to the people who need it most? Can the Minister indicate whether we are assessing what mechanisms there would be for the delivery of humanitarian assistance? One option that has been suggested is that aid is best provided to localities—to the municipal level directly and to NGO communities—rather than to some of the new regime factions in office.

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and questions.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we are working very closely with all allies, not only the UN, US and EU but also all Arab Foreign Ministers, to ensure the stability and sovereignty of Syria. Of course, the situation remains incredibly fluid. We continue to monitor developments closely and we are co-ordinating that monitoring through our international partners. I reassure noble Lords about that. We remain, as the Statement said, committed to the people of Syria and to a Syrian-led, Syrian-owned political transition process based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. I reassure the noble Lord that that is what we will continue to do.

Both noble Lords addressed how we will judge that transition and the people involved in it. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, alluded to, the fact that HTS is a proscribed terrorist group does not prevent the UK engaging with it in our efforts to secure a political settlement; nor does it prevent engagement with any future transitional Government in Syria who include HTS. Its proscription will not inhibit the pursuit of our foreign policy objectives in Syria. We will be guided by a set of core principles in any diplomatic interaction with the interim Syrian authorities, with inclusion and protection of human rights being key considerations.

As I mentioned in the Statement, the information I have is that on 16 December senior officials travelled to Damascus to underline the UK’s support for the Syrian people and discuss pathways towards a more helpful and representative peaceful future for Syria, involving Syrian authorities and civil society. They discussed the importance of an inclusive transitional political process, protecting rights, and will continue to stand for the people. One of the things we have consistently underlined is the importance of protecting all civilians, including religious and ethnic minorities. We have done this publicly and in our engagement with regional and international partners.

I endorse particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said about accountability, and thank the Minister for how he has just replied to that point. He will recall that, on the day after the fall of the Assad regime, when he spoke to your Lordships’ House, I asked him specifically about the position of minorities and about the Kurds. Will he comment on the attack that was made yesterday, when several gunmen opened fire on an Orthodox church in Hama? On the situation of the Kurds themselves, as we have reached the point of maybe having negotiations and discussions and a possible settlement, will he particularly take into account that the Kurds should be fully included in any settlement? Will he comment on the role that they have played in ensuring that people who committed atrocity crimes in northern Iraq and northern Syria have been held in prisons that have been run by the Kurds? What will happen now to those prisoners? It is an issue that the Joint Committee on Human Rights raised with the previous Government and which it is returning to in this Session. I would be grateful, if the Minister cannot give a full reply to that today, if he would write to me.

I thank the noble Lord for his contributions. As I said in my opening responses, we are absolutely focused on protecting civilians, including religious and ethnic minorities. We have made that clear publicly but, more importantly, in all our conversations with groups. The noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention particularly to the religious minorities, which have been focused on, and on which we have been keen to focus. By the way, I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased that we have now appointed a Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief. I have met him, and we are working together now. This is a key area that we will be particularly focused on.

The noble Lord’s other point came up in our last Statement, and I responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on it—but at the moment I cannot find it in my notes, so I shall write to noble Lords.

My Lords, first, in recognising and welcoming the Statement, I think that the sentiments in the Statement are reflected in what we all think—but the importance is in actions. Syria is in a very fluid situation, as the Minister acknowledged. I welcome his update on which Minister attended the Aqaba meeting, which Geir Pedersen also attended, along with US Secretary of State Blinken. What were the outcomes from that meeting on specific responsibilities on who does what, and what process will be taken forward, bearing in mind the situation with warring factions and the instability in Syria, as well as the notable challenges that neighbouring countries are facing; for example, from the drugs trade in Captagon, a major challenge for neighbouring states?

On that last point, of course Captagon is a real challenge, and the Assad regime used it to fund many of its activities. Certainly, it has regional implications, and it has spread to countries in the region. Fortunately, there is no evidence that it has spread to this country, but we are acutely aware of the dangers of it in countries in regional proximity, and we are giving what assistance we can in challenging that.

The noble Lord asked specific questions about the post process. As I said at the beginning, it is very fluid—and it is clear that we need to engage a range of partners, including specific neighbourhood countries but also international multilateral institutions, as we are doing. We are also acutely aware that there are changes ahead in the new year, and we need to ensure that we have consistency of approach. We are working closely with all our colleagues and allies and all countries in the region to ensure that stability, peace and security remain at the forefront of all our efforts.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. On sanctions, I understand the fluidity of the situation—we all recognise that—but there is a prima facie case that sanctions were imposed on a regime that has now been deposed. Syria is the third most sanctioned country in the world. Can my noble friend outline the process by which we are making decisions about when and how to ease the sanctions that we impose? Of course, another feature of Syria is the number of other countries that have not just an interest but a direct military presence, particularly Israel in the south and Turkey in the north. What representations are we making to Istanbul and Tel Aviv, and the Governments in those two countries, about limiting their military interference as Syria faces such a sensitive and febrile moment?

To answer my noble friend’s latter point—again, we addressed this in the past week—we are of course aware of the presence of Israel across the Alpha line in the Golan Heights. The UN Disengagement Observer Force agreement of 1974 is important for the stability of the wider region. The Foreign Secretary discussed developments with his counterpart on 8 December, making sure that Israel honoured all those commitments under that agreement. As I said earlier in relation to north-east Syria, we have done the same with Turkey regarding honouring those commitments and sticking to the agreements.

In terms of sanctions, as I mentioned, there are 310 individuals whom this country has sanctioned who remain accountable for their crimes. We are certainly looking at ways that we can ensure that we follow them and make sure that they cannot use any assets that they get out of Syria. In fact, my objective would be to see just how those illicit funds could be followed. The important thing is that we have given, and will continue to give, aid and support to the people of Syria. When things become more stable, we will be in a position to review sanctions.

I thank the Minister for his earlier comments, which are reassuring, up to a point. I follow on from the comments of my noble friend Lord Ahmad. On Captagon, we are presented with a unique opportunity to interdict and to stop the spread of Captagon. The Minister said that it had not reached the UK, which is reassuring, but it has certainly reached mainland Europe through some Italian ports. This is a $57 billion a year industry funded by the Assad family and their wider relations, not least the Makhlouf family. Can the Minister assure us, first, that we will take a forward-leaning role in this? It has affected mainly countries in the Middle East, as he says, but the UK could play a serious part by bringing expertise to destroy this pernicious trade. Secondly, will he keep under review the sanctions list to ensure that all those involved in this trade are sanctioned?

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Let me be clear that, while we are unaware of Captagon reaching the streets of the UK, shipments have been seized in Europe, as he rightly points out. As I said before, it presents a wider threat in the region, which is why we are collaborating and working with our allies to ensure that this trade can be stopped. I hope that one positive result of the situation in Syria will be that it will be stopped. That is something to be positive about. I repeat, as I said to my noble friend, that we are committed to maintaining the sanctions that we have introduced to ensure that people are held to account for their crimes, including this illicit trade.

I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I particularly welcome what he said about the appointment of a Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and what he said about north-east Syria. Forgive me for returning to that subject, given the reassurances he has given, but the semi-autonomous region of north-east Syria is an oasis of plurality in the region, where freedom of religion or belief is respected and women take a leading role in governance. It provides an exemplar for the whole region, yet it is under significant pressure from repressive forces supported by our NATO ally, Turkey. I believe that this is an asymmetric aggression, so can the Minister please assure the House that the UK will continue, along with other NATO allies, to bring pressure to bear on Turkey to desist from its destabilising activities in the region?

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. I give him that reassurance: we are urging all sides to refrain from activity that will lead to further loss of civilian life or damage, and to avoid further destabilisation and damage in the region. Certainly, the Foreign Secretary has been talking to Turkey on this issue.

On the camps and detention centres in the area, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we continue to monitor conditions in those camps and will continue to promote security and stability and ensure that Daesh’s territorial defeat continues and that it can never resurge. As the present situation unfolds, we are working closely with partners to monitor the threat, including through our work with the global coalition against Daesh. As the Border Security Minister has said, the intelligence services are looking closely at the risk posed by terrorism and we will take all necessary action to protect the UK’s national security.

My Lords, I pick up on that point about terrorism. I cannot profess to have the same expertise as many people around the Middle East, but in 2011 to 2013, when the Syrian civil war started, we saw two immediate impacts. One was that around 1 million people left; they walked, sailed and swam across Europe. The second was that we saw a lot of those refugees based in the countries around Syria. We also saw an extremely large number of awful terrorist attacks. We particularly remember the Bataclan theatre attack. Many were instigated by ISIS within Syria and as it expanded its remit across Iraq.

Visiting Jordan at the time, we were all struck by the generosity of Jordan in looking after about 6 million refugees. It needs our support. I was told recently that about a third of the MPs in Jordan have now declared for the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a worrying and destabilising impact. What efforts are we making directly with Jordan? The Minister mentioned UN efforts, but what can we do with our friends in Jordan to help them stabilise and make sure that the children and young people who are growing up in these refugee camps have hope? Otherwise, other people will get their hope and direct them in a way that has an impact on our streets, as well as on the rest of Europe.

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We have known for a very long time the huge impact that the situation in Syria was having on neighbouring countries, particularly the influx of refugees. We have been focused on giving financial and humanitarian support, not least to ensure that that support is not simply limited to the refugees but that the local population can accommodate and support them. One of the areas we were looking at previously was education and other facilities, and ensuring that people could work and contribute to the local economy. Even the recent further £50 million was also focused on giving support to those refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, and we will continue to do that. The real focus has to be on the causes of this refugee migration crisis, and one of the biggest causes has been the situation in Syria.