Is UN Resolution 2254 still relevant in a post-Assad Syria?

The resolution calls for a ceasefire, free elections under UN supervision, and an inclusive, Syrian-led political transition.

Syrian opposition fighters at the Hama military airport. AP

Live updates: Follow the latest on Syria

With Syria charting a new course for a future without president Bashar Al Assad, international attention is returning to a UN Security Council resolution written nearly a decade ago that envisioned an end to the civil war.

Diplomats are revisiting Resolution 2254 to see how much of the 2015 text is still applicable to the new realities facing Syria today.

Geir Pedersen, the UN's special envoy for Syria, on Tuesday insisted that the document – which called for a ceasefire, free elections under UN supervision and an inclusive, Syrian-led political transition – remains relevant.

“It is now nine years since Resolution [2254] was adopted, and the reality so far is that [rebel group Hayat Tahrir Al Sham] and also other armed groups have been sending good messages to the Syrian people,” he said. “There is a real opportunity for change, but this opportunity needs to be grasped by the Syrians themselves and supported by the UN and the international community.”

The resolution demands an end to attacks on civilians and the delivery of humanitarian aid. It mandates constitutional reform and the establishment of credible governance. It emphasises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria while urging parties to engage in UN-mediated peace talks. It also affirms that the International Syria Support Group, which includes major global and regional powers, plays a key role in the peace process.

But the UN's role in Syria's political transition remains uncertain as the international community struggles with the rapid pace of developments, said Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group.

“I do not think it is clear what role the UN will have in assisting the Syrian transition yet,” he told The National. “Everyone, including Security Council diplomats, has been surprised by the speed of events and is trying to work out what comes next.”

Despite the uncertainty, Mr Gowan said discussions during recent Security Council consultations on Monday evening indicated broad agreement, including from Russia, that an inclusive political process and elections in Syria are still valid.

“It is easier for Council members to stick with the basic principles of 2254 than come up with an entirely new plan for a UN role in Syria. I guess the question is whether the new powers in Syria will see respecting 2254 as a pathway to securing international legitimacy,” Mr Gowan said.

Ahmad Al Shara, the leader of Hayat Tahrir Al Sham, which ousted Syrian president Bashar Al Assad, has outlined a vision of a pluralistic Syria governed by civil institutions. But many countries are exercising a cautious approach to see if its actions match its words.

Mr Al Assad's removal marks the end of a 14-year civil war that left Syria fractured along ethnic and religious lines. The country’s multi-faith, multi-ethnic fabric – Sunni Muslims, Shiite Alawites, Christians and ethnic Kurds – now faces a fragile transition. Decades of divide-and-conquer tactics deepened communal divisions in Syria, leaving a legacy of mistrust.

“There is a real opportunity for change, but this opportunity needs to be grasped by the Syrians themselves and supported by the UN and the international community,” Mr Pedersen said.

Joshua Landis, head of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and a leading expert on Syria, told The National that Resolution 2254 would complicate the lifting of sanctions and the US return of the country's oil and gas wells “as it requires a democratic transition and elections overseen by the UN”.

“Returning democracy to Syria will be a long and difficult process,” Mr Landis said. “It should be mentioned that democracy promotion has largely been promoted most vigorously on the enemies of the United States.”

“Much will depend on how the new government behaves towards the US and the Kurdish-led enclave in north-east Syria."

Mohamad Bazzi, director of the Kevorkian Centre for Near Eastern Studies at New York University, said aspects of Resolution 2254's goals have evolved with the situation in Syria and some elements are no longer applicable. For instance, the resolution had called for a political process involving the Assad government and opposition groups.

“The rebel factions no longer need to negotiate with the Assad regime, they no longer need to negotiate a transfer of power or kind of a mechanism for the Assad regime to leave, and that was something he always resisted that we saw for years,” Mr Bazzi told The National.

He added that while some parts of the resolution may no longer apply, others remain critical.

“Elements such as establishing an inclusive, non-sectarian government, setting a timeline, and creating a process for drafting a new constitution are still relevant,” Mr Bazzi said.

He cautioned against leaving key decisions solely to armed groups such as HTS, saying: “That’s a recipe for problems down the line.”