Amid the dizzying pace of events in Syria, a high-level gathering of Arab ministers and international organisations on Saturday in Aqaba demonstrates clearly how critical the country’s future is to the Middle East and further afield.
The Jordanian city has been the scene of many important regional summits in the past, and this time was no exception. The gathering of senior officials from eight Arab countries, followed by meetings with ministers and representatives from Turkey, the US, Britain, Germany and France – as well as the EU's foreign policy chief and the UN Special Envoy for Syria – represents one of the most comprehensive international engagements on the Syrian crisis in years.
Equally notable, however, was who was not in the room. The absence of Syrian representatives leaves a question mark hanging over the many positive positions put forward by those meeting in Aqaba. A communique released after the meeting made it clear that the Arab Ministerial Contact Committee – Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt – supported “a peaceful, inclusive Syrian political transitional process”.
The importance of “women, youth and civil society” to building a new Syria was highlighted and UN Security Council Resolution 2254 – a text adopted unanimously in 2015 that calls for a united and non-sectarian Syria, free elections and an end to violence – was endorsed as a template for progress. Owing to its absence, it is not clear that these laudable positions have the agreement of Hayat Tahrir Al Sham – the dominant section of the rebel militia coalition that is in the driving seat in Syria.
The rebels have so far insisted that they want to build a just and functioning state, and have gone to some lengths in seeking to present their credibility as an adept administration. On December 6, Chatham House said HTS had “learned from their rule in Idlib, building stable institutions and showing themselves to be savvy media and diplomatic operators”.
This may be true, but many in Syria and abroad remain rightly uneasy at the rebels’ roots in political and religious extremism. Although the Syrian governorates under HTS rule may have experienced relative stability in recent years, this has not always been on the basis of the democratic and pluralist principles outlined in Aqaba and Resolution 2254. In 2019, for example, Human Rights Watch claimed that HTS arrested scores of dissidents in Idlib, Hama and Aleppo governorates. Six former detainees told HRW that they were tortured while in the rebels’ custody.
The bone fides of those who have emerged triumphant from Syria’s civil war have yet to be truly tested. A full-throated endorsement of the Aqaba principles would be an important step towards building confidence in the new dispensation in Syria. In the medium term, it remains to be seen if HTS and others regard the latest endorsement of Resolution 2254 and its non-sectarian principles merely as a train that takes them towards international recognition, one that can be disembarked from once the rebels reach their destination.
On the contrary, there is much HTS has to gain by working in concert with the principles put forward by many of Syria’s Arab neighbours in Jordan on Saturday. Plenty of diplomatic, political and practical support in building a new Syria is required. However, there would be no swifter way to squander that goodwill by pandering to the hardliners within the rebels’ ranks who want a radical Syria, one that is far removed from the country’s rich diversity.
