X Close

Removing HTS from terrorist list would be a mistake

HTS leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani in Damascus on Sunday. Credit: Getty

December 11, 2024 - 10:00am

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime is a moment of liberation for Syrians. But his replacement by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a jihadist organisation once known as Jabhat al-Nusra, is a cause for concern for countries such as the UK. In deciding the way forward, the most immediate question is whether HTS should continue to be on Britain’s list of proscribed terrorist entities. While there are trade-offs either way, the potential costs of taking HTS off the list outweigh the benefits — at least for now.

Pat McFadden, the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, told the BBC this week that the Labour government is considering delisting HTS, with Western intelligence services judging that the group is no longer a direct threat to the UK. The current legal ban means that the British Government cannot communicate with HTS, a situation denounced by John Sawers, a former head of MI6, as “rather ridiculous”.

Sawers has a point, and undoubtedly the primary benefit of delisting HTS would be that Britain could more easily pursue efforts to shape events in Syria moving forward. States such as Turkey and Qatar will be involved in a HTS-run Syria, and their priorities are unlikely to match London’s. Britain could, for instance, make the delivery of humanitarian aid that would help HTS stabilise its regime. It could also provide reconstruction funds conditional on HTS protecting minority groups, such as Christians and Alawites, as it has promised to do. To send funds of any kind to HTS at the present time is a criminal offence.

Similarly, keeping HTS on the blacklist and moving towards a policy of isolating the regime might be counterproductive. HTS leader Ahmad al-Shara, also known as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, has given the group an extensive makeover in the last eight years. There is good reason to think this evolution is not solely a public relations gambit. For example, despite ongoing concerns, minorities have been treated very differently in HTS-ruled areas than they were under Isis. If there is no payoff for al-Shara in taking steps that make HTS less objectionable to the “international community”, it could strengthen the hand of HTS elements which always regarded this path as a betrayal.

However, the risks of a “swift” delisting are even more serious. If HTS turns to heavy-handed repression after Britain has effectively legitimised the group, it would be highly embarrassing. HTS’s main argument for acceptance is that it has abandoned transnational goals and is focused solely on Syria. Yet, under the organisation’s umbrella, there remain a number of foreign jihadist groups, whose ultimate objectives are outside Syria. To delist HTS before we have any sense of what is going to happen with such groups would be rash.

Another element is domestic: it greatly complicates counter-extremism and to some extent counter-terrorism efforts if the law is trying to suppress support for a group’s ideology when the Government is simultaneously recognising the group as a legitimate interlocutor.

The better approach for now is probably to keep HTS on the proscribed list and engage the group covertly through the intelligence services. That way, the UK can reach a clearer picture of what is being dealt with and test how amenable the group is to following through on promises relating to security and human rights. Israel is known to be following this course, and so, it seems, is the US. In this scenario, HTS would receive the political benefit of overt contact as the endpoint of engagement, not the start.


Kyle Orton is an independent terrorism analyst. He tweets at @KyleWOrton

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest


11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tyler
John Tyler
1 month ago

Leopards…spots…

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago

Remind me, what interests does Britain have in Syria?

William Amos
William Amos
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Realistically as things stand, with an effecively open border, there can be no credible distinction between foreign and domestic interests any more.
With 50,000 Syrians, 90,000 Lebanese, 20,000 Iraqis and over 100,000 Kurds living in Britain as we speak and without, seemingly, either the will or ability to regulate who else comes or goes from these Islands then our foreign policy on extremism is effectively also our domestic policy.
We legitimise Islamism at home, in our own migrant communities, if we permit its rehabilitation abroad.

D Walsh
D Walsh
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

A growing % of your population is from Syria

Mrs R
Mrs R
1 month ago

A mistake? Then they will do it for sure.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
1 month ago

If delisting as a terrorist organisation is as straightforward as Pat McFadden suggests, then re-listing should be just as straightforward.
Why hasn’t the author taken this into account? Given his fairly extensive list of the benefits to delisting, making it conditional is the obvious way forward.
Perhaps someone could point out the difficulty with this option?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

Wow. Just the opening sentence is so far off the mark. Syria (actually part of Syria) has fallen. The Assad dynasty until Obama and Clinton started messing with Syria, ran a tough but civil society. Multiple Islamic sects as well as Christians, lived in peace. Certainly not perfect. Now after years of destabilization millions of Syrians are refugees, oddly all over Europe. Likely a million Syrisns are dead. And Syria is now another victim of the Islamic war against Islam and civil society. The latest Islsmic tyrant is a showna in the image of Castro. Neat beard, pressed fatigues, promising to look after the people. The Western fools ruining their world and as much of the rest of the world as possible suck up his charisma. This author explains the rationalization process of the fools.

Paul Devlin
Paul Devlin
1 month ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Al Julani specifically addressed the ‘Islamic Nation’ (ie the Umma) rather than the Syrian nation in his speech. That indicates unreformed transnational jihadism

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
1 month ago

Mr. Orton avoids mentioning the international ramifications. Terrorism is not just a question of national law, but of international law. The UN considers HTS a terrorist organisation.
The West has never answered the question posed by the rest of the world: Is the West’s hallowed “rules-based order” in line with international law, or in opposition to international law?
A delisting by the UK would be a clear statement that our ritual invocations of rule of law are just expedient hypocrisy. As the rest of the world have always suspected.

Jonathan Walker
Jonathan Walker
1 month ago

An excellent consideration of the problem from both sides. Kyle Orton has been writing authoritatively on Syria through the civil war, and has genuine expertise as a Middle East analyst – he’s not just a journalist writing off the top of his head.

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
1 month ago

” a mistake”?.. what? Like setting fire to oneself?!!!! Somewhat more grave than a mistake?… or perhaps Starmerde and his national socialists could just declare nu britnstan an Islamic country, but his MPs would be too thick to decide whether they should be Sunni or Shia, or any other old American popular music duet…