Syrian-British Relations: Towards a Strategic Partnership in the New Syria

Introduction

Syrian-British relations cannot be understood in isolation from their volatile geopolitical context, which has made Syria a battleground for international power struggles, with Britain sometimes acting as a quiet player and other times as a catalyst for transformation.

Today, in light of the profound changes Syria is experiencing under President Ahmad al-Shara’s government, a historic opportunity emerges to redefine this relationship—not as a continuation of the ambiguous pages of the past, but as a strategic partnership built on the foundations of justice, democracy, and mutual interests.

Historical Roots

Britain was not merely a bystander to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, but a key player in shaping the map of the Arab East. The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence (1915-1916) was just one part of a long-term strategy to ensure indirect dominance over the region, culminating in the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), which handed Syria over to French mandate, while Britain maintained a network of security and economic influence in southern Syria, particularly in Hauran and Sweida, through alliances with local leaders.

With the onset of the Cold War, Syria became a battleground for rivalry between the two superpowers. Britain, in a modest partnership with the United States, tried to contain the communist tide by supporting military coups and funding political elites. However, the rise of Arab nationalism, and the Ba’ath Party’s ascension to power (1963), turned Syria into a strategic ally of the Eastern bloc, prompting Britain to compensate for its geopolitical loss by strengthening its influence in Jordan and Lebanon.

Hafez al-Assad adopted a nuanced policy toward the West, marked by limited security cooperation on issues like Lebanon and intermittent dialogue with Europe, while Britain remained in the shadows, waiting for its opportunity behind French-German understandings. As a result, London never became an overt adversary to Damascus, yet it maintained a critical distance from the regime’s policies, especially after the assassination of Rafik Hariri (2005), which turned relations into open diplomatic tension.

With the eruption of the Syrian revolution (2011), Britain chose to side with the popular movement, considering the Assad regime no longer capable of representing the Syrian people. London became a diplomatic platform for the opposition and a center for shaping European decision-making in support of sanctions on the regime.

In this context, Britain was not merely a secondary supporter, but a partner in shaping the international narrative that saw Syria as a battleground between dictatorship and terrorism on one side, and the values of democracy on the other.

Syria’s New Future and the Government of Al-Shara: Why Should London Pay Attention?

The formation of President Ahmad al-Shara’s government, as the first civilian government established outside the framework of the previous regime, presents Britain with both a challenge and an opportunity:

• The Challenge: How should London rearrange its priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially with the growing influence of Russia and Iran, and the diminishing Syrian file on the international agenda?
• The Opportunity: How can Britain capitalize on the “new Syrian model” to strengthen its position as a mediating power between Europe and the Arab world?

To address this, three strategic axes can be proposed:

1. Political–Security Axis:
2. This involves asking Britain to take on the role of an international guarantor for the transitional phase through the United Nations Security Council. Additionally, Britain’s expertise in countering extremism can be leveraged to help build professional Syrian security forces, away from the culture of repression.
3. Economic–Development Axis:
4. This involves including Syria in Britain’s “reconstruction projects” in the Middle East, with investments in the energy and education sectors, and linking it with major British companies. It also calls for activating the role of the Syrian–British community as a bridge for investment and knowledge exchange.
5. Cultural–Value Axis:
6. This is significant through the launch of partnerships with universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, and London to rehabilitate Syrian personnel, as well as adopting transitional justice programs inspired by the South African model, with British technical and legal support.

Yes, the upcoming visit of President Al-Shara to Britain cannot be reduced to its protocol aspect, as it is a key moment to test the intentions of both parties. From Syria’s side, success requires presenting a clear vision for the civil state project, along with ready-to-implement files (economy, transitional justice, decentralization).

From Britain’s side, it requires moving beyond the logic of “waiting and watching” to tangible support, such as gradually lifting sanctions and financing direct relief projects.

Conclusion and Vision:

Rebuilding Syrian-British relations is not a secondary choice in light of a new global order where crisis alliances are rapidly forming. We believe it is an investment in regional stability that serves the interests of both parties.

Britain, with its soft power and institutional expertise, could be a decisive partner in transforming Syria from a failed state into a model of civil statehood in the Middle East. As for the Syrians, they must now present a clear vision that proves “the new Syria” is not just a revolutionary slogan, but a practical project based on partnership, not begging.

Thus, we propose that Syrian-British relations move to practical reality through a golden trilogy of recommendations:

1. Form a “Friends of Syria” alliance within the British Parliament.
2. Launch a Syrian-British dialogue platform on transitional justice.
3. Host an international London conference to support reconstruction, ensuring transparency in funding projects.

Finally, history teaches lessons, but the future is made by the will of politicians. The question now, as we see the new Syria opening up to the civilized West, is whether Britain will choose to be on the side of history or in the camp of hesitation?

Dr. Zaher Baadarani

Presidency office

Article

Syrian Future Movement