‘Syrians don’t see themselves as divided along sectarian lines’ – expert

Foreign ministers from the Middle East, Europe and the US have been meeting today in Jordan to try to hammer out a united approach to diplomacy with the Islamist rebel forces now in charge in Syria.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his Turkish counterpart were both at the summit. Turkish-backed rebels in the north of Syria have already clashed with US-backed Kurdish forces who control some of the country’s largest oil fields.

Speaking after the meeting, Mr Blinken said the US was determined to help Syrians live up to the promise of this moment, and confirmed that the US has already been in contact with the HTS rebels.

We spoke to Dr Lina Khatib, director of the Middle East Institute at London University.

Lina Khatib: The first thing they have to remember is that despite all this diversity that you mentioned, Syrians don’t see themselves as divided along sectarian lines. This is not quite the same dynamic as, for example, Lebanon or even Iraq. Syria has not had the same kind of sectarian divisions.

Alex Thomson: What an achievement of Assad.

Lina Khatib: Yes, the fault lines are more political than anything else. And right now, the key fault lines lie between the majority of Syria and the part where Kurdish forces exist and there’s a Kurdish community. But this is not something insurmountable, frankly.

Alex Thomson: Well, we hope. Let’s go to the money. Follow the money. Clearly, these people who’ve taken over the country, they’re going to listen to the people who put them up to it, who supplied and who armed them. Tell us who they are, and where that influence is going to lie.

Lina Khatib: Again, the key thing to remember when it comes to what’s happening now is that the Syrians have a lot of agency. I think the best way to imagine what’s happening is not to imagine a pyramid where the change is directed from the top by one superpower or more and then trickling down, but more of a puzzle with the different pieces being all there together with the Syrians forming a huge, important part of the puzzle. This means that despite the presence and influence of foreign backers, everyone from Gulf countries to the United States to Turkey has been involved one way or another with various Syrian opposition groups that are now influential. However, we shouldn’t think that the solution to the transition lies purely outside Syria.

Alex Thomson: Indeed, you’ve given me a slight sense of optimism here, I must say. One thinks of the previous histories. Recently we’ve had Libya, not good. We’ve had Iraq, also not good at all. Clear concern that Syria could go the same way.

Lina Khatib: People who say that forget that in the last 14 years or so, Syria already went down the line of Libya and Iraq in terms of having a really devastating war, in terms of having militias fight one another. In fact, Syria is the only country from the Arab Spring countries that has made a comeback from the setback. And so we should use different frameworks to understand Syria and also look at the specificities of Syria. It is not quite the same as Libya or Iraq. Syria is Syria.

Alex Thomson: We must talk Russia. It’s been a bad few days for the Russian dictator, hasn’t it? Potential loss of bases, the airbase, the naval base in the northwest.

Lina Khatib: I wouldn’t be so confident about calling this a devastating defeat for Russia.

Alex Thomson: I didn’t say that, I just said bad news.

Lina Khatib: A lot of people are beginning to hail the loss of Syria for Russia. What’s happening now is a drawdown, meaning Russia is removing most of its military troops from different areas in Syria, like Damascus or the north, and moving them to these bases that you just mentioned. There is currently no indication that Russia is going to abandon those bases. We have to remember that Russia actually has cordial relations, so far, with the new rulers of Syria. So it’s not a total loss of Russia. It has definitely banked on the Assad regime that has fallen, but it has recalibrated its strategy for long term influence.