In recent years, the re-engagement of Syria with the international community has been a topic of considerable debate. Following over a decade of civil war, widespread human rights abuses, and the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on opposition forces, many countries had severed ties with Syria, leaving the country diplomatically isolated. However, the tide seems to be turning. Dignitaries from across the globe, including those from Arab nations, Russia, and even the West, have started to meet with Syria’s new rulers, signaling a shift toward normalization of relations. But is this a pragmatic move to end Syria’s isolation, or does it represent a moral compromise that overlooks the Assad regime’s atrocities?
Shadi Hamid, a prominent political analyst and scholar at the Brookings Institution, has weighed in on this issue, offering his insights into what these diplomatic shifts mean for the region and the broader international community. His views shed light on the complex intersection of geopolitics, ethics, and realpolitik.
The Pragmatic Case for Engagement
For Hamid, the practical reasons for meeting with Syria’s new rulers are hard to ignore. Syria, under Bashar al-Assad, has been a pivotal player in Middle Eastern geopolitics for decades. Despite the severe costs of the civil war—estimated to have killed over half a million people and displaced millions—Assad remains firmly in power. His regime has not only survived the chaos of war but has emerged with the backing of key international players like Russia and Iran, both of whom have played crucial roles in sustaining his rule.
Hamid argues that, given the geopolitical reality, engaging with Syria’s leadership may be the most pragmatic option. After all, as the West has seen with its policies towards Iran, diplomacy is often the only avenue for securing regional stability. By re-engaging with Syria, countries may be seeking to reassert influence in a country that has been a significant player in regional dynamics, particularly in relation to the ongoing crises in Lebanon, Iraq, and even Yemen.
Additionally, Hamid notes that the global context has shifted. The U.S. and Europe’s initial attempt to isolate Syria after the 2011 uprisings and subsequent chemical weapons attacks has failed to oust Assad. The rising power of Russia and China, both of whom have consistently backed the Syrian government, has made the diplomatic landscape more competitive. As these powers expand their influence in the Middle East, Western and Arab countries may feel the need to recalibrate their approach to Syria to avoid being left out of the region’s new order.
The Moral Quandary of Normalizing Assad
While Hamid acknowledges the practical reasons behind re-engagement, he also emphasizes the significant moral concerns that such diplomacy raises. The Assad regime has been accused of committing war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations, targeting hospitals, and conducting systematic torture of political prisoners. The devastation of Aleppo, the chemical attack in Ghouta, and the ongoing suffering of millions of displaced Syrians are painful reminders of the human costs of the Syrian conflict.
For critics, the normalization of Assad’s regime is seen as an endorsement of these atrocities. Meeting with Assad and his officials, some argue, risks sending a message that the international community is willing to overlook or even accept the brutal methods used by the Syrian government to maintain its hold on power. These diplomatic gestures can be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the democratic and opposition forces that have fought for a better future for Syria.
Hamid is acutely aware of this dilemma. He notes that the challenge of balancing realpolitik with human rights concerns is not new, and it’s a central theme in international relations. The question is whether stability and pragmatic diplomacy can justify turning a blind eye to the atrocities that have been committed under Assad’s watch.
A New Middle Eastern Realignment?
One of the more interesting aspects of Shadi’s analysis is his discussion of the broader regional realignment that could result from Syria’s re-engagement with the international community. As countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have moved to restore diplomatic ties with Syria, there is a clear sign that the Arab world is shifting its priorities.
This shift is largely driven by a desire to stabilize the region, particularly in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, which led to the rise of instability, extremism, and humanitarian crises across the region. The UAE, in particular, has championed a policy of pragmatism in its foreign relations, often advocating for a strategy of engagement with governments it once viewed as adversaries. This has included efforts to engage with Iran, Turkey, and, now, Syria.
The re-admission of Syria into the Arab League, a step which many had once thought impossible, signals the beginning of a new phase in Middle Eastern diplomacy. This realignment, Hamid suggests, might reflect a regional consensus that the long-term instability in Syria cannot be addressed through isolation, and that engagement, however controversial, may offer a path to peace.
The Future of Syria and the Role of the International Community
Looking ahead, Hamid contends that the path forward for Syria will remain a challenging one. While diplomacy may bring short-term stability, it will not solve the deeper structural issues within the country, including the need for political reform, justice for victims of the regime, and the return of refugees.
For the international community, the decision to engage with Syria’s rulers is not one that can be made lightly. It requires a careful balancing act between pragmatic diplomacy, regional stability, and a commitment to human rights. However, as Hamid points out, the Middle East has always been a region where moral compromises are often made in pursuit of larger strategic objectives.
The question that remains is whether these diplomatic engagements with Assad will lead to any meaningful change or whether they will simply perpetuate the status quo, locking Syria into a future of authoritarian rule, political repression, and regional instability. The international community may have to reckon with the uncomfortable truth that, in some cases, the pursuit of peace may come at the expense of justice.
Shadi Hamid’s analysis underscores the complexity of engaging with Syria’s new rulers. While there are compelling geopolitical reasons for this re-engagement, the moral questions cannot be easily dismissed. As the world moves forward, it will have to decide whether it can reconcile its strategic interests with its commitment to human rights and democratic values. In the case of Syria, the answer may not be clear-cut, and the road ahead will likely be fraught with difficult decisions.