Thread by @ejbeals

Alright, wading in on Syria sanctions. This, from the US, is very welcome. Doesn’t go far enough, but it’s a good start that should help with issues such as the critical lack of gas, and the urgent need to repair electricity and water infrastructure: home.treasury.gov/news/press-rel…

The debate on Syria sanctions tends to be binary—remove or keep. More nuance is required. Syria is sanctioned from here to the end of forever, but the sanctions are different and were applied for different reasons. So what’s still relevant and what isn’t…?

1st, I don’t think anyone’s arguing sanctions on individual regime folks for atrocities committed in the war should go. CWs, bombing civilians, killing protestors, funding regime etc…should all stay, at least until criminal justice process addresses crimes and ill-gotten gains.

2nd, it’s hard to see why country sanctions should remain in their current form. The regime is gone. The work is vast. Security is vital. Rebuilding is essential, both for Syria and regional stability. You can always sanction again if things change.

If one wished to be cautious, there may be an argument for maintaining them on individual ministries or elements of the state until such time as there is clarity on a way forward and the role of the various actors in daily management. Again, nuance would be the key here.

3rd, HTS are sanctioned by UN and bilaterally (always wild to me they’re more sanctioned than the murderous regime…). Many folks have written on HTS changes since the time of the sanctions—read their work. It is its own debate and should be separate to the regime sanctions.

There may be a cautious arguement for a nuanced and conditional approach to removal—show don’t tell. But articulating the terms of that’d be helpful. Also, the arms wide open diplomatic approach of the whole world (which is good) is quite contradictory here and muddies message.

Basically, relief needs to be as broad as possible to allow urgent and essential work that helps ensure Syria’s path forward remains relatively positive, while keeping punitive arrangements on the war’s worst, and some nuance and wait-and-see on specifics if properly outlined.