Jihadists with links to Al-Qaeda are now in charge in Syria. And a British delegation has just met with the wanted terrorist at its helm – Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani (now trying to shake off his past by calling himself Ahmed al-Sharaa). According to journalist Ibrahim Hamidi, this was “the most senior western meeting” yet.

British government meeting proscribed terrorists? Of course it is.

Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani still has a $10m bounty on his head. And Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which the UK treats as an alternative name for Al-Qaeda, remains on both the UK and US terror lists. So while the UK government is considering taking the group off its terror list to help legitimise the new Syrian regime, it would still classify itself to have just met with a terrorist.

As Declassified UK co-founder Matt Kennard reminded us:

He heads an organisation that is still proscribed in UK, which means you can be put in prison for up to 14 years for saying you support him. https://t.co/9HsXtoO7bf

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) December 16, 2024

As the UK terror list states:

The penalties for proscription offences under sections 11 and 12 are a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or a fine.

One part of section 12 says it’s an offence to:

arrange, manage or assist in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation (section 12(2)); or to address a meeting if the purpose of the address is to encourage support for, or further the activities of, a proscribed organisation (section 12(3))

Another insists it’s a crime to:

invite support for a proscribed organisation (the support invited need not be material support, such as the provision of money or other property, and can also include moral support or approval) (section 12(1))

One rule for most, another for Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani

HTS images on social media showed Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani (al-Sharaa) with senior officials, including Britain’s special Syria representative Ann Snow. The UK government has confirmed this, but claims it has some permission to engage with terror groups, including “meetings designed to encourage a designated group to engage in a peace process or facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid”.

This is likely referring to “the arrangement of ‘genuinely benign’ meetings”, which “the explanatory notes to the Terrorism Act 2000” notes as an exception.

This doesn’t make it look any better, though. Because for many, it looks like double standards. As campaign group CAGE International notes:

British officials meet with Ahmed Al-Sharaa, head of the General Command in Syria.

Countless British residents were deprived of their citizenships due to being accused of connections to HTS. Will @ukhomeoffice now restore @toxaidworker citizenship and others and refrain… https://t.co/0xhxwrrQAy

— CAGE International (@CAGEintl) December 16, 2024

UN human rights expert Francesca Albanese, meanwhile, recently emphasised the subjective nature of using the term ‘terrorism’, as opposed to recognised legal framework regarding genocide and war crimes. This means that states can use terror designations is a cynically political way (as is the case with the Kurdish-led forces that helped to defeat Daesh (Isis/Isil) but remain on the terror list). As Albanese said:

Some actions during times of conflict may be less justifiable than others, but the truth is that all war is terror. And with governments seeming to pick and choose who’s a terrorist whenever it’s convenient for them (or not), maybe it’s just time to make such designations a thing of the past once and for all.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

This post was originally published on Canary.