Baroness Ashton of Upholland: “the way we approach foreign policy must evolve”

The legendary diplomat Baroness Ashton of Upholland surveys the aftermath of changes in Syria and has some advice for people starting out

Diplomacy is both an art and a science, requiring patience, pragmatism, and, above all, an unwavering commitment to peace. Nowhere is this more evident than in Syria—a conflict that has spanned more than a decade, reshaping the Middle East and challenging the very principles of international diplomacy. For young diplomats, Syria represents a sobering lesson in the complexities of global affairs, the limits of intervention, and the enduring necessity of dialogue.

Many of the challenges we see in Syria today stem from what I would call unfinished business. I recall my meetings in Damascus over a decade ago with President Assad, discussing the issues Syria faced and beginning the process of engaging with European and transatlantic colleagues on how to support the people’s demands for change. What followed, however, was fragmentation and disintegration. What started as calls for reform quickly descended into conflict, with factions emerging, dividing the country into battle zones. For young diplomats, one of the first lessons in dealing with a crisis like Syria is the importance of understanding the situation before drawing conclusions. As I often tell those entering this field, take your time to observe, to listen, and to analyse before determining the best path forward.

Syria is not an isolated crisis. It has significant implications for the broader Middle East. Its proximity to Lebanon, and the influence of Hezbollah, ties its stability to the interests of Iran and the wider region. The disruption of supply chains, the movement of armed groups, and the involvement of various external powers—from Russia to Turkey—make Syria not just a local conflict but a geopolitical flashpoint. If you look at where key players stand, you see a shifting balance of power: Israel, Iran, Russia, and the United States all with vested interests, all calculating their moves. But what has been missing from many discussions is the role of Europe. Where does the European Union fit into this puzzle? What should be its approach, and how can it engage constructively in the future of Syria?

One of the stark realities of diplomacy is that crises do not remain contained. The ripple effects of a conflict like Syria extend far beyond its borders. The humanitarian crisis alone has forced millions into displacement, creating a refugee crisis that has affected neighbouring countries and beyond. Terrorism, economic instability, and moral responsibility all come into play. No country can afford to turn away from Syria without consequence. The notion that problems in distant regions can be ignored is a fantasy. Eventually, they will reach all of us in some form—whether through migration, security threats, or economic ramifications.

Another key aspect missing from many conversations is the role of multilateral systems. Where is the UN in all this? What influence does the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) have in shaping Europe’s policy on Syria? And what of NATO and other international coalitions? These institutions, built to uphold international order, must find ways to remain relevant. I often describe them as tankers at sea—large, slow-moving, covered in rust and barnacles, yet vital in carrying the ideals and values that underpin global stability. In contrast, we also have the smaller, more agile coalitions that can respond rapidly to crises but often lack longevity. Diplomacy needs both—the weight and experience of established institutions and the speed and flexibility of new alliances that can address emerging challenges.

The world is changing, and with it, the way we approach foreign policy must evolve. The war in Ukraine has already demonstrated how historical alliances are being reassessed. Countries that were once reliable partners may now choose to pursue their own interests differently. We can no longer assume that the coalitions that once supported Western ideals will continue to do so unchallenged. In Syria, and in broader Middle Eastern affairs, this shift is particularly evident. Nations are recalibrating their priorities, sometimes stepping away from traditional alignments, and this requires a fresh diplomatic approach—one that acknowledges these changes and seeks to build new, effective partnerships.

For young diplomats, Syria should serve as both a warning and a call to action. It is a reminder of what happens when diplomacy fails, when divisions are allowed to fester, and when human suffering becomes secondary to political manoeuvring. But it is also an opportunity—a chance for a new generation of diplomats to engage with greater urgency, deeper understanding, and an unwavering belief in diplomacy as the most powerful tool for change.

The challenge ahead is not just about resolving the immediate crisis in Syria but about preventing future conflicts of this nature. This requires investment in diplomacy at every level, strengthening international institutions while also fostering new networks of cooperation. The task is not simple, and the timeline is long. Syria’s reconstruction, whenever it truly begins, will take generations. Trust, once broken, is not easily restored. Diplomacy is not about quick fixes but about sustained commitment. It requires perseverance, the ability to stand firm in the face of adversity, and an unwavering focus on the people whose lives depend on these efforts.

I urge those entering the field of diplomacy to see Syria not as a hopeless case but as a test of their resolve. The path to peace is always complex, but it is never impossible. Diplomacy remains the best hope for Syria and for the world. The question is whether we are willing to invest in it for the long term, knowing that the rewards may not come in months or years, but decades.