|
Books on Syria
|
Update No: 042 - (30/04/07)
Despite Bush’s Best Efforts, Syria is not
Isolated
Even as the United States is putting pressure on the world to isolate Syria
diplomatically, there is a growing sense that the isolation rhetoric, and the
reasons given for it - from supporting Siniora’s government in Lebanon to
defending Israel- has no longer any bite. In March, the newly elected US Speaker
of the House – third in line to the president, Nancy Pelosi, and
representative Tom Lantos made a highly publicized visit to Damascus where they
met president Bashir al-Asad. Nancy Pelosi made the ‘de-rigueur’ remarks
about US concerns about fighters crossing the Iraq-Syria border “to the
determent of the Iraqi people and our soldiers,” and other thorny issues such
as Israel, the return of the captured Israeli soldiers in Lebanon and the Hariri
investigation. However, the very act of visiting Syria and meeting the president
was very important for Syria and its re-emerging diplomatic acceptance. The
visit all but signalled the end of the Western policy of isolating Syria that
took on full force after the Syrian government was named the primary suspect in
the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005.
From an internal American political perspective,
Pelosi’s visit would suggest that the isolated party is not so much Bashir al-Asad,
as it is George Bush. The Iraq Study Group (ISG) suggestions to engage Syria are
being applied, in spite of the Bush administration’s reluctance. Another
visiting American official, congressman Darrell Issa, a Republican, member of
the House Committee on Intelligence, also met president Asad, looking for ways
to improve relations between the United States and Syria. As if to highlight who
is actually being isolated, Issa was quoted as saying "It is difficult to
isolate Syria which is pivotal to finding solutions to all issues in the
region”. Outside the immediate circle at the White House, there is the sense
that Syria is being regarded more and more as part of the solution to the wider
Middle East problem, rather than part of the problem. As a further indication,
even US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice, who was once more than happy to
blame Syria for extra-national political murder and for aiding terrorism in
Iraq, is rumoured to be willing to meet Syrian affairs minister Walid Muallem at
the forthcoming Iraq conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt to discuss ways in
which Syria could help curb the violence in Iraq. For his part, Muallem has
implied in a series of meetings with western counterparts, including the
European Union foreign policy officer, Javier Solana, that Syria’s cooperation
in Iraq would be tied to American support for Syria’s efforts to peacefully
regain the Golan Heights.
Saudi Arabia’s Courtship?
Indeed, Syria’s diplomatic importance in the region has risen as Iraq
continues spiralling downward in sectarian strife, dealing a major blow to
neoconservative agendas of democratization by force and liberation wars.
Israel’s unexpected military failure in the 2006 war on Hezbollah in Lebanon,
proved to be the final blow to the policy of isolating Syria, as the
Hezbollah’s inevitable gain from this, bolstered Asad’s regional influence.
There have even been suggestions that concern over Iran’s nuclear program has
also benefited Damascus, as this has resulted in efforts to court Damascus back
into the Arab mainstream to further isolate Teheran. A clear indication of
Syria’s gradual rapprochement with the Arab mainstream, is the improvement of
relations with Saudi Arabia, which was one of the main Arab powers to back the
isolation of Syria after the murder of Rafiq Hariri (and the related suspicions
of Syrian involvement), who was a close friend of the Saudi royal family. The
Mecca agreement that led to the formation of the Palestinian government of
national unity between Hamas and Fatah was brokered by the Saudi King Abdullah,
but Damascus was crucial in pushing Hamas and Fatah to reach an agreement. Syria
was instrumental in ensuring that Hamas, whose leader Khaled Meshaal lives in
Damascus, would agree to the deal. Hamas, after all, was the legitimate winner
of the 2006 Palestinian elections and had most to lose. Syria’s exhortation of
Hamas may be considered as a move in favour of Israel and certainly as a move in
favour of a long term Middle East peace initiative. In addition, the vacuum of
Arab, Sunni, power in the Middle East left by the demise of the Ba’athist
regime in Iraq, which has tipped in favour of Iran (and the Shi’a), has forced
Saudi Arabia to improve ties with Syria. The Mecca accord was a fruitful first
step. The Arab League meeting in Riyadh last March bolstered Saudi-Syrian
relations even further. King Abdullah criticized the US invasion of Iraq and
advocated that Syria should be engaged in devising a new Iraq policy. In order
to promote greater Arab unity, also as an attempt to wrest the balance of power
in the region away from Iran, Saudi Arabia has become very active in proposing
an Arab peace initiative with Israel. Saudi Arabia, realizes that if Syria,
Palestine and Israel could reach a peace agreement – which would imply the
return of the Golan – Syria would no longer find the alliance with Iran
useful.
It might be said that not only has the United States failed to turn Syria into a
pariah, but regional powers are now vying for Syria’s favour to the benefit of
each others economy. The Saudi effort to drive a wedge between Teheran and
Damascus includes the tool of investment. One very visible example of Saudi
investment in Damascus is the Four Seasons hotel that opened in 2006 and which
is owned by the Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin-Talal. Iran has also invested in
Syrian industry, including the automobile sector, launching the Sham, an Iranian
car built in Syria. Syria also signed a free-trade agreement with Turkey and has
even received considerable investment from Lebanon in the banking sector, which
was privatised in 2005. Syria can also rely on hydrocarbon resources as a source
of revenue, and if Western companies are shy to come forward with big projects
– though some are present – India has signed a deal with Syria to explore,
produce and refine petroleum products. The state run Indian Oil and Natural Gas
Corp (ONGC) offered to assist the Syrian Petroleum Company (SPC) to increase
extraction of heavy oil through proprietary company techniques.
Despite the Diplomacy, Rumours of War Persist
The recent diplomatic initiatives have not managed to quell rumours of a
potential military confrontation between Israel and Syria next summer. Both
Syria and Israel are accusing each other of preparing for a war which might be
sparked in the wider Middle East context. The scenario would see Israel respond
to Syrian assistance to Hezbollah or other Palestinian groups leading to a
military response from Syria. In other words, Israel is envisaging a possible
renewed attack against Hezbollah, which would necessarily confront Syria
directly, unlike the war launched in the summer of 2006. In addition, despite
the conciliatory tones at the recent Arab League summit in Riyadh, where the
resumption of the peace process with Israel was widely discussed, the United
States is said to be advising Israel (or perhaps the other way around?) not to
hold talks with Syria, because these would inevitably end Syria’s
international isolation and hurt the government of Fouad Siniora in Lebanon.
Israeli analysts have suggested that Syria is already preparing for war, noting
that the Syrian army is increasing its battle readiness, while Syria has also
been acquiring more munitions and wepaons systems form Iran.
In recent years, Syria also bought anti-tank missiles from Russia, as well as
anti-aircraft missiles. Of course, the focus and purpose of any Syrian attack on
Israel would be to regain control of the Golan, as Isrealis say that Syria’s
rhetoric over the region often includes the word ‘resistance’, which Tel
Aviv interprets as a willingness to go to ‘war’.
Moreover, Israeli observers’ perception that Syria is preparing for a fight
also reflect concerns that Iran will have to be engaged, either by the United
States or by Israel itself. A pre-emptive strike by Israel against Iran,
modelled from Israel's own 1982 bomb attack on the Iraqi nuclear power plant of
Osirak, has not been excluded. In the United States, even Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that military force should be
entertained as a last resort. Ms. Clinton made the remarks to the National
Democratic Jewish Council. Syria would inevitably be drawn in a direct struggle
with Israel, should a preemptive strike be launched against Iran, given the
mutual defence agreement that Damascus has with Teheran. There is also the issue
of Syrian support for Hezbollah, which remains, as ever, a potential motive for
an Israeli strike against Syria. Israel told visiting UN secretary general, Ban
Ki-moon that Syria has been re-supplying Hezbollah with missiles through the
Syrian border, which would be a breach of the UN Resolution that ended last
summer’s war. Syria neither denied nor confirmed the accusation, but noted
that Israel surveillance aircraft themselves infringed Resolution 1701 by flying
over Lebanon.
Common Sense Says No War
So much for talk of war! It cannot be excluded that such wartalk as
described, is being used as a tool by those US and Israeli interests that seek
to raise temperatures in order to continue with Syria’s isolation. Both Syrian
and Israeli ministers have dismissed any intentions of going to war. We believe
them. Common sense says that Syria has no military answer to the IAF which
dominates the whole region. Unlike the irregular Hezbollah fighters seeking to
draw Israeli troops into the more evenly balanced arena of street fighting, the
Syrian military presents such a large conventional target for sophisticated
weaponry of a kind that military planners in these times, can only dream about.
Besides, Syria would hardly initiate hostilities when it is clearly making
progress on various diplomatic fronts, as we describe.
Israel is beset with a difficult political situation at home and after the
massive down-turn in popularity the government there sustained, after the
military disappointments of the 2006 Lebanon fighting, the last thing any
Israeli government now needs is another military adventure, particularly without
a specific ‘war-worthy’ cause. Israel is a democracy and its military is
largely a citizen army. The voters accept sacrifice for the survival of the
state of Israel, but look askance on any waste of its young peoples lives, for
lesser causes.
We are drawn to the conclusion that war, unless these circumstances radically
change, could only be a diversionary last throw by a White House humiliated
in Iraq, coercing Israel to that end. It is not unthinkable, but we have not
reached any such point yet.
« Top
|
