DAMASCUS - The mood in
Damascus was joyful as the Republican defeat in
the US congressional elections and the resignation
of defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld
were vibrating throughout political circles in the
Arab world.
Under the broad headline "The
Middle East is waiting for change", the Ba'ath
Party's official daily, Al-Ba'ath, said: "The
Iraqi war has
driven
out Rumsfeld and cut [President George
W] Bush's wings." Tishreen, another state-run daily, added: "Rumsfeld is the first
of the sinking hawks."
For
obvious reasons related to the war on Iraq, the blaming of former Lebanese premier
Rafik al-Hariri's murder on Damascus, the Syrian exodus from Lebanon, the
war on Lebanon, and the series of US-backed United Nations resolutions passed against
Syria, government and public alike were relieved to see Bush's party defeated
at the polls.
The Syrians, after all, long for a bygone era of an America ruled by the
Americans when Syrian-US relations were at their finest: "The America of Jimmy
Carter and the one of Bill Clinton," as one Ba'athist put it. This time,
however, the Democrat victory will probably not lead to a new honeymoon in
Syrian-US relations, as some Syrians imagine.
It will, however, make any new adventure by Bush, such as an attack on Iran,
close to impossible. It will also dramatically change US policy in Iraq, but is
not likely to lead to changes vis-a-vis the Palestine-Israeli conflict, or
Syrian-US relations. As one Syrian historian put it: "The Ba'ath Party has been
in power since John F Kennedy was in the White House. It looks like they will
remain in power even after George W Bush leaves it."
Indeed, the mood in Damascus is relatively relaxed as a series of international
and regional events played into the hands of the Syrian government, breaking
the isolation imposed by the US since the war on Iraq in 2003.
The war and the trial of Saddam Hussein, according to many journalists,
politicians and analysts in the West, was supposed to scare the current leaders
of the Arab world into abandoning anti-Americanism, in a manner similar to what
happened with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. It was supposed to bring down Arab
regimes
It has
had the opposite effect. Rather than stampede Arab people into demanding democratic reforms
"similar to Iraq", Iraq scared the Arab masses saw a frightening new
world of sectarianism, Islamic fundamentalism and, ultimately, US-engineered -
or tolerated - chaos.
All Arab governments had to do when questioned about democratization was point
to Iraq and tell their people: "Look what happens when the Americans come!"
American journalists visiting Syria in January, during the Iraqi elections,
often asked me to what extent this "democratization" and "free elections" were
affecting the Syrians? The reply was: zero. Nobody was inspired by Iraq.
But Syrians have been inspired by the Democrat victory in the US. They are
saying: "We were right all along. We opposed this war - and paid the price for
our stance in 2003. This is sweet revenge." After all, Washington had requested
that foreign ministers and heads of state boycott Damascus since 2005. (The
only US-allied leader to defy this ban has been Turkish President Ahmed Necdet
Sezer.)
The Americans passed the Syria Accountability Act, imposed
sanctions on Damascus, and some in the US administration went so far as
to contemplate regime change in Syria. Syria's joy comes from a clear European
decision to re-engage Syria to solve some of the crucial problems in the Middle
East. A rising chorus in the United States and Europe had emerged during the
July-August war in Lebanon, where many claimed that the only solution to the
arms of Hezbollah was a deal between Syria and both Europe and the United
States.
It
was believed that Syria could be given incentives to abandon Hezbollah or, at
least, persuade it to disarm and moderate its policies, in exchange for re-engaging
Syria in the international community, jump-starting talks on the occupied
Golan Heights, repealing the Syria Accountability Act, and breaking Syria's
isolation. One of the ideas put forward by Germany was to sign the European Union
partnership agreement with Damascus.
Among those loudly lobbying for dialogue with Syria were veteran journalist
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, Syria expert at Oklahoma University
Joshua Landis, Professor David Lesch, who is a biographer of President Bashar
al-Assad, former US secretary of state Warren Christopher, and respected Israeli
diplomat and historian Itamar Rabinovich.
Edward Luttwak, historian and former advisor to a US secretary of defense and
to the State Department, wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on
July 25 titled "Come back Bashar", echoing the call for the US to engage in
dialogue with Syria. Yet another article appeared in the conservative National
Review, written by James Robbins, called "Let's be friends with Syria".
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, the former EU envoy to
the Middle East, visited Damascus on August 3 and met with Assad. He said
Syria was willing to play "a positive role" in bringing the war in Lebanon to a
halt. More recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: "We can't deny that
Syria is a main player in the region."
Her Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier was supposed to visit
Damascus this summer, but canceled his trip after a speech made by Assad, which
was considered provocative by the West because it praised the victory of
Hezbollah in Lebanon. The German minister did send Horst Freitag, the Foreign
Ministry's Middle East director, to meet with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid
al-Moualim.
Meanwhile, the foreign minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Stoere, went to Damascus
and met with Syrian officials, saying: "Syria is a neighbor to many of the most
urgent issues that need to be solved in the region." He was making it clear:
Syria cannot be side-stepped if any solutions are to be found with regard to
the problems of the Middle East. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair resumed
talks with the Syrians, which had been suspended since the Iraq war in March
2003, sending his special envoy, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, to meet with Assad on
October 30 in Damascus.
According to the outlawed Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, in a statement published
on their website Levant News, Blair's man went to Syria to offer the Syrians a
deal: dropping Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for return of the Golan Heights.
Others claim that it was an offer to Syria to end its alliance with Iran.
Still, some Israeli commentators said that he carried with him a proposal from
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, saying that Israel was ready for peace with
Syria.
But even if this is true, Syria is not ready, given the
atrocities committed recently in Gaza, where 80 people were killed and another 200 were
wounded. The latest Israeli massacre in Beit Hanoun on Wednesday only added
tension to Syria's stance vis-a-vis Israel, so all talk about a trade-off
between the two countries at this stage, sponsored by the West, is navigating in fantasy.
Why has the world suddenly fallen in love with Damascus? Is this not the same
country the Americans tried to marginalize after the Iraq war? Is this not the
same country that was accused of harboring Saddam's henchmen, facilitating the
entry of jihadis into Iraq, arming Hezbollah and killing Hariri?
One reason for the renewed acceptance of Syria is that it was unjustly isolated
and punished for its anti-American stance during the Iraq war. This stance,
apparently, proved to be correct. Another reason is that the world realized
that only Syria could get Hamas to moderate its stance in Palestine, and do the
same with Hezbollah in south Lebanon.
The world faces one of two options: continuing to live with a hardline Hamas in
Palestine, and a no-compromise Hezbollah in Lebanon, or talking to Syria.
Neither option is appealing. It is difficult for the Americans to admit that
isolating Syria has not weakened the Syrian regime. As Friedman wrote, "The US
boycott of Syria is not intimidating Damascus."
Veteran British journalist Patrick Seale wrote similar things this week: "The
Syrians speak with greater confidence these days. As seen from Damascus, the
country has survived intense American and international pressure for two
dangerous years, 2003-2005. Syrian officials say they narrowly escaped an
American armed attack immediately following the invasion of Iraq. Had the Iraqi
insurgency not checked American belligerence, they believe they would have been
the next target."
In an op-ed in the Washington Post during the recent war in Lebanon, former US
secretary of state Warren Christopher best described the situation by recalling
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to the Middle East, saying that
it was "wrongly focused diplomacy" because she did not prioritize an immediate
ceasefire to the war in Lebanon, preferring instead a permanent and sustainable
solution to the root of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.
This solution, Christopher argued, was not achievable at this stage, and
rather than speak of long-term objectives, Rice should have concentrated on a halt
to hostilities, with the help of Syria. He recalled how twice during his tenure
as secretary of state, once in June 1993 when Israel responded to
Hezbollah attacks with "operation accountability", and the other in April 1996
when Israel launched "Grapes of Wrath" into Lebanon - he had asked for
the assistance of then Syrian president Hafez al-Assad.
"We never knew exactly what the Syrians did, but clearly Hezbollah responded to
their direction," he recalled.
That is exactly what the Europeans want from Syria today. They do not know
exactly what the Syrians will do, but they know that Syria can influence
radicals in the Middle East.
The West wants Syria, in Christopher's words, to "do something".
