DAMASCUS - "Syria is ready for dialogue
with the United States to achieve security and
stability, and extends its hands sincerely as
always waiting for a response. The ball is in
their court."
These were the words of
Syria's official daily newspaper Tishreen on
Tuesday. This is forgotten talk in Damascus. It's
the loudest indicator toward the US since
relations with Washington plummeted because of the
war on Iraq in March 2003 and have
been
deteriorating ever since.
The change is
due mostly as a response to increased calls
by prominent Americans, including the new
winners in the congressional elections, for
dialogue with Syria. It was also in response to
the increased steps by Europe to re-engage Syria
in Middle Eastern affairs, especially since the
latest Israeli war on Lebanon.
The
Tishreen editorial came as the international media
were filled with articles on whether to talk to
Syria or keep it in isolation to punish Damascus
for its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, and its
alliance to Iran. The well-informed and usually
highly accurate Syrian news site Syria-News
published an article saying "well-informed
sources" confirmed that the US Embassy in Damascus
had asked US citizens living in Syria who had fled
after a terrorist attack targeted the embassy in
September to return to Syria. The site said this
can be understood as an indicator that "blood has
returned" to the veins of Syrian-US relations.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
however, told the Israeli press that Syria was a
"dangerous" country. Speaking while en route to
Vienna this week (the day the editorial appeared
in Tishreen), Rice criticized Syria for having
"aligned itself with the forces of extremism" and
"given no indication" that it wants to become a
stabilizing force in the Middle East. She added
that Syria was causing problems "of extraordinary
proportions" in Lebanon and was being "totally
unhelpful" to Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas
in his bid to release the Israeli soldier captured
by Palestinian militants in June. Rice concluded:
"That's not a very good record on which to suggest
that just going and talking to Syria is going to
get a change in their behavior."
US State
Department spokesman Sean McCormack added to the
fire when commenting on Syria's declared readiness
for dialogue, saying: "We've heard that before,
haven't we?" He said, "The Syrian government, when
they're feeling the heat and feeling the pressure,
as they are right now, come up with these sorts of
statements." He repeated familiar words by Rice
and President George W Bush, saying that Syria
needed to stop harboring militants from Hamas that
Washington considers dangerous, and stop
interfering in Lebanon. McCormack added: "They
have isolated themselves through their own
behavior."
British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, however, seems to disagree with the
Americans on Syria. After sending his special
envoy Sir Nigel Sheinwald to Damascus on October
31 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad (the
first contact at such senior level since the Iraq
war in 2003), he said in an annual foreign-policy
speech last week that a "new partnership" was
possible with Damascus and Tehran and urged the
two countries to help curb the violence in Iraq.
Syria is considered more of a conduit for
Hezbollah support of the Shi'ite parties in Iraq
than a major player in its own right.
Blair also urged Bush to open channels
with the Syrians and Iranians for a better Iraq.
According to the London-based Al-Hayat, which is
famed for the accuracy of its reporting and the
privy information published by its correspondent
Ibrahim Hamidi, Blair's envoy Sheinwald went to
Washington before going to Syria, informing the
Americans and Europeans of his intentions to visit
Damascus.
Hamidi adds that Sheinwald's
talks with the Syrians dealt with five issues: (1)
The situation in Iraq and the need for Syria to
support the cabinet of Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki; (2) the situation in Palestine, and the
need for Syria to support a national-unity cabinet
between Hamas and Fatah; (3) the situation in
Lebanon, implementing United Nations Resolution
1701, which deals with Hezbollah, and supporting
the cabinet of Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora;
(4) the Syrian-Iranian alliance; (5) combating
terrorism.
Quoting "well-informed
sources", Al-Hayat said they confirmed a plan for
"ending isolation and beginning talks with
Damascus". One such source added that the Syrians
told the British envoy they would not make grand
concessions, noting that they would work in a
positive direction toward results that benefited
Syria - a diplomatic reference to a stable and
unified Iraq.
They also said they were not
interfering in Lebanese affairs, and had nothing
against Siniora, who is a member of the
anti-Syrian March 14 Coalition, headed by
parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri.
Sheinwald said many players would hold Syria
responsible for any destabilizing activity in
Lebanon, and that even if Syria was not behind, it
should use its considerable influence (with
Hezbollah) to prevent it.
Mixed signals
The Syrians are confused. They are indeed
getting contradicting signals from the
international community, and particularly the US.
Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, who is expected
to head the US Senate's Committee on Foreign
Relations, said the US should convene an
international conference on Iraq with the
participation of both Syria and Iran. These
positive remarks are drowned out by the remarks of
Rice and McCormack.
Also confusing are the
remarks of US Protestant Pastor Rick Warren, who
visited Damascus last week and made headlines in
the Syrian press for his praise of Syria, saying
that no peace could be made in the Middle East
without Damascus.
He met with Assad and
the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Hassoun,
saying, according to the Syrian Arab News Agency,
that "80% of the American people rejected what the
US administration is doing in Iraq and considered
the US policy in the Mideast as wrong". SANA
added, "Pastor Warren expressed admiration of
Syria and the co-existence he saw between Muslims
and Christians, stressing that he will convey this
image to his church and country."
The
Western media went into overdrive over his
remarks. This man after all is not an ordinary
American Orientalist praising Syria. Warren has
regularly been named in the US among the most
influential people in the world. So when he
praises Syria, it means red sirens for anti-Syrian
activists in the US.
Subsequently Warren
was reported to have denied praising Syria. This
means that either Warren was lying in Syria (which
is hard to believe) or lying once back in the US.
Surely this ordeal came as a shock to the Syrians.
Sources in Damascus confirmed that Warren did in
fact make such remarks, saying that while the
Syrian media could unintentionally misquote a
visitor, it could not so dramatically alter spoken
words by such a distinguished guest. And even
with regard to Blair's gestures toward Damascus
there has been a surprising change of tone from
London. Many commentators in both the US and
Britain saw Blair's remarks as a break in policy
between London and Washington after the Republican
defeat in last week's congressional elections.
Some were pleased, but others were horrified to
lose America's No 1 ally.
Blair wasted no
time in denying these accusations - an act that
worried advocates of dialogue with Syria. The
White House commented on his speech that "there is
a fundamental misunderstanding that this is about
changing policy on Syria and Iran".
So
what does all of this mean for Syria? Is the US
divided on whether to deal with Syria or not? If
Warren had in fact informed the State Department
of his Syria visit, and it did not object, why was
it wise to praise Syria on one day, and advisable
to retract his statements on the next? Even Bush
seemed to be leaning toward talks with Damascus,
but all official rhetoric coming out of Washington
over the past couple of days proves that the
anti-Syria team has the upper hand.
Also
with regard to Britain the situation is unclear.
Surely Blair wanted to jump-start negotiations
with Damascus, and make the Syrians feel his
intentions. That is why he sent his special envoy
in the first place to meet with Assad. Is it
possible that he received unconvincing replies
from the Syrians? Perhaps, since nothing official
was leaked of the meeting, and room for
speculation is ripe.
After all, the
Syrians cannot offer everything without getting
anything in return. After the Iraq war, the
Americans said there would no longer be carrots
for the Syrians - only sticks. The Syrians
repeatedly said, and continue to repeat the same
line, that they will not police Iraq, nor
cooperate on any Middle East-related issue, for no
carrots.
And abandoning Iran, Hezbollah or
Hamas for the Syrians is a red line. Also, the
Syrians do not really trust the Americans. They
want to reach some kind of formula whereby they
can maintain relations with Tehran and Washington,
with a free hand to work with Hezbollah in Lebanon
and Hamas in Palestine, similar to the perfect
working relationship that the Syrians had with the
Americans during the Bill Clinton era in the
1990s.
For some time it has been said that
the US carrots should be jump-starting talks on
the Golan Heights, returning to the Syrian-Israeli
peace track, ending the Syrian Accountability Act,
and re-welcoming Syria into the international
community.
For that, Syria would have to
moderate its the tone and actions of Hezbollah in
Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. Messages from both
countries were conflicting over the past week,
however, explaining why the Americans and British
made a possible U-turn on Damascus.
In
Palestine, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya
agreed to step down, fulfilling a strong demand
made by Washington since Hamas won the elections
in January, meaning an end to the Hamas-led
cabinet that refuses to recognize Israel. From
Damascus, Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzouk said that
the organization accepted a new independent
candidate, Dr Mohammad al-Shabir, who is close to
Hamas but not an official member, as the new prime
minister.
Shabir is reportedly more
realistic than Haniyya and would respond to many
of the Western demands - perhaps not out of
conviction, but rather to lift the siege on the
Palestinians. This is good news, and many believe
that Damascus played an important role in getting
Hamas to accept the new formula.
Perhaps
this was a direct result of Sheinwald's visit to
Syria. The fact that Marzouk spoke from Damascus
when supporting Shabir is also an indicator that
the Syrians were cooperating.
But on the
other hand, the situation in Lebanon deteriorated
dramatically as all the pro-Syria ministers in the
Siniora cabinet resigned. They are five ministers
from Hezbollah and Amal and a sixth minister who
is close to Lebanon's pro-Syria and pro-Hezbollah
President Emille Lahhoud.
This sheds doubt
on the legality of the Lebanese government,
threatening to bring it down, along with the
pro-Syrian team that supports it. This is much to
the displeasure of Washington, particularly the
State Department, which has embraced the Siniora
cabinet since it came to power in June 2005.
Adding to the crisis is the fact that the broker
of the collective resignation, the powerful
pro-Syrian Speaker of parliament, Nabih Berri,
hurried to Tehran as the political coup was
carried out in Beirut, making headlines for the
warm welcome given to him by the Grand Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei.
From the US and British
perspective, what happened in Palestine was good,
but what happened in Lebanon was not. The U-turn
in US attitude on Syria might be a message that
Washington is not pleased at Syria's continued
influence in Lebanon. Even if the Syrians have
denied having anything to do with the stunts of
Amal and Hezbollah, the Americans will not believe
them.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian
political analyst.
(Copyright 2006
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
.)
