Iraq burns its bridges with Syria
By Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS - Relations between Iraq and Syria plunged abruptly on Tuesday after
Baghdad recalled its ambassador to Damascus over the recent bombings in the
Iraqi capital in which 100 Iraqis were killed.
The attacks, which ripped through government buildings on August 19, were the
worst in Iraq in over 12 months and came just a day after Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki wrapped up a state visit to Syria. While there he boosted political
and economic relations with Syria and jump-started bilateral committees to see
that security is strongly monitored on the Syrian-Iraqi border.
Since then, however, a tug-of-war has erupted within Iraq between those who
blame al-Qaeda and the outlawed Ba'ath Party and
those who blame Iran for the Black Wednesday attacks.
Maliki blames both, while Defense Minister Abdul Qadir Obeidi said the weapons
used for the attacks had been "made in Iran". Syria's name emerged rather
suddenly on Sunday, when a former policeman appeared on Iraqi state-run media,
claiming responsibility for the attacks, saying they had been ordered by two
Saddam loyalists based in Syria.
The Iraqi government thus recalled its ambassador on Tuesday, asking that Syria
extradite two men - Mohammad Yunis Ahmad and Satman Farhan - who are the
alleged masterminds of the Baghdad bombings.
The Syrians were infuriated by the accusations, responding immediately by
recalling their own diplomat, Nawwaf al-Fares, from Baghdad. A statement from
Syria categorically rejected the Iraqi claims, reminding that "Syria had
forcefully denounced this terrorist act which left victims among the Iraqi
people".
The Syrians added they would welcome an Iraqi delegation that brought with it
concrete evidence justifying the accusations, "or else, it considers what was
aired by the Iraqi media as nothing but evidence fabricated for internal
[Iraqi] objectives".
The contradicting remarks by Iraqi officials, the Syrian statement added, were
adequate proof that far from being authentic, the entire ordeal was a
fabrication of the Iraqi government.
Syrian-Iraqi relations have improved significantly in recent months, following
two visits by Maliki to Damascus and a visit this summer by Prime Minister
Mohammad Naji Otari to Baghdad. The countries seemingly realized that they had
much in common, despite Syria's colossal differences with the Maliki regime,
which was brought to power by the US in 2006.
The Syrians reasoned they could play an influential role in restoring stability
to Iraq, which was a high priority on Maliki's agenda, given their excellent
relations with Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ite heavyweights like Muqtada al-Sadr.
Iraqi tribes, which once formed the Sunni insurgency and which are now the
backbone of the Awakening Councils, overlap extensively with their cousins in
the Syrian desert.
Syria can build on its excellent relations with these tribes to tame, and
eventually disarm, armed groups in Iraq. It can help with more border security,
given that it shares a common enemy with Maliki - al-Qaeda-linked
fundamentalists.
Chaos in Iraq is dangerous for the Syrians from a national security perspective
because it could easily spill over into Syria, as was the case with several
attempted terrorist attacks in 2004-2007. During investigations, it was
revealed that many of the terrorists that had tried launching attacks within
Syria had either been to Iraq, or obtained arms from Iraq.
So, helping Maliki to bring security to Baghdad was also a high priority for
Damascus, and it played well into Syria's newfound relationship with the
administration of US President Barack Obama. The Syrians reason that Obama
wants peace in Iraq to facilitate a smooth exodus for US troops by early 2012.
For their part, the Syrians want Obama to jump-start peace talks by applying
strong pressure on the hardline Israeli government to restore the occupied
Golan Heights to Syria. If the Syrians deliver on Iraq, Obama would deliver on
the Middle East peace process. This win-win formula seemed to be working well
since January, when the Syrians used their considerable influence with
different segments of Iraq to secure safe and democratic provincial elections.
As a result, Obama indeed did take tangible steps towards regional peace,
summed up in his speech at Cairo University on June 4.
If this relationship was going so well, why in the world would Syria approve -
or turn a blind eye to - such a massive operation in Baghdad? There is not a
single argument in favor of the Iraqi argument, because from where the Syrians
see it, such an operation would be like shooting oneself in the foot.
All it does is poison the neighborhood, negatively affecting both Syrian-Iraqi
and Syrian-US relations. It additionally sends all the wrong messages since the
bombings did not target a particular leader or sect, but a political system at
large; one with which the Syrians have been comfortably cooperating since 2006.
Nothing in the world would have better served Syria's interest than uncovering
the operation before it happened, then handing its culprits over to the Iraqi
government, or the Americans. The fact that it did not simply means that it had
no clue that such an operation was being hatched. If it did, it would surely
have acted accordingly.
Iraqi officials can immediately disqualify this argument, however, saying that
the two Ba'athists based in Syria could have acted without the knowledge of the
Syrian government. This is also difficult to digest, since all the Iraqi
refugees in Syria are closely watched to make sure they refrain from any
illegal activity. Additionally, the timing of the operation could not have been
worse - 24 hours after Maliki summed up a successful visit to Syria, and while
relations were steadily improving with the US.
If this is the case, then why blame Syria? Clearly, from the contradicting
remarks of Iraqi ministers, Black Wednesday puts many top officials in very
difficult positions. It proves just how weak and divided they are - exposing
them before ordinary Iraqis who are furious at the rising death toll and want
answers from their elected representatives.
More horrendous attacks took place from 2005 to 2008, and never aroused such a
stir. The fact that this comes after 18 months of relative peace strikes a raw
nerve in the Iraqi street. Self-criticism is uncommon in the Arab world and
neither the minister of interior nor the minister of defense was prepared to
take the blame for Black Wednesday.
What is always easier than shouldering responsibility is blaming others for
one's own shortcomings. Iraqi officials mistakenly thought that they had a
ready scapegoat in Syria. After all, not too long ago, Syria was a scapegoat
for everything rotten taking place in Iraq.
Whenever Iraqi officials wanted to justify their shortcomings, they blamed the
violence on Damascus, and always found a supportive George W Bush
administration willing to back their claims.
Nobody in Iraq wants to know who carried out the Wednesday attacks, because
reality would expose dramatic mismanagement of government office. That in turn
would drown many parliamentary hopefuls in January's elections. It therefore
suits all officials to cover up for their shortcomings by blaming Syria.
Nobody in the Iraqi government would dare blame Iran or Saudi Arabia, because
of the financial and military clout these countries have in Iraq, along with
their respective army of followers. Left standing is Syria, which happens to be
Ba'athist and still has Iraqi fugitives on its territory.
In recalling their ambassador from Damascus, the Iraqis will have to deal with
the aftershocks in their relationship with Syria. Iraq needs the Syrians much
more than Damascus needs Baghdad. Iraq needs it for economic issues related to
the pumping of oil and rebuilding of the war-torn country. It needs it to
mediate explosive conflicts between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds, whose leaders
were all one-time residents of Damascus and still have excellent relations with
the Syrians.
Iraq needs it to police the Syrian-Iraqi border, and to continue playing host
to over 1 million Iraqi refugees based in Syria since 2003. Iraq needs Damascus
to mediate talks between Maliki and both Ba'athists and Sunni tribes. It also
needs the Syrians to legitimize the Maliki regime, or whatever succeeds it in
January, in the eyes of ordinary Iraqi Sunnis who have historically looked
towards Syria for shelter and support.
When Syria decided to open an embassy in Baghdad in late 2008, this greatly
legitimized Maliki in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis, who until then saw him as
nothing but a sectarian clown who had nothing but animosity for the Sunni
community and wanted to punish it collectively for having produced Saddam
Hussein.
It is one thing when countries like Jordan or Egypt recognize Maliki and
legitimize his administration, but a completely different matter when this is
done by Syria, a country that remains dominated by a strong brand of Arab
nationalism that is appealing to the Iraqi street.
In as much as the sending of an ambassador was symbolic for the Syrians,
recalling him is equally symbolic, and will cause plenty of damage for the
prime minister, who needs a broad constituency among Sunnis and Shi'ites in
preparation for the elections.
Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
