Engaging Syria; A Fatal Mistake
The schism in the Administration foreign policy over Syria portrays the overall division in Congress over the wisdom of the policies of President Bush who have committed his administration to implement his new vision in creating the New Middle-East where the promotion of democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the cornerstone for the region long term stability and the world security.
One camp led by Vice President Dick Cheney, still believe in the ideals which instigated the war in Iraq and led the President and Congress to carry out the military adventure to topple one of the most atrocious dictators the world has known. The other camp, led by the newly reformed Secretary of State Condoleza Rice who is seeking new pragmatic channels in diplomacy to achieve the Administration objectives.
The schism in the ideologies of course, seem to manifest itself on how to deal with an authoritarian regime like Syria without committing another disastrous military adventure in the region that would bring on more chaos to an already troubled region.
Since the democracy promotion project in the Middle-East turned out to manifest undesirable results for the Administration by bringing to powers elements of radical Islam in the West Bank and Gaza led by Hamas dominated government, and just before that a huge parliamentary win for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan, many in the administration have found themselves perplexed on how to avoid further pitfalls and proceed with such project.
It seems the old advise of the many Arab Authoritarian leaders to the West have come to be true. When Western democracy pushers excreted their “Trump Card” of Human Rights and Democratic Reforms on those regimes in the past in order to obtain concessions and compromises, the usual answer to those Western Capitals from those Arab leaders was the alternative would be religious radicalism.
But now the same excuse is being once again shot at those corners in the Administration that are still sticking to their ideals of democracy promotion but this time, the proof is evident on the ground. How then should they proceed? And in the case of Syria what would entice the regime in cooperating with the Administration?
Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Policy Affairs David Welch, on Nov 8 testified to Congress for the Administration in front of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle-East and South East Asia and the Senate Foreign Relations Committees on Lebanon and Syria. In his testimony Welch seemed to echo the Administration lack of clear strategy towards Syria. In fact, he reiterated that the ball rests in Syria’s court to modify its actions towards meeting what the US and the rest of the international community expects of it by cooperating in bringing stability and security to the region, two things which Syria seemed to have worked against in the past and today continues to do. Mr. Welch testimony seemed to highlight the things Syria have failed to do throughout the past 25 years. While the US seems to be open for talks with Syria, Mr. Welch indicated that Syria still sees Lebanon as a vassal state and refuses to demarcate the border and exchange embassies. In addition Syria engineered the political crisis in Lebanon by urging its allies to bolt from the cabinet in order to stop the Lebanese government from requesting an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Mr. Welch was careful not to directly accuse Syria of being responsible for the assassination campaign, yet he did point that all targeted individuals were well-known for their “pro-Lebanon, pro-freedom and anti-Syrian positions”. Mr. Welch also noted that Syria has taken some measures to enhance its control over foreign fighters that are using the country as a transit point and feeding the insurgency in Iraq. However, Syria can do much more if it were serious such as requiring visas for Arab males of fighting age entering its border. If Syria took more positive steps, the US would consider “purposeful” engagement.
This clearly shows the US is willing to deal, yet we find that Syria still advances its political and strategic alliances with Iran and solidify its support to Hezballah and Hamas two organizations which have been labeled as terrorist ones by the US government.
Then why is it that we still hear the debate regarding Syria’s engagement? What is in the US interests and the region for the US and the international community to engage in a dialogue with a state that seems hell-bent on working against the collective efforts of the world’s community to resolve the problems in the Middle-East?
Many have pointed to the old famous quote by the late US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger where he declared that “No war without Egypt and No peace without Syria” in the Middle-East as the ultimate truth in the region. A statement that carried deep knowledge of the political deadlock the region seems to experience for the past 50 years. Yet the same statement can be adversely interpreted as to Syria’s position. True there can be no peace without Syria because Syria is the problem to peace. Syria continues to work clandestinely against every effort of Arab and International players to undermine a settlement in the region. Starting with Lebanon to Iraq and ending in the West-bank and Gaza. As if a settlement will never be possible ‘till the Hariri International tribunal is eliminated and the Syrian despot gets his Golan back! In the same time it refuses to acknowledge the fact that most Arab neighbors seem to have accepted as a fait accompli. The US is intent on securing its interests in the region, mainly the oil resources that are in abundance. So why is it a matter of discussion how to deal with Syria?
Engagement with the regime would be the most disastrous thing the US can do to its long term goals in the region. If the US seems to lack popular support among the Arab populace now, it is for a litany of legitimate reasons that have been in play for over half a century. Among the most evident of those reasons is its bias towards Israel and its friendly alliance with authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Libya and the rest of the Arab world governments, a position which has proved to be paradoxical to the common man. On one hand the US is supporting the real enemy from without and on the other the enemy from within. The Iraq war contributed to reinforce such antipathy. Engagement with the Syrian regime will only prove to the Arab street that American politics chose the easy way out and capitulated to a dictator’s will by sacrificing Lebanon and Iraq. Such move will only reinforce the lack of credibility in US policies throughout the Arab world.
No one can argue that Syria is a police state. Its multi-faceted security agencies still deal with political dissent ruthlessly while its Ba’ath party monopolizes the electoral process.
Human rights abuses are abundant and prisoners of conscious languish in prisons under an emergency law that has been in effect for over 44 years. The similarities to Iraq under Saddam are strikingly close, yet Syria managed to appease the world community in the past through careful balance of its tyranny inside the country and its willingness to play politics in its foreign relations. At times even the US praised Syria stands with the international community against Saddam invasion of Kuwait. But today there is more at stake. Lebanon nascent democracy needs a helping hand from the West and Iraq needs to stem the flow of Jihadists through its western borders. But the most in jeopardy of losing an ally for freedom and democracy are the Syrian people. People like the respected human rights lawyer Anwar Albuni and Journalist Michele Kilo and others. People who believe that the West will continue to stand for those ideals which helped bring about the fall of tyranny and the rise of democracy. US interests dictate that the mission for the New Middle-East must move along ‘till at least these two states have become an example of freedom, democracy, and the rule of the law for the rest of the Arab world.
The Syrian regime is standing in the way of both these goals. Will we let extortionists and terror laden governments sabotage our mission? Engaging Syria now is a fatal mistake that the US and its allies can not afford to make.
One camp led by Vice President Dick Cheney, still believe in the ideals which instigated the war in Iraq and led the President and Congress to carry out the military adventure to topple one of the most atrocious dictators the world has known. The other camp, led by the newly reformed Secretary of State Condoleza Rice who is seeking new pragmatic channels in diplomacy to achieve the Administration objectives.
The schism in the ideologies of course, seem to manifest itself on how to deal with an authoritarian regime like Syria without committing another disastrous military adventure in the region that would bring on more chaos to an already troubled region.
Since the democracy promotion project in the Middle-East turned out to manifest undesirable results for the Administration by bringing to powers elements of radical Islam in the West Bank and Gaza led by Hamas dominated government, and just before that a huge parliamentary win for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan, many in the administration have found themselves perplexed on how to avoid further pitfalls and proceed with such project.
It seems the old advise of the many Arab Authoritarian leaders to the West have come to be true. When Western democracy pushers excreted their “Trump Card” of Human Rights and Democratic Reforms on those regimes in the past in order to obtain concessions and compromises, the usual answer to those Western Capitals from those Arab leaders was the alternative would be religious radicalism.
But now the same excuse is being once again shot at those corners in the Administration that are still sticking to their ideals of democracy promotion but this time, the proof is evident on the ground. How then should they proceed? And in the case of Syria what would entice the regime in cooperating with the Administration?
Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Policy Affairs David Welch, on Nov 8 testified to Congress for the Administration in front of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle-East and South East Asia and the Senate Foreign Relations Committees on Lebanon and Syria. In his testimony Welch seemed to echo the Administration lack of clear strategy towards Syria. In fact, he reiterated that the ball rests in Syria’s court to modify its actions towards meeting what the US and the rest of the international community expects of it by cooperating in bringing stability and security to the region, two things which Syria seemed to have worked against in the past and today continues to do. Mr. Welch testimony seemed to highlight the things Syria have failed to do throughout the past 25 years. While the US seems to be open for talks with Syria, Mr. Welch indicated that Syria still sees Lebanon as a vassal state and refuses to demarcate the border and exchange embassies. In addition Syria engineered the political crisis in Lebanon by urging its allies to bolt from the cabinet in order to stop the Lebanese government from requesting an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Mr. Welch was careful not to directly accuse Syria of being responsible for the assassination campaign, yet he did point that all targeted individuals were well-known for their “pro-Lebanon, pro-freedom and anti-Syrian positions”. Mr. Welch also noted that Syria has taken some measures to enhance its control over foreign fighters that are using the country as a transit point and feeding the insurgency in Iraq. However, Syria can do much more if it were serious such as requiring visas for Arab males of fighting age entering its border. If Syria took more positive steps, the US would consider “purposeful” engagement.
This clearly shows the US is willing to deal, yet we find that Syria still advances its political and strategic alliances with Iran and solidify its support to Hezballah and Hamas two organizations which have been labeled as terrorist ones by the US government.
Then why is it that we still hear the debate regarding Syria’s engagement? What is in the US interests and the region for the US and the international community to engage in a dialogue with a state that seems hell-bent on working against the collective efforts of the world’s community to resolve the problems in the Middle-East?
Many have pointed to the old famous quote by the late US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger where he declared that “No war without Egypt and No peace without Syria” in the Middle-East as the ultimate truth in the region. A statement that carried deep knowledge of the political deadlock the region seems to experience for the past 50 years. Yet the same statement can be adversely interpreted as to Syria’s position. True there can be no peace without Syria because Syria is the problem to peace. Syria continues to work clandestinely against every effort of Arab and International players to undermine a settlement in the region. Starting with Lebanon to Iraq and ending in the West-bank and Gaza. As if a settlement will never be possible ‘till the Hariri International tribunal is eliminated and the Syrian despot gets his Golan back! In the same time it refuses to acknowledge the fact that most Arab neighbors seem to have accepted as a fait accompli. The US is intent on securing its interests in the region, mainly the oil resources that are in abundance. So why is it a matter of discussion how to deal with Syria?
Engagement with the regime would be the most disastrous thing the US can do to its long term goals in the region. If the US seems to lack popular support among the Arab populace now, it is for a litany of legitimate reasons that have been in play for over half a century. Among the most evident of those reasons is its bias towards Israel and its friendly alliance with authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Libya and the rest of the Arab world governments, a position which has proved to be paradoxical to the common man. On one hand the US is supporting the real enemy from without and on the other the enemy from within. The Iraq war contributed to reinforce such antipathy. Engagement with the Syrian regime will only prove to the Arab street that American politics chose the easy way out and capitulated to a dictator’s will by sacrificing Lebanon and Iraq. Such move will only reinforce the lack of credibility in US policies throughout the Arab world.
No one can argue that Syria is a police state. Its multi-faceted security agencies still deal with political dissent ruthlessly while its Ba’ath party monopolizes the electoral process.
Human rights abuses are abundant and prisoners of conscious languish in prisons under an emergency law that has been in effect for over 44 years. The similarities to Iraq under Saddam are strikingly close, yet Syria managed to appease the world community in the past through careful balance of its tyranny inside the country and its willingness to play politics in its foreign relations. At times even the US praised Syria stands with the international community against Saddam invasion of Kuwait. But today there is more at stake. Lebanon nascent democracy needs a helping hand from the West and Iraq needs to stem the flow of Jihadists through its western borders. But the most in jeopardy of losing an ally for freedom and democracy are the Syrian people. People like the respected human rights lawyer Anwar Albuni and Journalist Michele Kilo and others. People who believe that the West will continue to stand for those ideals which helped bring about the fall of tyranny and the rise of democracy. US interests dictate that the mission for the New Middle-East must move along ‘till at least these two states have become an example of freedom, democracy, and the rule of the law for the rest of the Arab world.
The Syrian regime is standing in the way of both these goals. Will we let extortionists and terror laden governments sabotage our mission? Engaging Syria now is a fatal mistake that the US and its allies can not afford to make.
تعليقات
Milza