Hold that “Victory Dance”
Recent reports about improving relations between the US and the Syrian government have surfaced prematurely proclaiming victory and giving accolades to the young Syrian President Bashar Asad in maneuvering his country’s foreign policies wisely in the Middle-East during the last few years. Yet, looking deeper into the political murky waters of the Middle-East one can interpret the current scene contrary to the Syrian regime elation in breaking Washington’s stand against it for many reasons.
Traditionally, US foreign policy towards pariah’s states has stayed consistent to its goals in containing the threat and securing US interests in a specific region around the globe and changes in such policies and goals from one administration to another has been minimal to non-existent. However, the approach certainly differed with each new group of occupants at the Whitehouse. Yet 9/11 has changed America forever and made urgent the advent of a bold and new strategy that can protect Americans as well as the rest of the globe from the new danger of terrorism.
America went on the offense and the preoccupation of the Bush administrations became terrorism and States which supported it. Few regimes became targets and Syria fell among those few targeted by Washington. The US administration legitimately accused Syria of a litany of charges. Destabilizing Iraq by their lack of vigilant border control where radical militants were easily making their trip into Iraq, interfering in Lebanon’s internal politics, hinting at their involvement in the assassinations of members of the Lebanese parliaments and the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, supporting the militant organizations like Hezbollah by funneling arms to them through Syrian territories, and Hamas by hosting their leadership in Damascus. The US demands were simple, stop interfering in Lebanon, stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, and cooperate on the Iraq front or face the possibility of regime change.
After the assassination of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon, Syria was forced to pull all its troops out of Lebanon and abide with UN resolutions 1559 which was followed by 1701 that called for non-interference of foreign countries in the Lebanese affairs.
To counter the American and international pressure the young president of Syria adopted an aggressive and preemptive strategy. Increase pressure on Washington by allying the country with Iran and form a front that would extended from Tehran all the way to southern Lebanon through Hezbollah. In 2005 president Asad visited Tehran and in early 2006 president Ahmadinajad reciprocated by visiting Damascus. Damascus turned a blind eye to the flow of Islamist militants into Iraq, and pushed Hezbollah’s members in Lebanon to bolt out of the cabinet creating a standoff between opposition members and the March 14 parliamentary majority in the hopes of stopping the international tribunal into the killing of Hariri.
Yet the policy adopted by Washington in late 2003 of weakening and de-stabilizing the regime in Syria was dealt a blow by 2006 with the findings of the Iraq Study Group co-chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Senator Lee H. Hamilton which called for dialogue with the Syrian regime. A flawed strategy premised on the illusion that the regime can be reasoned with to cooperate with the US and its allies in bringing about peace and stability in Iraq, Lebanon, the West-Bank and Gaza by using its influence and close ties and support to militant organizations the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas. Among its 78 recommendations the report had mixed signals in regards to Syria. On the one hand the report in its recommendation #12 called on the US to “Encourage and Persuade” Syria of the merits of its cooperation on the Iraqi front, yet on the other hand recommendation #15 called for a list of perquisite demands for such engagement which contradicted the Syrian regime policy jeopardizing its own survival.
This created a schism in the American administration in regards to US-Syrian relations. One camp lead by Vice President Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives called for continued exertions of pressure on the regime hoping for its final demise, and another camp lead by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who advocated a softer approach and a dialogue with it.
The standoff reached its climax prior to the Annapolis peace conference this past November and the score was settled by inviting Damascus to the table as a face-saving measure to obtain all other moderate Arab countries consensus but without a single commitment to the Syrian Golan Heights grievance.
Yet, today we hear of the “benefits” Syria has reaped from attending such a conference. A shortsighted view based on the notion that by positioning itself at the center of the conflict Syria has gained considerably from extorting the West through its use of proxy groups and alliance with radical regimes the likes of Iran and Venezuela to confront the American threat of regime change. Here, one must ask, what victory has been achieved by the cub of the late lion of Damascus except surviving another round of a political maneuver to sustain the life of his regime for another few years.
However, we have yet to see any real and substantive change in the policy of the American administration towards Syria. Bashar Asad demands of full capitulation of the American administration have put him at odds with the most powerful nation on earth today. His preoccupation with holding on to the presidency has left the country undeveloped and facing monumental economic challenges. His belief in an American conspiracy to take over the Middle-East drove him into alliances with radical movements and countries. The result of these unrealistic views caused the regime to clamp down further on political dissent inside the country and left its Human-Rights record in shambles. Syria is ruled today by a mobocracy that breeds cronyism and corruption. The countries institutions are bankrupt morally and financially and its government and judicial system engender antagonism among the people.
Yet in spite of excessive oppressive measures by the Syrian authorities, one hundred and sixty-eight members of the Syrian opposition united under the Damascus Declaration met on Sunday to choose a woman named Fida'a al-Hourani, oldest daughter to the now deceased political leader Akram al-Hourani, as president of the newly formed National Council (NC).
In his State of the Union address in Jan. 2004 President Bush answered his critics of his new vision for a democratic Middle-East with an eloquent clarity; “We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.”
For those jubilating the illusionary triumph of the regime in inserting itself as a perquisite for any future peace process in the Middle-East, they need only listen to the words of Mr. Bush and hold that “Victory Dance”.
Traditionally, US foreign policy towards pariah’s states has stayed consistent to its goals in containing the threat and securing US interests in a specific region around the globe and changes in such policies and goals from one administration to another has been minimal to non-existent. However, the approach certainly differed with each new group of occupants at the Whitehouse. Yet 9/11 has changed America forever and made urgent the advent of a bold and new strategy that can protect Americans as well as the rest of the globe from the new danger of terrorism.
America went on the offense and the preoccupation of the Bush administrations became terrorism and States which supported it. Few regimes became targets and Syria fell among those few targeted by Washington. The US administration legitimately accused Syria of a litany of charges. Destabilizing Iraq by their lack of vigilant border control where radical militants were easily making their trip into Iraq, interfering in Lebanon’s internal politics, hinting at their involvement in the assassinations of members of the Lebanese parliaments and the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, supporting the militant organizations like Hezbollah by funneling arms to them through Syrian territories, and Hamas by hosting their leadership in Damascus. The US demands were simple, stop interfering in Lebanon, stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, and cooperate on the Iraq front or face the possibility of regime change.
After the assassination of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon, Syria was forced to pull all its troops out of Lebanon and abide with UN resolutions 1559 which was followed by 1701 that called for non-interference of foreign countries in the Lebanese affairs.
To counter the American and international pressure the young president of Syria adopted an aggressive and preemptive strategy. Increase pressure on Washington by allying the country with Iran and form a front that would extended from Tehran all the way to southern Lebanon through Hezbollah. In 2005 president Asad visited Tehran and in early 2006 president Ahmadinajad reciprocated by visiting Damascus. Damascus turned a blind eye to the flow of Islamist militants into Iraq, and pushed Hezbollah’s members in Lebanon to bolt out of the cabinet creating a standoff between opposition members and the March 14 parliamentary majority in the hopes of stopping the international tribunal into the killing of Hariri.
Yet the policy adopted by Washington in late 2003 of weakening and de-stabilizing the regime in Syria was dealt a blow by 2006 with the findings of the Iraq Study Group co-chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Senator Lee H. Hamilton which called for dialogue with the Syrian regime. A flawed strategy premised on the illusion that the regime can be reasoned with to cooperate with the US and its allies in bringing about peace and stability in Iraq, Lebanon, the West-Bank and Gaza by using its influence and close ties and support to militant organizations the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas. Among its 78 recommendations the report had mixed signals in regards to Syria. On the one hand the report in its recommendation #12 called on the US to “Encourage and Persuade” Syria of the merits of its cooperation on the Iraqi front, yet on the other hand recommendation #15 called for a list of perquisite demands for such engagement which contradicted the Syrian regime policy jeopardizing its own survival.
This created a schism in the American administration in regards to US-Syrian relations. One camp lead by Vice President Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives called for continued exertions of pressure on the regime hoping for its final demise, and another camp lead by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who advocated a softer approach and a dialogue with it.
The standoff reached its climax prior to the Annapolis peace conference this past November and the score was settled by inviting Damascus to the table as a face-saving measure to obtain all other moderate Arab countries consensus but without a single commitment to the Syrian Golan Heights grievance.
Yet, today we hear of the “benefits” Syria has reaped from attending such a conference. A shortsighted view based on the notion that by positioning itself at the center of the conflict Syria has gained considerably from extorting the West through its use of proxy groups and alliance with radical regimes the likes of Iran and Venezuela to confront the American threat of regime change. Here, one must ask, what victory has been achieved by the cub of the late lion of Damascus except surviving another round of a political maneuver to sustain the life of his regime for another few years.
However, we have yet to see any real and substantive change in the policy of the American administration towards Syria. Bashar Asad demands of full capitulation of the American administration have put him at odds with the most powerful nation on earth today. His preoccupation with holding on to the presidency has left the country undeveloped and facing monumental economic challenges. His belief in an American conspiracy to take over the Middle-East drove him into alliances with radical movements and countries. The result of these unrealistic views caused the regime to clamp down further on political dissent inside the country and left its Human-Rights record in shambles. Syria is ruled today by a mobocracy that breeds cronyism and corruption. The countries institutions are bankrupt morally and financially and its government and judicial system engender antagonism among the people.
Yet in spite of excessive oppressive measures by the Syrian authorities, one hundred and sixty-eight members of the Syrian opposition united under the Damascus Declaration met on Sunday to choose a woman named Fida'a al-Hourani, oldest daughter to the now deceased political leader Akram al-Hourani, as president of the newly formed National Council (NC).
In his State of the Union address in Jan. 2004 President Bush answered his critics of his new vision for a democratic Middle-East with an eloquent clarity; “We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.”
For those jubilating the illusionary triumph of the regime in inserting itself as a perquisite for any future peace process in the Middle-East, they need only listen to the words of Mr. Bush and hold that “Victory Dance”.
تعليقات