What's behind the American/European policy shift towards Syria? By Salim Nazzal

What's behind the American/European policy shift towards Syria?

By Salim Nazzal

Al-Jazeerah, March 17, 2007

Last week's picture showing President Bashar Al-Assad confidently test-driving the prototype of the 'Sham' (name of historical Syria), soon to be the first Syrian-produced car, seemed to be a symbolic gesture intended to indicate Syria's increasing confidence. The later American /European pilgrimage to Syria shows that Assad perhaps has more reasons for this confidence than simply celebrating a new car model. In the past two years, Syria had suffered from American and European pressure, both in the form of Resolution 1559 and for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which, it was apparently hoped, would lead to a weakening of the Syrian position in the region as part of American efforts to weaken regional forces opposing US policy. Obviously, the very geopolitical position of Syria puts on it a number of challenges: its borders is made of America in the occupied Iraq, Israel in the occupied Palestine, the pro Us regime in Jordan and the pro US Saniora government in Lebanon, the result of this that only Turkey which too enjoy close contact with the Us and varying degrees friendship with Israel has become the only comfortable side for Syria. Yet Syria has perhaps learnt through years how to deal with these challenges especially during the long period of Hafiz Al-Assad who managed to turn Syria an important player in this complicated situation.

The Syrian media has extensively reflected on the recent shift in European and American policy towards Syria, considering this to be proof of the wisdom of its steadfast policy, which has ensured that Syria has not changed its anti-American/Israeli positions in regard to any of the three main issues in the Middle East.

The Syrian officials not only welcomed the American visit, but hoped, as Faisal Al-Miqdad, Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister put it, that such dialogue would be wide-ranging in debating inter-related regional problems. Yet it is not difficult to see that behind Al-Miqdad's words there is a sceptical Syrian position regarding the seriousness of this new American attitude, remembering all too well Bush's labeling of Syria as one of the 'Axis of Evil' countries, alongside North Korea and Iran.

However, despite what is perceived as the difference between the pragmatic Assad senior (1970-2000) who maintained reasonable ties with the US and the conservative Arab countries, now known, ironically, as the moderate Arab countries, and his son, who has taken a more critical position towards these regimes, it is difficult to ignore the fact that Syria has managed to survive and thrive, even under these pressures, and to return to a position of being a major player in the region, and one which, as the Irish foreign minister Dermot Aheren said, cannot be ignored.

The recognition of Syria's current position was obvious in last week's events, which demonstrate, in the view of some Arab observers, a development that can not be underestimated. The first noteworthy event was Syria's participation, apparently with American consent, in the Baghdad conference on Iraq. The second event was the visit of the US Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, Ellen Sauerbrey to Damascus, ostensibly to discuss the situation of the approximately one million Iraqi refugees currently in Syria, who have fled there from Iraq since the American occupation in April 2003. Since Sauerbrey is the first prominent American official to visit Damascus since Richard Armitage's last visit in 2005 it is questionable, however, whether the wellbeing of the Iraqi refugees there was the only motive for her visit. Compare this, for instance, with the US's attitude to another politically important issue in its Middle East agenda; the US continues to blockade and impose sanctions on Palestine which has caused and continues to cause severe suffering there, and has shown no empathy with the besieged Palestinians. This demonstrates that the United States acts first and foremost according to its political agenda and its foreign office have certainly not become a charity organization.

The main issue engaging the political analysts in the region, therefore, is to understand the extent of and ultimate motives behind the recent American policy shift, especially since Sauerbrey's visit coincided with Javier Solana's, with the EU foreign policy chief representing the European Union. As was publicly declared, Solana's visit is supported by major European countries, in a further indication, as some observers see it, of changing attitudes in Europe towards dialogue with Syria. These observers see the French position as reflecting that change; last year French leaders were annoyed at the visit of some European foreign ministers to Syria, while France now expresses its full support for Solana's diplomatic efforts.

Muhammad Al-Zubaidi, a veteran Palestinian politician well-acquainted with the Syrian political scene, warns against what he describes as over-optimism at such meetings. >From his perspective, nothing has changed in the situation regarding the three primary Middle Eastern problems, Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon, to raise expectations unduly. The USA and Europe still accuse Syria of providing support to the resistance movements in these countries. Al-Zubaidi postulates that the recent political moves are being made by Bush as a tactical step to win the support of the "Iraq study group" which, to find an honorable exit for the Americans bogged down in Iraq, advocates opening dialogue with Syria and Iran. Bush desperately needs the support of the Democrats and the sceptical Republicans in Congress to continue his policy of sending more soldiers to Iraq and probably to bomb Iran. Last week's speech by the American military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, insisting that there is no military solution to events there, has given more support to the increasing skepticism among senior American politicians about the war in Iraq, contradicting the arrogant and hubristic language of the neoconservative team during the invasion. If there is a relation between the shifts in American and European policy towards Syria, Al-Zubaidi is unsure whether these policy shifts were consciously coordinated, but since Europe has not so far adopted any independent policy stance towards the Middle East, it is hard to believe that such a change in attitude is entirely unrelated to the change in the Americans' approach, even if the two were not systematically coordinated.

In the view of more sceptical observers, the American and the European policy change towards Syria is an attempt to isolate Syria from Iran at this critical time, when pressures are being increased on Iran regarding its nuclear power program. According to this view, the Americans have pressurized Israel to accept, at least for the time being, the Saudi Arabia peace initiative (after separating it from the right of return issue which is the main issue in the Palestinian question ) adopted by the Arab League summit in Beirut in 2002, which it has consistently refused to recognize to date.

From this viewpoint, Bush is primarily concerned at present with exerting more pressure on Iran, with the visit to Syria seen as part of isolating Syria from Iran in his efforts to prepare the political ground for launching a strike against Iran. However regardless of the reasons behind these recent policy shifts, the American approach towards solving the Middle Eastern problems remains, in essence, the same as before. The diplomatic maneuvering must not blind Arabs from seeing the negative results of American policy in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, nor blind them to perceiving the possible very real dangers which lay ahead.

Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian historian. He has written extensively on social and political issues in the Middle East. Can be contacted at gibran44@hotmail.com.

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

Apartheid Wall


The Israeli Land-Grab Apartheid Wall built inside the Palestinian territories, here separating Abu Dis from occupied East Jerusalem. (IPC, 7/4/04).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03).

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.

editor@aljazeerah.info