| Ander Nieuws week 20 / nieuwe oorlog 2007 |
Asia Times
May 8, 2007
By Sami Moubayed
Fifty years ago, alarmed that Syria was becoming dangerously close to the Soviet Union, US president Dwight Eisenhower authorized a series of operations aimed at isolating, weakening and eventually overthrowing the regime of president Shukri al-Quwatli.
The Central Intelligence Agency tried to pull off two coups in Damascus. Both of them failed. The US then pursued a policy of funding the Syrian opposition. US intelligence reports on Syria during the years 1956-58 are hauntingly similar to press reports coming out of Washington in 2005-07 - only the word "Soviet" is replaced by "Iranian".
When its efforts failed, the Eisenhower administration called on Syria's neighbors to isolate it and, if possible, change its government, claiming that they would support any anti-Syrian activity under the United Nations umbrella of "self-defense". Syria, as far as the US was concerned, was "threatening the stability" of the Arab neighborhood.
At the time, the man to obstruct the US campaign against Syria was King Saud of Saudi Arabia. The monarch went to Damascus, embraced president Quwatli (who was an old family friend of the House of Saud) and said that destabilizing Syria was an option that simply did not exist.
Instead, said Saud, Syria should be embraced and welcomed into the Arab community. Only that, he said, would weaken its reliance on the Soviet Union. When visiting the US shortly afterward, many senior officials said they refused to meet with Saud, shedding doubt on his friendship with the United States. That scenario looks strikingly similar to the one of today.
The administration of US President George W Bush has authorized a series of operations aimed at weakening, and eventually toppling the Syrian regime. The Soviet threat is now an Iranian threat, with the US afraid that Syria is becoming dangerously too close to the mullahs of Tehran. This time another monarch - Saud's brother King Abdullah - has stood up in favor of Syria. He too has declared that isolating Damascus is no longer an option, and welcomed President Bashar al-Assad (also a family friend of the House of Saud) with festivity at the latest Arab summit in Riyadh.
Only that, Abdullah believes, will decrease Syria's dependence on the Iranians. This time it was he who snubbed the Americans, refusing to attend a reception in Washington and referring to the occupation of Iraq as "illegal". Isolating Syria, King Abdullah said, is no longer an option.
The Saudi king is at the apex of his career, enjoying streetwide support in the Arab world as in no time before. Time magazine recently said he is one of the most influential people in the world. Bringing the Palestinians together this year in Mecca, challenging the Americans in Iraq and embracing the Syrians in Riyadh, King Abdullah certainly is using his political weight to get things done in the Middle East. And it is working.
In 2006, veteran American journalist Seymour Hersh wrote an article for The New Yorker saying that Saudi Arabia was involved in secret talks with Israel aimed at bringing down the Iranian regime. The article, apparently, was not 100% correct. It was the Saudi national security adviser, Bandar bin Sultan, and the not the kingdom itself, who was involved in the new US approach toward Tehran. Bandar, alarmed at Iran's increased influence in the Arab world and its support for Iraqi Shi'ites against their Sunni counterparts, wanted to bring the threat to a halt once and for all.
King Abdullah, who is a traditional ally of the Americans, apparently vetoed Bandar's proposal for a Saudi-Israeli meeting to discuss Iran. Bandar promised the Americans to open talks under the umbrella of the Abdullah plan, which was adopted by the Arab League twice, in 2002 and 2007, calling for collective peace between Arabs and Israel.
Former US ambassador to Tel Aviv Martin Indyk wrote an article for the Washington Post saying that Bandar wanted a "peace conference at which the Saudi foreign minister would announce this plan, with Israeli Prime Minister Edud Olmert in attendance. But Abdullah wasn't buying it." The article added that the Saudi king, angered at an attempt to dictate foreign policy on him through Prince Bandar, "wouldn't be doing Washington any more favors". It also said Washington made a big mistake in relying on Bandar, who is a friend of the Bush family, because it was Abdullah, rather than the former ambassador, who was calling the shots in Riyadh. And "the king's world view differs from Bandar's".
Bandar and King Abdullah are both alarmed by the so-called "Shi'itification" in the Arab region and the growing strength of Iran, especially in Iraq, where Saudi Arabia has been the traditional patron of the country's Sunnis. While Bandar prefers confrontation with Iran, aimed at curbing its power, King Abdullah favors engagement to get the Iranian regime to change its behavior, with as much silent diplomacy and minimal damage as possible.
British journalist Patrick Seale, in an article on May 3, said a security deal should be made between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis would use their influence to prevent any Persian Gulf state from letting the Americans use their bases to attack Iran and, in return, Iran would stop meddling in Iraqi politics and supporting Shi'ite militias against the Sunni community.
Here is where Syria comes into play. The Syrians can be used to moderate Iranian behavior. That's what King Saud thought in 1957 with regard to the radical pan-Arab policies of Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was a Soviet ally in the Arab world. Damascus could "moderate" Nasser, it was believed. King Abdullah noted Syria's performance during the hostage crisis of 15 British sailors and marines in Iran, and the fact that Assad intervened with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, to secure their release.
This is how King Abdullah thinks problems should be solved. He has also realized that using Lebanon to isolate Syria was a strategic mistake. While he remains committed to the Hariri family and the international tribunal investigating the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, he is becoming increasingly critical of the March 14 Coalition in Lebanon that is headed by Hariri's son Saad.
The March 14 Coalition recently called for resorting to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to impose the tribunal on Lebanon through the Security Council. The Hezbollah-led opposition, which is backed by Syria and Iran, does not reject the tribunal in principle and nor does Syria, but is opposed to the current draft of the tribunal, based on the grounds that the text is ambiguous on a time frame over which the tribunal will have jurisdiction.
The cabinet of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and its international backers in Washington and France want the tribunal to have jurisdiction not only on the Hariri affair, but also on other political assassinations and crimes (such as the bombing of the US marines in Beirut in 1983). The opposition, however, want it to include guarantees of non-politicization, and to be limited to the 2005 murder of Hariri.
They claim that the current cabinet, deprived of its opposition deputies, cannot sign off on the current draft of the tribunal. If the bid under Chapter VII passes, which King Abdullah opposes, this would mean that the tribunal becomes obligatory to states (such as Syria) and individuals (such as senior members of Hezbollah). By virtue of its obligatory nature under Article VII, any non-compliance to the tribunal's verdicts would invite compulsory enforcement - even possibly by military means.
This explains why at the Arab summit, King Abdullah stood at arm's length from Siniora and invited Lebanese President Emile Lahoud to attend. The Lebanese issue received minimal attention in Riyadh. King Abdullah was sending the Lebanese a message that the anti-Syrian approach was no longer going to work for Saudi Arabia - at least not in its present form.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal declared that the Lebanese had to solve their problems among themselves, without expecting help from anybody. The Saudis declared that Syria would no longer be isolated from its Arab neighborhood, agreeing to hold the next Arab summit in Damascus, thereby giving much homage to the Syrians.
King Abdullah realizes that the March 14 Coalition has its own agenda, which sometimes contradicts with the Saudi one, and believes it is too pro-American. While the Saudis would like to see their Lebanese friends in a strong position with regard to Iran and Hezbollah, they nevertheless do not wish to go full-board and change the entire rules of the game in the Middle East.
The March 14 Coalition has, contrary to Saudi desires and stated wishes, escalated the situation to reach a complete deadlock to justify imposing the tribunal under Article VII. Siniora has refused to step down, and refused to cooperate with Hezbollah on an expanded government. Going by Article VII means a de facto internationalization of the Lebanese conflict at a time when King Abdullah is trying to localize it.
When violence erupted in Beirut, the Saudis were furious that their allies emerged with arms and used them against Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement of General Michel Aoun. They do not want chaos in Beirut. Too much is at stake for the Saudis, in terms of political and economic investment, to accept that, and this explains why they hurried to calm the situation with Iran.
The Saudis are also not pleased at March 14's attitude toward the upcoming Lebanese president, who is expected to take office when Lahoud's term expires in November. The Lebanese constitution states that two-thirds are needed to elect a new president, without specifying whether this means two-thirds of the assembled deputies at the voting session or two-thirds of the entire 128-seat Parliament.
March 14 claims that it can vote for a new president with its 70 deputies. The Hezbollah-led opposition says 70 votes do not secure a two-thirds majority, insisting that the constitution calls for two-thirds of Parliament, and not of the voting session. They are saying that if March 14 goes ahead and votes for its own candidate with 70 deputies, then they can also vote for another president with their 57 candidates, leaving Lebanon with two presidents, something that could further ignite sectarian violence and chaos.
The Saudis believe that along with Syria, they can calm the situation not only in Lebanon but in Iraq as well. The Sunni street in Baghdad is divided between Syria and Saudi Arabia. As long as the two countries remain divided over Lebanon, then the problems in Iraq will continue, because the Sunni community will also remain divided.
Now that the source of friction - Lebanon - has been defused, Riyadh believes that much can be done within Iraq to help stabilize the war-torn country, especially with the Iraqi Sunnis leading the insurgency and having no real leader to follow or inspire them.
Saudi Arabia has control of the tribes and Syria has control over former Ba'athists and prominent Sunni community leaders. Combined, they could produce results when it comes to the insurgency, or the stability of Iraq.
Saudi Arabia realizes that Syria does not have an identical agenda when it comes to Iran. Syria is not in favor of creating a theocracy, nor does it support an autonomous Shi'ite district in southern Iraq, as called for by Iran's No 1 ally in Baghdad, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
While Saudi Arabia abhors Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, Syria has relations with him and can put them into use into moderating his behavior, along with that of his patron and boss, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. If the Syrians and Saudis sit together and brainstorm, they can come up with creative ways to change things in Iraq. This naturally would please the United States, which is becoming more and more in need of help in Baghdad.
Sharm al-Sheikh
Last week's meeting at the Sharm al-Sheikh resort in Egypt to discuss Iraq was a turning point in Syrian-US relations, described by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal as "a new thing that we welcome".
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem met with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last Thursday. It was the first encounter of a US and a Syrian foreign minister since Colin Powell went to Damascus in 2003, and Rice's first encounter with the Syrians since the Bush team came into office in 2001.
Moualem said the 30-minute meeting was "frank and constructive"; Rice proposed that the Americans join the Syrian-Iraqi security committees that have been at work on border security since 2003. Moualem agreed, stressing, however, the need to strengthen political and diplomatic ties between Damascus and Washington, and in restoring a US ambassador to Syria.
His tone echoed that of Rice on several issues, mainly, implementing Maliki's Baghdad security plan, disarming the militias, amending the constitution, and revisiting the de-Ba'athification laws.
Syria proposed a timetable for withdrawal of US troops, but only Iran supported this suggestion, and the final resolution of the conference came out instead with a vague statement saying that withdrawal is conditional on the training of Iraqi troops.
At her press conference, Rice steered clear of any anti-Syrian rhetoric, stressing that the US still has diplomatic ties with Damascus. All press reports confirm that the issue of Lebanon, which aggravates Syrian-US relations at this stage, was not raised by Moualem and Rice.
Last month, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, was in Damascus, ostensibly enraging the Bush White House, which insisted that her visit did not reflect the United States' official stance toward Syria.
She said that the "road to Damascus is the road of peace". In March, European Union foreign-policy chief Javier Solana went to Syria, embraced the Syrians and offered a set of incentives to bring Damascus back into the international community, on the condition that it cooperates with Europe on Lebanon. Many diplomats and people in the Arab world laugh when the international tribunal is mentioned, saying that it most certainly will - when created - be hollowed out from any anti-Syrian material.
Interestingly, there is a lot of talk in Damascus that US presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton will be stopping by in Syria. This speculation was heightened when Clinton defended Pelosi's visit to Syria in a radio interview. Clinton said the Speaker had done "the right thing", adding, "We have to engage these countries."
Bush, however, said meetings like those of Solana and Pelosi simply "do not work" because they have been tried in the past by US officials. Yet last week it was not the Democrat Pelosi meeting with Assad, it was none other than Rice meeting with Syria's minister of foreign affairs.
And Rice means Bush. Something must have changed in Damascus - and Washington. The answers can be found in Baghdad, and almost equally in Riyadh. The more Syria can offer in Iraq - and cooperate with Saudi Arabia - the more its isolation will come to a grinding halt.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd.
Original link
| Ander Nieuws week 20 / nieuwe oorlog 2007 |