| SimoHurtta | Information Technology | Finland |
Re: ‘Syria's foreign policy’
From a North European??s viewpoint the overall relations between Arab and Muslim countries with each other are ?? how can one say it politely ?? confusing. In speeches, and undoubtedly in the minds of normal people, an Arab unity exists but in practical moves the co-operation is rather low. Arab world is like Europe 100 ?? 200 years ago; regional powers fighting for influence, forming short lived coalitions and tripping each others whenever possible.
For outside powers, especially for USA and her regional bull terrier, Israel, keeping the Arab world fragmented and even trying to fragment it more, as described in the map prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters, is geopolitically and economically understandable from US government??s viewpoint. With this strategy the United States could control the oil drilling, trade routes and prices to some extent and keep the petrodollar rotation going on. And more importantly the United States could stop a potentially strong competitor to emerge, which an Arab ??EU? would be. This American divide and rule strategy is not also unknown with her policy towards Europe and EU. The United States does not want the European Union to develop further towards a more state-like entity with common foreign policy and defense. The United States wants the EU to stay as a loose union of nation states, understandable for USA??s geopolitical interests but not so ??understandable? for European countries. Though solely blaming the ??West? and Israel for the Middle East??s problems is not justified. The different local power centers struggling for influence and power must carry also their responsibility of the ??missed opportunities?. The Iraq war could not have happened if Arab countries had said no.
A Middle East ??EU? in the coming decades would change the present geopolitical power structure considerably, especially now when oil becomes a critical supply. Middle East??s best (only) hope is in close economical and political co-operation followed with rapid economical growth. In time that would undoubtedly lead to a better democratic ruling style and push back the growing religious extremism.
For Syria good and functioning relations with the Arab and Muslim countries are in the end much more important than the level of relations with USA and EU. Naturally, good relations with EU and USA can open possibilities in trade, technology and investments. But especially with the United States, the past decades’ history has shown that good relations can exist only if Syria obeys and follows the will of America. And that has been proven difficult because the countries interests do not match with so many issues.
European countries have in the past decades had much more pragmatic relations with Arab countries. Financing the oil trade with Arab countries with maximum export has been more important for most European countries than giving democracy lectures. Despite of US pressure European countries and EU seem not with full heart back US moves, which often seem to cost in the end Europe more than USA. Serious instability in Middle East reflects on Europe much more severely and quickly than it reflects on the United States. A peaceful and prosperous neighbouring block would benefit Europe much more than a region torn apart with civil wars and religious extremism.
Relations with Israel are important for Syria only with the Golan question and Palestine problem and of course in military aspects. In economical terms co-operation with Israel is also in future rather insignificant, if Israel continues on the chosen path. Israel is like an island, mostly isolating herself from the region. Israel could provide technology, capital and a relatively small market for many products, but nothing unique that others can not provide. Peace with Israel is important for Syria but only if the two main challenges can be solved in a way that might not be in Israel??s interests, meaning creating Palestine and giving back Golan. The decades long dispute has enabled Israel to play a much bigger role in world politics (and hugely benefited it economically) than it could keep up with peace with neighbours. Is Israel ready to become the Denmark of the Middle East – a prosperous small country, but politically rather insignificant? If the coming Annapolis conference doesn??t provide real results, very few still believe in Israel??s desire to solve the problems in the way most of the world wants.
With Lebanon Syria should forget the big brother mentality. Let Lebanon calm down and choose her own path. Like many other European countries have had to do the same with their breakaway areas and countries. In the end Lebanon needs Syria much more than Syria needs Lebanon, even if the country is lead by an anti-Syrian president.
The non Arab regional powers Turkey and Iran are extremely important for Syria, not only in many common political interests, but most of all for economical and industrial reasons. Turkey has already a good industrial basis and she has considerable amount of influence in international politics. Iran despite her rather ??bad? reputation is a large country, with industrial potential and huge natural resources.
In conclusion, Syria??s chances, with all those geopolitical tensions and problems in the Middle East, to create and keep up good relations with all involved parties is challenging, if not impossible. Syria should concentrate on finding the elements which unite the areas/nations and actively work for a tighter Middle East??s political and economical union. Only co-operation can save the area from decades long civil wars and the faith of Afghanistan and Iraq. In the end it is not the question about Shias against Sunnis, as little as it had been in Europe Protestants against Catholics. As Iraq and Afghanistan have clearly showed, the outsiders can not provide solutions, better living standards or stability. They only create more problems if they are allowed to lead the future Middle East.
(8 votes, average: 3.50 out of 5)
Loading...
