| Wassim | Student | United Kingdom |
Re: ‘Syria's foreign policy’
In a previous essay on my blog, I had argued that, since 1989, the region had gone through three distinct phases. In the first phase, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we had seen a period of unrivaled US dominance in the region. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq had given the pretext for US bases throughout the Gulf (an original grievance of Bin Laden) and a free hand for America in the region. In the second phase, we saw the rise of the sham peace initiative which saw Arafat brought in as an Israeli policeman to control and limit the damage of the Intifada that had shaken Israel to its core. This “American Peace process” was a dead horse that was continuously flogged until 2001, when it became clear after the al Qaeda attacks on the United States that a different approach was needed. This first phase also saw the demise of Arabism as various Arab countries were offered incentives to join in repelling Saddam Hussein. Many of them jumped at the opportunity, including Syria which was rewarded with a free hand in Lebanon and renewed hopes of a possible settlement involving the Golan. As one scholar reflected, it was ??the end of Arab politics? and indeed of Arabism – that optimistic nationalism which had been dominant since the mid twentieth century. The third phase began with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the attempt by the United States to reshape the Middle East. This attempt has now failed, instead what we see is a dominant Iran, a confident Syria and the worlds only alleged super power unable to extricate itself from the meat grinder once called Iraq.
Syria??s role in each of these phases has been crucial, yet it is in the last phase that the country has found itself once again at the centre of attention. In 2007 we find that the region has been defined largely as pro and anti-US spheres of influence, a division which, in the case of Lebanon, runs right through the capitol. The Gulf countries are firmly entrenched in the American sphere of influence, as are Egypt and Jordan. On the other hand, Syria and Iran have managed, though precariously at first, to maintain a power balance with various groups such as Hezbullah and Hamas, as well as through ??moral and political? support to the resistance in Iraq. While they could not hope of defeating the United States yet, they quickly realized that they could make victory impossible for the Americans.
In this reality, we quickly realize that Syria??s choices with regards to economic and political relations crystallize. Iran, Russia and strangely enough, Turkey are the countries where future ties should be strengthened. The United States has been defeated on every level in the region, whether it is in Iraq or in Israel??s attempt to crush Hezbullah (and Lebanon) last summer. From a security perspective, it is vital that Damascus maintain and strengthen its ties with Iran as well as with Hezbullah and Hamas (Khaled Meshaal continues to be shuttled between safe houses throughout the Syrian capital). Damascus has already learned that a peace negotiated from weakness will not work with an Israel that is overconfident in its strength and abilities. In addition, Syria needs energy and a proposed gas line through Turkey from Iran could help cement the already growing economic ties between the two countries. In addition, Syria plays host to a large number of Iranian religious tourists who flock to the countries shrines contributing to the economy.
A newly confident Russia is also a partner with whom relations have always been strong historically. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Syria wooed a considerable number of Russian scientists and experts though the effect of this is still unclear. Recently we hear that Russia??s Putin is anxious to roll back what he sees as American encroachment throughout central Asia, whilst a new ‘Great Game’ is shaping up in the Arctic as well. His recent warning against military force in the Caspian was largely a warning against the use of countries north of Iran as launchpads for future attacks against the Islamic Republic. In addition, Russia has been able to provide weapons systems which, if used properly, can help deny Israel or the United States air superiority over Syria or Iran, or at least make life difficult for any attacker. Russia can also provide vital support through its membership of the United Nations Security Council and, in a time when most of the world has already folded under the United States, such a large profile, and still powerful, ally would add considerable political and diplomatic weight to Syria.
The strange case of Turkey has recently become more prominent with the ambush of Turkish soldiers near the Iraqi border. Joshua Landis recently posted on how Ehud Olmert was snubbed by Turkey??s new president in favour of the Syrian President Assad as the first official state visitor. While there, Assad was quick to voice Syria??s support of Turkey??s right to quell terror and terrorists. A pragmatic move signaling Syrian support for any Turkish military action in Iraq. Syria??s (and Iran??s) interest in bringing Turkey to Iraq serves to not only humiliate the United States and add to its considerable woes, but also eliminates the fledgling Kurdish state, seen as a threat by all three states and a strong ally of the United States. The elimination of this haven of American sponsored calm in this turbulent region makes life incredibly difficult for the Occupation, though it could prove costly for Turkey in the long run. In addition, it demonstrates that the preservation of Iraq??s territorial integrity is in our strategic interest once America is forced to retreat.
Iran, Russia and Turkey do make for strange bedfellows, but Syria finds itself in the middle of a cobweb spun by the regions historic enemies from across the sea and these are in fact sound alliances. Syria??s internal opposition and democracy advocates both formal and grass roots are incoherent, marginalized and in disarray. This means that, through a quirk of history or international relations, the survival of the ruling regime is now dependent on Syria??s role as the only Arab country which continues to resist the American designs on the region and vice versa. Many will disagree with me, yet I doubt any can offer a realistic alternative, apart from infantile deconstructions of language, society and power, which does not jeopardise the resistance to America and Israel upon which the future of the region depends.
Syria??s flexibility on key issues in the region from Lebanon to the Palestinian refugees can also be predicted based on this analysis of the current political climate. The simple answer is, none is required, though of course this is something we will need to look at closely. Lebanon is a complex and vibrant country which has historically strong connections to Syria. Syria??s involvement did indeed end the country??s long and bloody civil war, but at the cost of a heavy handed Syrian military presence there throughout the nineties. This remained the case till the assassination of Hariri and American pressure on Syria to withdraw, something meant to pave the way for a systematic removal of Hezbullah by Israel. It is unfortunate that this beautiful country should again be the battleground for foreign countries but the fact remains that it remains the Achilles heel to Syria and both Israel and the United States place a high priority on taking control there. Assad, like his father, recognizes that anything which can give those two countries a toe hold in Lebanon would lead to the strangulation of Syria and cannot be tolerated. Syria does not even need to gain full control of Lebanon, but simply maintain the status quo since time is not on America’s side. Granted, the United States is arming the Future party thugs and some paramilitary groups from the days of the civil war, but these will be no match for Hizbullah’s seasoned fighters unless Israel involves itself simultaneously. This however, does risk setting the region ablaze as neither Syria nor Iran will allow Hezbullah to be crushed now that it has proven it’s value.
In the case of Iraq, Syria again has absolutely no reason at all to change its position as this has been the key event which has allowed it to ??catch the tiger by the toe?. A worrying factor is the pressure being exerted on it through the Iraqi refugee problem, something which might be used to keep the heat up on Damascus since there has been no international assistance forthcoming. It is a tricky position to be in and the Syrian economy, through corruption and mismanagement is still brittle. In the grand scheme of things though, there is an argument to say that Syria is hurting a lot less because of hosting the Iraqi refugees than the United States, which is hemorrhaging in Iraq.
On the matter of the Golan and the Palestinian refugees, the current climate is not conducive at all for any grand peace gestures and the upcoming ??conference? must be seen mainly as a place for the United States and its regional allies to lick their wounds and plan their next move. Syria??s position (publicly) on these two matters should remain one of long term construction for a ??just? solution though there may have to be compromise on the right of return if the Golan is to come back. The question is whether Syria can build enough pressure on Israel in the meantime to make the return of the Golan in exchange for abandoning the right of return profitable enough. Still, should such a situation come about, it would beg the question of why anyone should then negotiate with an increasingly weaker Israel, rather than liberate Palestine and put an end to this saga. This is where Hamas comes in, whereby Iran is now demographically at Israel??s northern and southern borders. Israel cannot afford to ignore Hamas for much longer and is allegedly planning a massive operation of sorts in Gaza. If this is truly the case, it will not risk doing so without also trying to deal another blow to Hezbullah, who may get involved should Hamas?? position be endangered. The Palestinian infighting, as tragic as it seems, is in fact a mirror of what is happening in the region as a whole and must be viewed as a struggle between who will control the ??street? so to speak. The outcome made there will have ramifications further up the food chain. Syria cannot hope to defeat Israel through direct confrontation, yet we see that even America cannot hold Iraq in spite of its might. That and the war in Lebanon have provided vital precedents and templates for how such modern armies can be dealt with and broken, with a minimum investment of arms and equipment. America and Israel are strong in the West, but not in the Middle East.
The twentieth century can be considered the Middle East??s lost century or, to paraphrase from Gabriel Marquez, its ??100 years of solitude?. The overwhelming tide of secular politics and nationalism which engulfed the region following the end of the ??Western mandates? marginalized and drowned out the regions own rich political, socio-economic and religious realities with those that had a context in Western Europe. Almost two generations of Arabs have thus been educated to look West instead of East – they are lost. The tragedy is that most of these ??lost Arabs? now either rule us (the moderate countries) or dominate what is taken as a political opposition in most countries, including Syria. As Shariati once said, there are three strands of political thought: Humanist, Nationalist and Religious. These three factors, when applied in the correct context and reality, can in fact be productive and useful. It is when they are applied in the wrong context and reality that they can cause much damage, for example they can make people who should be enemies friends and vice versa. Rather than be partial to one or the other flavour, Syria has proven adept at manipulating each of those three images where it saw fit. This should be commended and not condemned at a time when nationalism is used to divide the Arab countries, religion is used to divide Sunni against Shia and the secular against the religious whilst in one breath humanism is being used to justify the continued occupation of Palestine and Iraq.
To conclude, I have argued that Syria should in fact strengthen its ties to Iran, Russia and Turkey. This is due to the context within which we find the region and that has gone through a number of phases since 1989. The death of Arabism and the realignment of many regional players on the side of Israel and the United States meant that a new appraisal had to be made and Syria has in fact made it. At this moment it has no need to be flexible on any issues since it (and Iran) remarkably still hold all the cards. However, rather than expect to rest on its success and hope to negotiate a better offer, Syria must intensify its efforts to roll back this influence, anything less could jeopardise all it has worked for. The populations of Jordan and Egypt reject the surrender of their rulers and this could be useful at a later stage, especially now that Mubarak is old and rumours abound of his ill health. Inadvertently perhaps, the role played by Syria in recent events could awaken some of those Arabs who have been seduced by the siren call of America. These Arabs have been taught to place a greater emphasis on bread and surrender, that to be patient and await some saviour is foolish. Yet I refer to them as sleeping Arabs, because underneath these clothes that do not belong to them, they will soon remember that it is not by bread alone that one lives, as Jesus once said. The fact that most Western analysts and politicians might think it a contradiction for a Muslim to quote Jesus demonstrates how far outside of the real debates they really are. Realism in International Relations and prudent political planning makes for strange partnerships and even stranger outcomes.
(21 votes, average: 3.38 out of 5)
Loading...
