Region | Syria
Damascus 'cautiously optimistic' about Clinton
When Imad Mustapha was appointed Syria's ambassador to the United States, in 2004, many doubted that the academic-turned-diplomat would be able to tame the aggressive White House of George W. Bush. He has, however, managed to impress both friends and opponents with charm and eloquence.
- By Sami Moubayed, Correspondent
- Published: 23:46 December 5, 2008
- The Bush administration had developed an unprecedented attitude of not talking to whoever it disagreed with. To say the least, this can be described as a petty and counterproductive attitude, says Imad Mustapha, Syrian ambassador to US.
- Image Credit:
Damascus: When Imad Mustapha was appointed Syria's ambassador to the United States, in 2004, many doubted that the academic-turned-diplomat would be able to tame the aggressive White House of George W. Bush. He has, however, managed to impress both friends and opponents with charm and eloquence.
Prior to his diplomatic appointment, Syrians knew him as an academic (Mustapha was the dean of the Faculty of Computer Science at Damascus University), a writer, and a patron of the arts.
Mustapha spoke to Gulf News about Syrian-US relations, and what will change once Barack Obama assumes office in 2009.
Gulf news: What does Hillary Clinton's appointment as secretary of state mean for Syria?
Mustapha: I don't believe that it is about people and personalities. Yes, individuals can play either a detriment or a helpful role when managing and implementing policies, but evaluating their personal contribution comes at a later stage. First and foremost we have to look at the vision, strategy and policies of the Obama administration towards the Middle East.
The tough questions are the following: Does the Obama administration understand the paramount importance of addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict? Is this administration willing to move from conflict management to conflict resolution? Are President Obama and his team capable of paying enough attention to the Middle East, and are they willing to spend the required resources and energy to proactively broker a peace deal in our region? Finally, how high would they rank this among their list of priorities?
Once answers to these questions start to evolve and we obtain a clearer understanding of how the Obama administration plans to address the major issues on its foreign policy agenda, then we can start talking about expectations and whether we should raise or dampen them. By selecting Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state we learn more about Obama's mindset and his presidential style than about his plans for the US foreign policy.
As far as Syria is concerned, we are cautiously optimistic. Our optimism stems from our realisation of how deep is America's desire for change, our perception of Barack Obama the man and the president, and how Bush's foreign policies have miserably failed.
Let us break down what we expect from an Obama administration into three areas: Palestine, Iraq and Syria. Where are we heading on all three fronts, mainly Syria?
We need to be realistic in our expectations. We should not to be overjoyed by the success of Obama to a degree that that we forget that Obama the president will be bound by too many constraints vis-a -vis the Middle East question.
However, what I hope for, and reasonably expect, is that with President Obama and his team, the national interests of the United States will be put ahead of the national interests of any other country in the world, including that of Israel. If this seems too much to ask, then at least we hope that his administration will understand that there are alternative ways of supporting Israel.
The US can be a better friend to Israel by helping her realise how these policies are undermining Israel's security and regional stability, as well as by pursuing a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
On Palestine, we expect President Obama to depart from the Bush policies of verbally supporting the right of the Palestinians to establish their free, sovereign and viable state, to actually pressuring Israel to allow this to happen. Not because he holds any anti-Israeli sentiments, but because he cares for the long-term prospects of Israel and her very survival.
In the short term, we want to see how his administration is going to deal with the long and harsh siege of Gaza, where collective punishment of a whole population is imposed on an already long suffering community. The United States under President Obama should never accept such a flagrant infringement on the basic human rights of a whole population.
On Iraq, Obama's positions are well known. He won mass support for his pledge to withdraw from Iraq, and I believe he will deliver on this. The only danger is that the political-military establishment will attempt to circumvent his plan to withdraw from Iraq. This can be done through a combination of political maneuvering in the US, creating further instability on the ground in Iraq, and raising the levels of regional tension, so that he can be sold the need for US troops to remain longer in that 'volatile and dangerous' region.
On Syria, we expect the new administration to engage in a serious and candid dialogue that addresses all issues and recognises the legitimacy of the core Syrian policy: that of ending the occupation and making peace. We ask the new administration not to be influenced by the extreme anti-Syrian policies of the Bush administration.
Creating a new context for bilateral relations can only reflect positively on our region, particularly with the three major issues the Bush administration claimed to be the source of contention with Syria: the Israeli-Arab peace process, the Lebanese question, and Iraq. We hope to go back to an era of US-Syrian relations when we used to believe that both countries had common interests in many areas. These common interests were used as a good basis for cooperation and a platform for dialogue on the problematic aspects of our bilateral relations.
As ambassador, you faced numerous difficulties in dealing with the Bush White House. Have you received any indicators from the Obama team that things are going to be different?
Everyone expect the new administration to start with a fresh look at all the issues on the international scene. The Bush administration had developed an unprecedented attitude of not talking to whoever it disagrees with. To say the least, this can be described as a petty and counterproductive attitude. We don't expect from President Obama's team to have similar positions. The consensus up till now in the Washingtonian circles is that he has chosen people with the finest possible qualities. I find it very hard to imagine that these individuals will get their inspiration and cues from the precedents set by the previous administration.
You are one of the most active diplomats in contemporary Syrian history, and probably, one who went through the most difficult of times. There is a lot of talk about 'hardships' in your job in Washington. Can you tell us about that?
If we take everything into a relative context I would say 'yes', there were very difficult moments. Sometimes I feel that it is not easy being the Syrian representative in Washington.
There are good things as well, however, and I don't want to sound very pessimistic. There are political difficulties and that is understandable, and I am willing to face them. I have no problem in facing the hostile media, engaging in extremely difficult discussions with congressmen, senators, and officials from the State Department. This is normal.
What disappoints me, because of my personal character, is that the US administration acts in a very petty - almost scandalous - way towards the embassy. They engage in acts that nobody would expect from the government of the world superpower, a great nation that has achieved milestones in science, technology, entertainment, economy, and industry. You cannot believe that the government of this great nation is acting in such a petty manner towards the Embassy of Syria.
If we reciprocate and treat the US embassy in Damascus in similar manner, I think the Syrians would be scandalised and say Syria cannot go to this low degree of treating the US embassy.
One example is that I cannot send faxes, neither from my home, nor the embassy, to Syria. Another is that during one demonstration in front of the Syrian embassy authorities refused to send police to guard the premises, although that is what is customarily done.
I contacted Damascus and they contacted the US embassy saying that unless protection is provided for the Syrian embassy in Washington (as customarily done with any foreign embassy in the US), then Syria would have to lift all security placed in Damascus around the US embassy and the home of the ambassador. Within less than 30-minutes, two police cars drove up to guard the Embassy.
Share this article
Popular in News
News Editor's choice
-
Diabetes: A ticking time bomb
Gulf News takes a closer look at the spread of diabetes in the UAE
-
Africa segment at Dubai film festival
Productions feature interesting mix of genres tackling serious issues
-
What to expect at the Dubai Airshow
We preview what types of aircraft to expect at the Dubai Airshow
