Opinions | Columnists
Don't read much into the US-Syria talks
The Sharm Al Shaikh meeting showed that US-Syrian relations are absolutely tied up to developments on the US-Iranian track.
- By Marwan Kabalan, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:00 May 11, 2007
- Image Credit: Illustration by Nino Jose Heredia/Gulf News
In the clearest sign so far about a change in the US policy towards Syria, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Syrian counterpart, Walid Mua'allem, met last week at the Sharm Al Shaikh resort, Egypt.
The 30 minutes meeting was the first such high- level contact between the two countries since the US recalled its ambassador from Damascus 30 months ago, following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The meeting was celebrated in Damascus as a victory for Syrian diplomacy. After years of bullying, pressure and demonisation, the Bush administration has agreed to engage Syria, abandoning its long-standing policy of not talking to enemies.
For the Syrian government, the Bush administration seems to have finally realised that without recognising Syria's interests and regional role, there will be no peace in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.
Besides, the Syrians were pleased that they did not have to give in to US demands to persuade the Bush administration to reconsider its policy. Syria did not expel Hamas's leaders, it did not abandon Hezbollah, and most importantly it did not break its alliance with Iran as preconditions for the resumption of dialogue with the US.
Yet, a closer look at the Sharm Al Shaikh meeting and the ensuing reactions in both Damascus and Washington show that it might be a bit early to celebrate a breakthrough in the relationship between the two countries.
In Damascus, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, in an interview with NBC, downplayed the significance of the Rice-Mua'allem meeting, saying that "It's too early to say it's a breakthrough. ... We are still waiting to see how the US wants to start". Similarly, Rice cautioned from Washington against reading too much into the meeting.
"Let's take this one step at a time," she said. "I'm very glad we had the opportunity ... but this was not about anything other than Iraq, and we will certainly see whether we can observe words being followed by deeds."
The meeting itself showed a conflict between the two countries over what issues should they talk about.
While Rice insisted on limiting the talks to Iraq and Syria's role to contribute to stability and security in that country, Mua'allem, wanted to discuss the resumption of Middle Eastern peace talks, bilateral relations, the US sanctions on Syria and more important Lebanon, wherein Syria is under huge pressure to help establish an international tribunal to try those involved in the assassination of Hariri.
Rhetoric
To confirm that there was no substantial shift in US policy towards Syria after meeting Mua'allem and in an attempt to assure its Lebanese allies that there will be no deal with Syria on their expense; Rice wrote an editorial in the anti-Syria Lebanese daily An-nahar.
In the article she urged the establishment of an international tribunal to bring to trial those responsible for the killing of Hariri. She warned that the "UN would act on its own if the Lebanese parliament failed to give the go-ahead for the establishment of such a court".
The rhetoric from both Washington and Damascus has lent credit to those who argued that the Rice-Mua'allem meeting was never about Syria, but about Iran. The US key objective of meeting the Syrians after years of hesitation was to help nudge Syria away from Iran.
The pan-Arab daily Al Hayat reported last week that the Iranians were absolutely disturbed by the Rice-Mua'allem meeting and felt that the Syrians were too eager to talk to the Americans.
In Washington, Iran is considered the big fish and that something should be done to circumscribe its increasing regional influence by wining it over or by further isolating it. That was absolutely clear when Rice tried to meet Iranian foreign minister during the Sharm Al Shaikh conference. It did not work out.
The Sharm Al Shaikh meeting showed that US-Syrian relations are absolutely tied up to developments on the US-Iranian track.
This explains why neither Washington nor Damascus was willing, or even able, to deliver what the other wanted. The only important result of the Rice-Mua'allem meeting was that the two sides have just found out that all routes are leading to Tehran.
Marwan Kabalan is a lecturer in media and international relations, Faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University, Syria.
Share this article
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: World hunger
Who is responsible for world hunger? Are there any solution?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Parochialism versus India
The idea of India gets defeated if people are governed by domicile considerations
-
Between crime and insanity
Major Hassan's actions debase the universal parlance of the very faith that he professed to embrace so ardently
-
Its time for Karzai to show his mettle
He may have fallen out of favour, but for now there are no other leadership options
