Opinions | Columnists
Engaging Syria helps prevent wider conflict
Its influence today might be even larger than it was shortly before the withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon.
- By Marwan Al Kabalan, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:00 August 4, 2006
For the past three weeks, since Israel launched its military operation against Lebanon, Syria's role in the current conflict and US policy towards Damascus have become matters of controversy in Washington.
Former politicians, diplomats, observers and analysts have contributed to the debate. Two strands of thought have emerged.
The first one viewed Syria as part of the solution and called for including it in any post-conflict arrangements.
This approach is advocated by both Republicans and Democrats alike. In an article in the Washington Post, Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser for former president George Bush, criticised the Bush administration's approach to the ongoing conflict in Lebanon (The article was also published in Gulf News on August 2).
He disputed Condoleezza Rice's identification of the roots of the current crisis in the Middle East.
"Hezbollah is not the source of the problem; it is a derivative of the cause, which is the tragic conflict over Palestine that began in 1948. Resolving this crisis requires engaging all the concerned parties," Scowcroft argued.
Democrats have also called for including Syria in any resolution to the crisis. Warren Christopher, former secretary of state under president Bill Clinton and architect of the "April Understanding" between Hezbollah and Israel in 1996, argued in the Washington Post in favour of including Syria in any ceasefire arrangements (Gulf News, July 31).
He wrote: "Although Syria no longer has troops in Lebanon, Hezbollah's supply routes pass through the heart of Syria, and some Hezbollah leaders may reside in Damascus, giving the Syrians more leverage over Hezbollah's actions than any other country save Iran."
"Although our relations with Syria have seriously deteriorated in recent years, we do not have the luxury of continuing to treat it with diplomatic disdain. As the situations with North Korea and Iran confirm, refusing to speak with those we dislike is a recipe for frustration and failure."
The other strand of thought is mainly advanced by analysts and academics. It argued in favour of isolating Syria and cutting it out from any ceasefire arrangements.
In the Weekly Standard, a right-wing US magazine, Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, urged the Bush administration to further isolate Syria and "organise a transatlantic consensus on economic and political pressure on Damascus".
So far, the Bush administration has been acting on the advice of Satloff and like-minded scholars. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ignored Syria during her recent Middle East tour to arrange for a ceasefire.
She tried to deal with this crisis through the Lebanese government and has been resisting any attempt to engage Syria in any sort of dialogue.
Rationale
The rationale of the Bush administration is that Syria's position in Lebanon has been weakened considerably after the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon last year.
According to some US officials, "Syria does not have the might, the resources and the political will to influence events in Lebanon", and hence engagement at this stage would be counter-productive.
It will allow Syria to regain control and undermine the very process the US started last year to expel the Syrians out of Lebanon. But, how accurate is this analysis?
The fact is, as recent developments in Lebanon have demonstrated, Syria still wields huge influence in Lebanon. Its influence today might be even larger than it was shortly before the withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon.
Apart from being Hezbollah's second largest ally after Iran, Syria enjoys strong ties with some of Lebanon's most important opposition leaders, such as General Michael Aoun, Omar Karami and Suliman Franjieha.
Even if Syria does not have key friends in Lebanon, or lack political influence, it certainly can complicate things by getting directly involved in the ongoing military confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel.
The Syrian leadership is already under huge popular pressure to join in the fight in support of Hezbollah. It is also weighing the pros and cons of getting involved.
Involvement, regardless of the outcome, means that Syria is going to reserve a seat in any post-war settlement, where its concerns must be addressed; key among them is the issue of the occupied Golan Heights.
So, isn't it better for the US administration to listen to experienced politicians than heeding the advice of some short-sighted academics and analysts?
Dr Marwan Al Kabalan is a lecturer in Media and International Relations, Faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University, Damascus, 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
