18 - 24 October 2001
Issue No.556
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 18 - 24 October 2001 Issue No.556 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Syria's third way
With a two-year stint on the UN Security Council and a warming of diplomatic relations with Washington, Syria doesn't have the luxury of keeping a low profile in the "war against terror," writes Sherine Bahaa
No sooner had US President George W Bush declared his famous ultimatum: "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists," than Arab nations began to ponder the consequences of shunning the international coalition against terrorism. The risk of being America's enemy is something that no Arab country can take lightly. As late Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat once said, "Nobody wants to fight the Americans."
The Syrian position, however, was bound to be more ambivalent given Syria's position high up on the US State Department's list of states that sponsor terrorism. Damascus offered a sharp condemnation of the 11 September attacks, but stopped short of backing the US-led "war against terrorism." Fearing a crackdown on legitimate resistance movements fighting foreign occupation, Syria called for a clear, internationally accepted definition of terrorism.
"The Syrians do not want to join any camp, that's the truth," said British journalist Patrick Seale, an expert on Syria and the country's ruling circles. "They [the Syrians] do not like what the Americans are doing, but they do not like terrorism either," Seale told Al-Ahram Weekly.
Syria has butted heads with Washington over backing militant resistance groups like Lebanon's Hizbullah and Palestinian opposition groups. But with the need to patch together Arab support for the US war, a moderate thaw in relations with Syria may gather momentum. Though admitting that relations between the two countries remain largely undeveloped, one Damascus-based Western diplomat told the Weekly that a "new mood" towards Syria was beginning to take shape. Taking note of this shift, Damascus seems ready to step into a new role.
Syria also has more weight in international affairs after being voted into a two-year term on the United Nations Security Council last week. The vote, which was approved by 160 out of the 177 member states was spared the lethal US veto that Sudan -- also on the State Department's list of terrorist states -- received. President Bush praised the vote, but the honeymoon didn't last long.
Shortly after the vote, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage warned Syria about the consequences of not complying with US demands. When asked about what the US will do if countries like Syria did not meet US expectations in the anti-terrorism campaign, Armitage said that it would depend on "whatever the coalition finds worthy, and it runs the gamut from isolation to financial investigation, all the way up through possibly military action." Armitage's statements contradicted the appreciating remarks by President Bush about Syria's readiness to take part in the war against terrorism, calling into question whether Washington took that claim seriously.
Syrian Sociologist Mohamed Gamal Baroutt told the Weekly that Washington's decision to vote Syria into the Security Council was a positive sign, saying it is an indicator that "the doves will be the ones holding sway inside the administration."
Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali Abdul-Karim believes that Armitage's words are only meant for media consumption, saying it is a way to pacify pro-Israeli sentiments in the US. "These are Israeli, rather than American intentions. Israel wants to use current [political] developments as a pretext to launch an overall war against Arab resistance movements in general," Abdul-Karim said.
Seale is also of the view that the US is juggling different interests, not only those of Israel. "The US is not a monolithic administration," said Seale. "There are hawks and doves. There are people who want to extend the war and others who want to limit the war strictly to Afghanistan and the Taliban." The US is still not sure about what it wants, insists Seale. "This is what the whole debate is about. They have to do something to satisfy public opinion. Everybody is asking them to expand it [the war], saying that this is an opportunity to reshape and remodel the whole world and get rid of our enemies."
For Seale, the possibility of the US expanding its attack to Arab countries is unlikely. "I think everybody is focusing on the problem at hand, but if they get bogged down in Afghanistan -- if they do not get a quick result -- then it might be tempting to expand somewhere else to cover their failure."
Though circumstances are hardly similar, the Syrians know that joining the allied forces in the Gulf War 10 years ago was a key opportunity. Says Seale: "they seized the opportunity to improve their relationship with the US and consolidate their position in Lebanon."
According to Baroutt, the US would be quite mistaken if it thinks the Syrians are going to join an alliance without any concrete overtures towards Syria's position in the Middle East peace process. After 10 years of failed talks, Arab countries are thoroughly disappointed. "Arab states like Syria and Saudi Arabia need a US commitment to solve the Arab-Israeli struggle on the basis of international legitimacy," says Seale. "They are using this as a leverage. The Americans are resisting this leverage, and they are trying to satisfy the Arabs with vague statements, not real commitment."
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page