The final frontier
Despite numerous positive signals from Damascus, the US continues to up the pressure on Syria. Anders Strindberg* looks into Washington's not so hidden agenda
At a press conference on 20 June, following another round of shuttle diplomacy aimed at buttressing the shaky roadmap, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that "Syria has taken some limited steps" but added that "these limited steps are not nearly enough." This criticism referred to Syria's response to the extensive list of demands that Powell had presented during his visit to Damascus in early May: Syria must close its borders with Iraq; not give haven to wanted Iraqis; not interfere in efforts to promote the so- called roadmap; deploy the Lebanese army along Lebanon's border; disarm the Hizbullah; and close the Damascus offices of the Palestinian resistance groups.
What "limited steps", then, has Syria taken? The border with Iraq is sealed and no haven has been given to members of the former Baghdad regime. Even US State Department officials agree that, on this issue, they could not have asked for more. Moreover, Syria has not interfered with the roadmap in any way. In fact, Damascus, while critical of the roadmap's current format, would want to be included in the process but is kept out because Israel believes it can negotiate a better deal with Syria in isolation.
The Damascus offices of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have been closed. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command has rejoined the PLO and affirmed its support for Abu Mazen. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has discontinued its international public relations activities from Damascus, stopped networking among the embassies and refrains from giving press conferences and meeting with foreign journalists. The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- which is not considered a terrorist group by the US -- has taken similar steps. All resistance groups have indicated their willingness to abide by a cease-fire agreement that applies equally to both Palestinians and Israelis and that leads to the parallel implementation of the roadmap's political and security arrangements. Importantly, Al-Sa'iqa, the Palestinian faction that is also a branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party, participated in the Cairo talks; an unambiguous indication of Damascus's constructive attitude.
The issue of Lebanon is far more complicated than Washington wants to acknowledge. Hizbullah is one of the Middle East's most popular political movements and a cornerstone of stability within the Lebanese political system. In addition, the Islamic Resistance, its military wing, is organically integrated into the social infrastructure of southern Lebanon. To expect Syria to be able -- never mind willing -- to remould Lebanon according to US specifications entails an overestimation of Syria's capacity and an underestimation of Hizbullah's autonomy. Even so, Syria has urged the Hizbullah to exercise restraint in light of the regional situation and Hizbullah has, so far, acquiesced.
Within the realm of the politically possible, Syrian efforts to induce a less belligerent American tone have been comprehensive and far-reaching, yet according to Powell they are "not nearly enough". What, then, is enough?
There simply is no "enough". Damascus is being faulted for failing to do the impossible and the US seems determined to push Syria into a corner. It has been suggested that Washington remains deeply embittered by Syria's stance during the invasion of Iraq, and that the pro-Israel ideologues surrounding the administration see Syria as a perennial threat that, quite simply, must be confronted.
US policy now aims at nothing short of shutting down all independent agendas. Washington seeks to silence, once and for all, the last remaining voices of dissent in the region, in particular those that remind the world of the existence of the Palestinian refugees. The refugee issue consistently thwarted the finagling that took place during the Oslo process, and threatens to do the same to the roadmap. In drawing up the roadmap, the Quartet avoided references to the refugees' right of return specifically because Israel would then have dismissed the document outright; the rights of the Palestinian people are clearly more easily compromised than the "demographic concerns" of Tel Aviv. Pro-Israel circles in Washington have seized this opportunity to force the comprehensive sidetracking of not only the refugees, but of all those who champion their cause and espouse generally "problematic" policies such as the actual return of occupied Arab land.
By demonstratively forcing the Ba'ath leadership in Damascus to finally prostrate itself before the American hegemony, Washington aims to deprive Syria of its symbolic value as the last champion of Arab nationalism. With Syria thus discredited, the Hizbullah crippled and the Palestinian factions crushed -- a cease-fire is, after all, "not enough" -- US hegemony and Israeli policy would be virtually uncontested. This is about showing who is boss. What is Syria's predicament today promises to be the reality of the whole region tomorrow.
* The writer, formerly a visiting professor in Damascus University, is a journalist working in the United States and the Middle East. He is currently a visiting research fellow in the Centre of International Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.
