Syria on the dock
Congress boldly responded to the Israeli attack by moving forward with unilateral sanctions on Syria, writes David Dumke* from Washington
Following the first Israeli strike on Syrian soil in 30 years, Damascus has discovered once again just how little sympathy it has in the US Congress. At a time when many feared the Israeli attack would lead to a prompt escalation of violence, the Bush administration all but blamed Syria for being the target of Israel, while many lawmakers in Congress hailed Sharon's latest aggression.
Rubbing salt into Syrian wounds, the House of Representatives voted to pass legislation that would sanction Damascus primarily for its alleged support of terrorism, occupation of Lebanon, and supposed desire to acquire of weapons of mass destruction. Long bottled up in the intricate legislative process at the behest of the White House, the notorious Syrian Accountability Act finally was passed by the House International Relations Committee and subsequently the full House.
Few in the House of Representatives seemed to worry about the message this latest move sent to the Arab world, which has long viewed this body as unquestioningly pro-Israeli. The blatant Israeli violation of Syrian sovereignty was not just overlooked by US lawmakers, but rewarded.
On 8 October, the House International Relations Committee passed the Syrian Accountability Act by a vote of 33-2. The debate held by the committee and repeated on the House floor a week later, resembled more of a show trial in which the accused could offer no defence and the outcome was never in question, rather than a critical legislative process.
Members used the occasion to jump on their soapboxes, repeat a litany of tired accusations, and in some cases vocally reaffirm their support of the Israeli bombing. "It will send a message to Damascus and the world that the United States will hold accountable nations that support deadly terrorist groups," said Representative Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat who co-wrote the legislation.
"I fully support Israel's decision to bomb a terrorist camp in Syria," said New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez. "How much terror can [Israel] take until it responds with a massive military campaign," added Joseph Hoeffel, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.
The limited opposition at the committee level was confined to two unorthodox Republicans, Ron Paul of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona. "When will it stop? Probably as we prepare to attack Syria while our troops are fighting in Iran," warned an exasperated Paul, a libertarian who generally opposes US intervention abroad.
"We've alienated many, many Muslims throughout the Middle East, and the last thing we need to do is throw more fuel on the fire by running Syria up the flag pole," said Jeff Dietz, Paul's press secretary. He also observed that Congress' move would also be seen in the region as a whole-hearted endorsement of Israel's policies. In contrast, Flake justified his opposition in economic terms, based on his aversion to unilateral trade sanctions.
Of course the Syrian Accountability Act, which passed the full House 15 October by a lopsided vote of 398-4, is not new legislation. The bill had been bantered about for nearly three years, and until recently seemed like it might die a quiet death before reaching a vote in the House. Whenever it showed signs of movement, White House intervention had repressed the potentially embarrassing bill. Much to the chagrin of its supporters, Secretary of State Colin Powell has long opposed the bill, calling for "careful calibrated engagement" as opposed to belligerency. "The only thing that's stopping this bill from passing is the State Department," Congresswoman Ileana Ros- Lehtinen commented earlier this year. She is a Republican from Florida and co-author of the bill with Engel.
Clearing the path for the bill's passage, the State Department reversed its long-standing opposition. Undersecretary John Bolton made that point clear at a September House hearing on Syria, when he emphasised the threat posed by Syria's chemical weapons programme.
Already approved by the House, the Syrian Accountability Act has been co-sponsored by 76 senators. The bill offers a six-choice menu of sanction options, of which the president must choose two unless Syria complies with a broad but vaguely-worded set of requirements such as withdrawing troops from Lebanon, dismantling its alleged WMD programme and ending its support of terrorist groups. The presidential options would include downgrading diplomatic relations, restricting US exports to and investments in Syria, and freezing Syrian assets in the United States.
Despite the controversy it has stirred, many in Washington see the bill as a paper tiger since it includes a waiver that would allow the president to delay implementation indefinitely, similar to the waiver that has kept the American Embassy in Israel from moving to Jerusalem. "This bill is simply another way of doing something without doing something," said a Democratic staffer.
Despite the waiver clause, other observers believe the legislation will have dangerous repercussions. "The legislation, even with all the loopholes, will weaken the atmosphere of US- Syrian relations and decrease administration flexibility," said David Mack, vice president of the Middle East Institute.
Nearly 500 American companies who do business in Syria opposed earlier versions of the bill. They speculated that trade restrictions would not only hurt the American economy, but also limit the US government's leverage with Damascus. "Economically, name one example where unilateral trade sanctions helped bring down a regime," said Dietz. "Forty years of economic sanctions on Cuba and we don't see a democratic regime in Havana," added Specht.
Opponents of the legislation, such as Democrat Nick Rahall of West Virginia, one of only four legislators to oppose the bill on the House floor, point out that Syria has cooperated in the war against Al-Qa'eda. "Here's a country that has been an ally of America against the real terrorists -- Al-Qa'eda ... and we want to punch them in the stomach like this? It's absolutely absurd," said Rahall. In his previous opposition to the legislation, Powell himself praised Syrian assistance for saving American lives.
So why was the legislation finally pushed through the House at this critical juncture? Some feel it is the result of pressure from Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, considered the most powerful man in the House. DeLay, who recently spoke at the Knesset, has been an increasingly vocal supporter of Israel. Many of his Democratic critics suggest DeLay is simply playing politics by appeasing the powerful Christian right and wooing Jewish voters, who traditionally side with the Democrats.
In August, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon endorsed the legislation at the request of its co-author, Engel. It begs the question as to whether Congress should inquire about Sharon's position on health care reform or other pressing matters under debate in Congress that do not specifically pertain to US relations with Israel.
Passage of the Syrian Accountability Act will be seen in the Arab world as another prime example that the US Congress is hostile and one- sided. But its supporters seem unconcerned about the message it sends to the Middle East -- especially strong given the sensitive timing -- instead adopting an attitude reminiscent of the depths of patriotic abandon: "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." Thus the bill moves forward.
* The writer serves as principal of the MidAmr Group, which works to improve US relations with the Arab world, and is a former congressional staffer.
