Hidden agenda

The Syria Accountability Act reveals that the political goals of the US in the region are not as simple as they might appear, writes Emad Fawzi Shoeibi from Damascus

---

The announcement that the Syria Accountability Act will be implemented has opened a new phase in US-Syrian relations. Regardless of which specific articles are passed, the act may help US President George W Bush's administration secure the neo- conservative Jewish and Zionist Christian vote for the forthcoming presidential elections. Meanwhile, it will certainly hinder US-Syrian cooperation in the "war on terror".

Syria's experience in combating "terrorism" -- of which it has itself been a frequent victim -- combined with its uniquely strategic location made it an ideal potential partner for the US since 11 September 2001. Yet the US has sacrificed this possibility by passing and now moving to implement the Syria Accountability Act.

Washington is also jeopardising the role it wants Syria to play in safeguarding the unity, stability and security of Iraq. Syria is perhaps the only country in the region that can perform this role because it has no vested interests in the ethnic, sectarian or political configurations in Iraq and because its sole aspiration is to help realise the full independence of Iraq, which, in practical terms, translates into a face-saving "exit strategy" for the Americans.

One cannot help but remark on the coincidence that just as the implementation of the Syria Accountability Act was announced, Bush was holding an interview with Editor- in-Chief of Al-Ahram Ibrahim Nafie. The president took the opportunity to justify the act's implementation.

Bush said Syria had failed to cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism and, more specifically, refused to close down Hizbullah's offices in Damascus. Regardless of the ample and incontrovertible evidence of Syria's cooperation in the "war on terror", it is curious how intent he was on stressing the latter complaint, especially in light of the fact that there is currently no Hizbullah office in Syria.

That Bush has made this blunder at least once before indicates that he either has no idea of what he is talking about, that he is deliberately misleading the public or that he has been deliberately misled by others who are intent on mounting a campaign against Damascus. In all events, his repeated reference to a non-existent office begs the question as to what lies behind the current US administration's reasoning and long-term strategy.

Even if the US has placed certain demands that Syria has rejected for political or strategic considerations, on closer inspection it becomes clear that these demands -- contrary to the superficial and self-serving claims of the neo-conservatives -- would, in fact, harm US interests.

The demand to drive out Hizbullah, for example, makes one wonder whether the US president or the National Security Council have really asked themselves how their interests would be served by dismantling a rational, moderate Islamist organisation that has been instrumental in safeguarding regional stability. Has it occurred to US officials that the logical alternative to Hizbullah is Al-Qaeda, or the unleashing of a similarly extremist mentality? Whose interests would it serve to eliminate those factors that deter Israel from flexing its military muscle in the region, creating problems not only for its neighbours but also for the US itself?

It had never been US policy to create quagmires of destabilisation until the new right came to power. In the Trotskyite-like thinking of this group, stability is the antithesis of the perpetual revolution they are striving to fulfil in the name of some ominous ideal. But if this policy helps to advance the megalomaniac interests of some ideological zealots and Israel it cannot conceivably serve the practical interests of the US. This casts into question the commitment of Washington to preserve international peace and security, despite claims to having enshrined its defence as a central plank of policy-formation.

The demand that Syria expel Palestinian leaders is also unrealistic and conflicts with US interests. Not only do they pose no military threat, they keep open one of the few viable tracks for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. If Syria were to expel these leaders, their only natural recourse would be to return to occupied Palestine. It hardly seems likely that Washington would want to facilitate this, or that Israel would want Washington to do that. More importantly, expelling Palestinian leaders from Syria would only further radicalise the refugee population there.

Further, if Syria were to exile Palestinian leaders, 500,000 refugees currently residing in Syria could plausibly demand that the US allow their passage out too. Such pressure would dramatically cast to the fore the plight of the Palestinian refugees. Given that the US and Israel have continually failed to respect the refugees' rights -- enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 -- it is hard to imagine that such a consequence would be beneficial to the Bush administration. Perhaps the goal is to ensure the instability and vulnerability of the region as a whole, while "democracy" and "terror" are just catchphrases used to justify the actions of a warlike government.