US marks its turf
Senior US officials said the Syria Accountability Act was a way of telling Damascus that they mean business. Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington
Following its nearly unanimous passage in the House, the United States Senate is expected to approve the Syria Accountability Act aimed at imposing economic sanctions against Damascus for allegedly failing to respond positively to repeated requests from the US to change its behaviour regarding the Middle East peace process and Iraq.
During lengthy Senate proceedings, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs William Burns characterised relations with Syria as "poor". Although he recognised that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has taken "some positive steps in recent weeks" such as voting for Security Council Resolution 1551 allowing the establishment of a multinational force in Iraq under US command, cooperating with US officials in tracking former Iraqi regime assets in Syria and tightening its border with Iraq, Burns said that "much more remains to be done".
Burns highlighted the presence of Palestinian "terrorist" groups in Syria. He added that the Bush administration was not satisfied with an earlier decision by Damascus to close down the public relations offices of radical Palestinian groups, describing such a move as "cosmetic".
US Secretary of State Colin Powell had personally expressed his opposition to the act earlier this year, saying that it would complicate diplomacy with Damascus. Powell and other senior US officials have also noted Syria's cooperation in combating Al-Qa'eda.
However, Syria's strong opposition to the Iraq war, reports that it has turned a blind eye to the infiltration of foreign fighters into Iraq, and pressure from Israel to link Damascus to the ongoing violence in the occupied territories have apparently led the US administration to change its position.
"The administration has recognised that there are elements of Syrian behaviour right now which cause problems to our interests, as they have for years," Burns said in his testimony before the Senate on 31 October. Consequently, he added, the White House would not oppose the act.
Although Burns recognised that Damascus had cooperated with the US against Al-Qa'eda, he said that did not outweigh Syria's continued support for other terror groups. "In concert with Iran, Syria supports Hizbullah, an extremely dangerous terrorist organisation with global reach, and the ability to threaten coalition forces in Iraq."
Coffer Black, director of the Office of Counter- Terrorism at the State Department, alleged in the same Senate session that Hizbullah "has killed hundreds of Americans and numerous others in the past". Coffer was clearly referring to the 1982 bombing of the US Marines headquarters in Beirut, in which over 200 US soldiers died. Hizbullah denies responsibility for the attack, but Coffer said the bombing's alleged mastermind, Emad Mugnia, "finds safe haven" in Syria.
Yet, the two officials who testified at the Senate affirmed that the United States had no plans, at least at the present time, to invade Syria or force a regime change. Coffer excluded one of the main charges that the Bush administration used to justify attacking Iraq: "There is currently no information indicating that the Syrian government has transferred weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to terrorist organisations, or would permit such groups to acquire them."
However, last week a senior US military official renewed allegations that the former Iraqi regime might have transferred its banned weapons to Syria ahead of the war. The official pointed out that the US observed heavy movement of trucks on the border between the two countries, possibly carrying WMDs, but he stopped short of confirming that charge.
Senators and US officials who spoke at the session recognised that possibilities for change in Syrian behaviour depended largely on the situation in Iraq. Burns said that while he was "certain that there are some well-entrenched interests in Syria who view the prospect of a unified, prosperous and a democratic regime emerging in Iraq as threatening in some respects ... the bottom line probably is that the Syrian regime is looking very carefully at what is going on in Iraq".
Meanwhile, only Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee voiced doubts that the act would push the Syrian president to adopt a more hard-line stance. He also said that following a recent visit to Turkey and Jordan, leaders of both countries warned that approving the sanctions would only confirm the common perception in the region that the US was targeting Arabs and Muslims.
The attitude of President Al-Assad and his commitment to reform was debated by a group of Middle East experts during the same Senate session. Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who is known for his strong support for the current right-wing Israeli government, claimed that Bashar's takeover of power following his father's death in 2000, "has been bad for Syria, bad for the Middle East, and bad for US-Syrian relations". Clawson expressed his opinion that the young Syrian leader lacked the skills of his father, Hafez Al-Assad, and his sense of limits. He particularly pointed to Bashar's repeated public meetings with Hizbullah's leader Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, treating him "like his senior advisor and mentor". He said that the late Syrian leader never met with Nasrallah. Clawson also noted that although Hafez Al- Assad was known for his bitter opposition to the former Ba'ath regime in Iraq, Bashar built strong economic ties with ousted Iraq President Saddam Hussein.
However, former US Ambassador to Syria Richard Murphy said that blaming Syria alone for the deterioration of relations with the US was unfair. "There is a great deal of mutual frustration," he said, mainly because the US gave up on the Arab-Israeli peace process. Murphy characterised US-Syria relations as being similar to "a dialogue of the deaf". He said that while the US sees Syria, "as unresponsive to our demands that it curb terrorism, Syria considers that our Middle East policy is so biased towards Israel that we blur any distinction between actions of terrorists and those engaged in national resistance". He also referred to "an appetite for regime change in some quarters of this administration".
On the issue of WMDs, Murphy suggested that the US abandon its current policy of pursuing non-proliferation in the Middle East while particularly excluding Israel. "We have to go beyond our rhetorical support for a Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction and launch actual negotiations for a regional approach to their control."
Murhaf Jouejati, an American professor of Syrian origin, particularly warned of the act's effect on the ongoing struggle between the "old and new guards" within the Syrian government. He said that an aggressive US policy would only strengthen the "old guards" and weaken Bashar's status. Jouejati pointed out that in a recent cabinet reshuffle in Syria, President Bashar appointed for the first time a prime minister who was not a member of the Ba'ath Party. "According to my information, President Al-Assad wanted to overhaul the whole foreign policy apparatus, but this had not been done at the end of the day, and he appointed an old guardist [veteran Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Sharaa] in order not to give the appearance that he is bowing to American pressure," he told the Senate.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 6 - 12 November 2003 (Issue No. 663)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/663/in21.htm