Right Side News
Syria – From Isolation to Key Player in the International Arena
Written by Memri.org
Saturday, 30 January 2010 09:08
Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No.583
Memri.org
In a December 29, 2009 speech to the Syrian parliament, Syrian Foreign
Minister Walid Al-Mu’allem summed up the achievements of his country’s
political policy in 2009 by saying, "For Syria, 2009 was a year of
political success in every sense of the term, and on all fronts…"[1]
Indeed, the past year has seen a significant improvement in Syria’s
regional and international standing; it managed to extricate itself
from its isolation internationally and in the Arab world, and to
position itself as an influential regional force. By the end of 2009,
the Syrian regime had become self-confident and certain of the
effectiveness of its "path of resistance" policy, and was challenging
the regional order and the world order and acting powerfully to change
both.
The following is a review of Syria’s current world view and policy, as
reflected in statements by Syrian officials and articles in the Syrian
government press.
Syria – From Isolation to Key Player in the International Arena
Until 2008, President Bashar Al-Assad’s Syria seemed to be a pariah
state. Syria had been isolated by the West and by some of the Arab
countries, and was under international pressure that spiked following
the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri;
in the wake of the assassination, it was forced to withdraw its
military from Lebanon.
The aggressive anti-Syria line was led by the Bush administration,
which saw Syria as part of an "axis of evil" together with Iran and
North Korea, and accused it of involvement in terrorism in Iraq. In
2004, the U.S. intensified its anti-Syrian sanctions, and worked in
the U.N. Security Council for the passage of Resolution 1559 calling
for Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. In October 2008, the
U.S. even bombed insurgents on Syrian territory who were suspected of
operating from there against Iraq.
The assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri
was a watershed in Syria’s relationship with many countries in the
West and in the Arab world, particularly France and Saudi Arabia, who
had until then been its close allies. This change was evidently due to
the close relationship that Al-Hariri had maintained with then-French
president Jacques Chirac, and with the Saudi royal family. Evidence of
the severing of relations and of the anger that the assassination
evoked in Chirac was clear in an interview he gave in 2007 to the
French daily Le Monde. He said: "There were times I used to speak with
Bashar Al-Assad. I used to talk with his father [Hafez Al-Assad]. But
to be honest, [Bashar and I] do not talk any more. It is he who caused
[this halt to the dialogue]. I realized that there was no point [in
dialogue]. It is hard to reconcile Bashar Al-Assad’s regime with
security and peace."[2]
In the Arab world, it was Saudi Arabia and Egypt that led the
aggressive line against Syria, and there were even reports that it was
they who were behind the establishment of the international tribunal
to investigate the assassination.
Syria Tightens Its Alliances with Anti-Western Forces
Syria, for its part, grew closer to elements that were, and still
largely are, considered to be internationally isolated – Iran and
Venezuela.
Iran
Syria has maintained very close relations with Iran since the 1979
Islamic Revolution, even though the former country is ruled by the
secular Ba’th party and the latter is a theocracy. In certain
instances, Syria’s relations with Iran have taken precedence over its
relations with other Arab countries, as happened during the Iran-Iraq
war (1980-88).
Since Bashar Al-Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed leadership,
there has been increased closeness between the two countries, as
expressed by the signing of a joint defense agreement in December
2009, and by the agreement to drop the visa requirement between them.
The two presidents have similar views on many issues, such as
resistance to what they call "the forces of hegemony," that is, the
U.S. and Britain; viewing the current situation a victory for the
resistance and a defeat for the "forces of hegemony"; and a vision of
a new regional and world order and of their own prominent roles in
them.
Evidence of this can be found in the words of Bashar Al-Assad on the
eve of his January 13, 2010 visit to Saudi Arabia, when he called
Syria-Iran relations "strategic and ideological" and said that Syria
and Iran saw eye to eye on all issues.[3] The two leaders even use the
same terminology, as reflected in their statements during
Ahmadinejad’s May 2009 visit to Damascus. In addition, Syria advocates
for Iran among the Arab countries, with the aim of reducing Arab fears
regarding the Iranian regime and bringing them to see it as their
ally.[4]
Venezuela
Syria-Venezuela relations became closer after Hugo Chavez was elected
president in 1998. As part of his anti-American policy, Chavez
tightened relations with countries such as Syria and Iran. In 2006, at
the height of Syria’s isolation, Chavez paid an historic visit to
Syria, during which both he and Bashar Al-Assad stressed their
resistance to American imperialism.[5]
Nasser Qandil, a former Lebanese MP who is close to the Syrian regime,
explained in his column in the Syrian government daily Teshreen the
essence of the alliance between Assad, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez. He
said it was like "a declaration of a new world [alliance] awaited and
needed by all humanity, [one] that declares that the peoples are again
managing their own affairs and that resistance is not just a romantic
slogan but also a living fact…"[6]
The Armed Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine
In the recent years, Syria stepped up its support of Hamas and
Hizbullah, as representatives of the resistance in Palestine and in
Lebanon respectively. It also continued its mostly covert support of
the insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.[7]
France, U.S. Turn Towards Syria
This strategy won Syria much support in the Arab street, but brought
it into an almost unprecedented conflict – to the brink of a cold
war[8] – with many Arab regimes, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as
well as with the U.S. Even though this policy led to its isolation by
some Arab regimes and by the West, and seemed to place the Syrian
regime in danger of collapse, it has as of late 2009 proven to be
wise. In contrast to the Bush administration and to Chirac’s
government, which saw Syria as an obstacle and as posing a risk to
their attainment of their goals in the Middle East, the governments of
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and of U.S. President Barack Obama,
and, following them, also the Saudi regime, see Syria as a means for
achieving broader goals, and they are attempting to get it on their
side. With Syria stubbornly clinging to its positions, these
governments are moving away from the policies of their predecessors
and are abandoning the approach of clashing with Syria and isolating
it. Instead, they have begun treating it as a key regional country
capable of mediating between the West and Iran and of influencing the
level of violence in the Palestinian territories, in Lebanon, and in
Iraq.
The major change started with Sarkozy’s presidency. Sarkozy abandoned
his predecessor’s policy and sought to embrace Syria and to bring it
back into the French fold, apparently with the view that it was
through the door of Syria that France would be able to expand its
influence in the Middle East. One expression of this was Sarkozy’s
statements to the Syrian daily Al-Watan during his first visit to the
country in September 2008: "…Since my election, I have wanted France
to regain its place on the international chessboard, and I am
interested in my country bearing the responsibility for peace in the
Middle East. In order to do this, it is necessary to gain the trust of
all sides, and therefore I have made several changes in France’s
policy in the region…"[9]
France also led the change in EU policy towards Syria, as expressed in
an interview that then-president of the European parliament Hans Gert
Pöttering gave to Al-Watan in August 2008. He said that during the
past three years, the EU had adopted a policy of passivity towards
Syria, and that now the winds of change were blowing. He noted that
the EU no longer thought that the way to solving the problems was
isolation, but rather dialogue among partners.[10]
It should be noted that as of now, it appears that France’s efforts
have yet to bear fruit, and that Syria is assigning France only a
secondary role as mediator in the peace process, and is insisting that
Turkey and the U.S. be the main mediators in its negotiations with
Israel. Nevertheless, Syria is reaping economic dividends from the
rapprochement with France, including France’s readiness to break the
U.S. embargo so that it can sell Airbuses to Syria.
As for the change in U.S. policy, it began at the end of the Bush
administration. Evidence of this can be seen in an interview that
then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave to the London daily
Al-Hayat in August 2008, in which she denied that the U.S. was
implementing a policy of isolating Syria. She said: "…There is a
continuous relationship with Syria… and we have diplomatic
relations with Syria… I have met with [Syrian Foreign Minister]
Walid Al-Mu’allem when we were in Sharm Al-Sheikh. Our relations with
Syria are correct."[11]
This trend grew stronger when U.S. President Barack Obama took office,
and it became part of a comprehensive policy vis-à-vis the region that
Obama laid out in his Cairo speech on June 4, 2009. His approach might
have emanated from his perception that Syria was essential to
stabilizing the situation in Iraq when U.S. forces withdrew.[12]
The American openness was expressed by the start of a dialogue with
Syria; by visits by senior American politicians, such as Senate
Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Sen. John Kerry; and by visits by
U.S. military delegations. At the same time, it should be noted that
the Obama administration set conditions for improving America’s
relations with Syria,[13] and even renewed the sanctions on Syria;
moreover, as of this writing, the U.S. ambassador to Syria has not
returned to Damascus.
The U.S.’s policy of openness towards Syria contributed greatly to the
improvement of Syria’s status in the region and internationally – from
an untouchable and isolated country to a country courted by several of
its main rivals though it is apparently giving nothing in return.
Saudi Reactions to the West’s Change of Policy
This new approach on the part of the West was perceived at first by
some of the Arab media as rewarding extremist elements and abandoning
moderate allies. ‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, director-general of the
Saudi Al-Arabiya TV and former editor-in-chief of the London Saudi
daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, called Syria’s policy "genius" for
successfully misleading the West: "…Damascus has created crises [and
then] proposed solutions… Syria’s partner Hizbullah occupied western
Beirut so that Damascus would intervene and stop it; Syria’s friends
in the Lebanese opposition refused to elect Michel Suleiman [as
president] even though he was the agreed-upon candidate, so that
Damascus would intervene, [and then] it would be agreed [that Suleiman
would be president]… Syria’s friend Hamas ratcheted up the level of
violence against Israel so that [Damascus would intervene] and order
it to stop. [Damascus] finished up by again ordering its allies in the
Lebanese opposition to stop thwarting the formation of the Lebanese
government, and thus, just two days before [Syrian President Bashar
Al-Assad] left for Paris… Syria convinced [the world] that it had
changed, when [in fact] it had changed nothing…"[14]
Saudi Arabia, a backbone of the "moderate Arab axis" which has
vehemently opposed Syria’s policy in recent years, and which was at
first displeased with the French openness towards Syria, has adapted
to the shift in the international climate vis-à-vis Syria, and changed
its position accordingly. The first sign of this change was Saudi King
‘Abdallah’s reconciliation with Syria at the Kuwait summit in January
2009. During the Doha Summit, in late March 2009, it appeared that
Saudi Arabia was withdrawing nearly completely from its positions
towards Syria and the Syria-Iran axis, or at least accepting with
silence the fact that the Syrian discourse was taking over the
summit.[15] The height of the change came with the monarch’s historic
visit to Syria on October 7 and 8, 2009, and with the understandings
regarding Lebanon, which in effect legitimized Syria’s return to
Lebanon.[16]
Several days after King ‘Abdallah’s visit, the editor of the Saudi
government daily Al-Riyadh, Turki Al-Sudairi wrote an op-ed stating
that the solution to Lebanon’s chronic instability was for Syria to
again control Lebanon. "Why shouldn’t Lebanon return to Syria?", he
asked.[17] Other official Saudi newspapers hastened to reassure that
the article was not representative of the official Saudi position and
to reiterate that the Saudi-Syrian rapprochement was not at Lebanon’s
expense.[18] However, today it appears that Al-Sudairi’s op-ed
heralded what was to come.
Currently, Egypt is the only country in the moderate Arab axis that
has not backed down from its position vis-à-vis Syria, and is
consequently subject to repeated attacks by the Syrian media.[19]
Likewise, Syria-Iraq relations are very tense, although it seemed that
they were improving, as reflected by the two countries’ August 18,
2009 decision to establish a joint strategic council, during Prime
Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s visit to Damascus. The day after this
decision was reached, a series of grisly bombings aimed at government
ministries rocked Baghdad. Following the bombings, Al-Maliki claimed
that the perpetrators had links to Iraqi Ba’th members backed by
Syrian government figures. Syria denied the accusation, and in
response to Syria’s denials, Al-Maliki called for an international
tribunal or investigative committee to be established, to determine
who was behind the bombings; he sent a letter on the matter to U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the matter. Both Turkey and Iran
attempted to mediate between Syria and Iraq, but to no avail.
It should be noted that none of the Arab countries stood with Iraq,
and the U.S. response was both cool and slow in coming. The lukewarm
international response to Al-Maliki’s call may be another reflection
of the shift in attitude towards Syria.
Syria: The Era of the West Is Over; Anti-West Forces Have Triumphed
Syria, for its part, sees the shift in the Western and Arab attitude
towards it as a sign that its opponents are weak, and as vindication
of its course over the years. Syria also draws confidence from the
situation in the region; it sees the U.S. as sinking into a quagmire
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and perceives the resistance forces –
Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006, and Hamas in Gaza in 2009 – as having
triumphed over Israel and the forces behind it (that is, the U.S.).
This has led it to conclude that now is no time to soften its
positions and to abandon the principles which, it believes, produced
the shift in attitude towards it – that is, its support of the
resistance forces and its alliance with Iran. Thus, the West’s new
openness is actually encouraging Syria to cling to its positions, and
even to toughen its stance.
Syria is not shy about discussing this approach publicly and in the
presence of Western leaders. Thus, when Assad was asked at a joint
press conference with Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann whether the
shift in attitude towards Syria was due to a change in Syria’s
positions, he replied: "What has changed is the [Western] perception
of Syria’s position… Syria is an important country and no one can
prevent it from playing such a role. The difference [from the past] is
that there are countries that think that cooperating with Syria will
make us change our policy in certain directions. After a while, they
discovered that the problems of the [Middle] East cannot be resolved
without Syria’s cooperation…"[20]
Syria’s sense of triumph over the new situation was also evident in
Assad’s statements during his visit to Iran following the reelection
of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "…The general
circumstances in the region serve the front of resistance and
steadfastness. The countries of the West, particularly the U.S., are
facing many problems, both domestic and in the [Middle East]. So far,
they have achieved nothing in the region, not even in Lebanon…"
According to Assad, the Western response to Ahmadinejad’s reelection
was due to "concern that the serial victories of Iran and Syria will
continue for another four years."
During the same visit, the two leaders agreed that "the global
situation is an historic opportunity for the peoples of the region,"
and stressed the need to make the most of it. Also during the visit,
Assad predicted that "from now on, the doors of the international
community will be open for Iran and Syria more than they have been in
the past."[21]
At the Conference of Arab Parties, held November 2009 in Damascus,
President Bashar Al-Assad stated: "We have studied history well,
prepared the present and determined the future… In the last three
years, we have defined our goals with precision: the adversary is the
U.S., and the enemy is Israel. In the past, the American
administration itself was the enemy, [but] now this equation has
changed… We have reached a stage where we believe their proposals
are to our benefit… We have succeeded, and [today] we are ruled by a
sense of challenge, not of fear…"[22]
Former Lebanese MP Nasser Qandil, who is close to the Syrian regime,
summarized the situation in his weekly column in the Syrian daily
Teshreen, using less diplomatic terms: "In the [present] world war,
aimed at breaking the strategic Syrian-Iranian alliance, it is the
spear of the strategic American-Israeli alliance that has broken.
[Now] a new era has begun that will completely reorganize our region,
as reflected in the new American [policy] of turning to dialogue with
Syria and Iran… The Syrian and Iranian leadership have a profound
understanding of the new starting point, which promises a transition
from [a situation on which these countries] are leading the resistance
to [a situation in which they are] leading a new regional
order…"[23]
Syrian columnist Salim ‘Aboud wrote in the daily Al-Thawra:
"…Damascus has become a meeting point for leaders and statesmen from
all over the world. It has proven that its policy, which is based upon
rights and upon a refusal to relinquish [these rights], is the one
that can set events [in motion] and place it in an honorable position.
This is the policy which has turned [Syria], and continues to turn it,
into a pivotal country whose decisions and desires cannot be
overlooked."[24]
‘Imad Fawzi Shu’eibi, head of the Data and Strategic Studies Center in
Damascus, wrote an article in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat in
which he outlined Syria’s foreign policy and its perception of its
role in the region: "…Syria has regained its regional position, and
has consolidated [this position] by means of [Hizbullah’s] 2006
victory [over Israel] and through a policy of biding its time. Syria
has plenty of patience… and this enables it to be a country that
assigns roles [to others] and withholds them [from others]. It can say
‘yes’ and ‘no’ in its own way. Its ‘no’ is one that does not
[completely] shut the door on regional and international relations,
and its ‘yes’ [is one that] does not open the door to its enemies.
This is a policy of half-open doors…"[25]
Syria is Pursuing a New Regional and International World Order
Based on this sense of self-worth, Syria is now working, along with
its allies Iran and Venezuela, to create a new world order involving
several blocs of countries, each with equal weight, as an alternative
to what it sees as a unipolar order with America as the sole
superpower. At the April 2, 2009 Doha Summit, President Al-Assad said:
"…The world is currently in a state of crisis which may, despite the
difficulty it entails, present us with an opportunity to seek, along
with others, a foundation for a new world order… The comprehensive
change taking place today is reminiscent of the global reshuffle [of
power] that occurred in the middle of the previous century…"[26]
After an April 2009 meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid
Al-Mu’allem, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, in a similar
vein, "Iran and Syria must assist one another in creating a new world
order…," to which Al-Mu’allem replied, "Syria calls for developing
the relations [between the two countries] and for comprehensive
cooperation with Iran in all domains."[27] A few days later,
Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is willing to play a significant role in
running the world…"[28] At a press conference with Assad at the end
of his May 2009 visit to Damascus, the Iranian president said:
"Alongside the resistance and steadfastness, we must also strive to
create a new world order; otherwise new oppressive regimes will
emerge…"[29] He added, "The philosophy and order that emerged after
World War II have come to the end of their road, and [the West] is
unable to offer solutions for the world’s problems, since its thinking
is based on discrimination and on [undermining] security."[30]
As part of these efforts to establish a new world order, Syria is
operating on several levels:
1. The Effort to Implement the "Four Seas Strategy":
This strategy is based on an alliance between Syria, Iran and Turkey,
which, these countries hope, will also be joined by Iraq and by the
Caucasus countries, so as to form a geographic continuum between four
seas: the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and the
Persian Gulf. As part of the efforts to expand this alliance, and
perhaps also as a sign of Syria’s mounting confidence, Syria offered
to mediate in the crisis between Armenia and Azerbaijan and between
Armenia and Turkey.[31]
Explaining the rationale behind this alliance, Assad said: "Syria and
Turkey are strategically important countries. They have a significant
political role, and they enjoy stability on the security and social
[levels]… [Our region] is an important junction for transport,
[including the] transport of energy… In addition, there is
cooperation between Turkey and Iraq, and beginnings of relations
between Turkey and Iran. Good relations are forming between Syria and
Iraq, while Iran and Syria [already] have good relations… We are
important not [only] in the Middle East. We are at the center of the
world, and are bound to become a crucial link for the whole world in
terms of investments, transport and the like…"[32]
During his visit to Iran, Assad presented the idea of the "four seas
strategy" to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and received his
blessing.[33]
It should be noted that Assad’s statements regarding the good
Syria-Iraq relations predated the outbreak of the crisis between Syria
and Iraq following the series of Baghdad bombings in August 2009.
However, despite the present tension between the two countries,
Syrian, Iranian and Turkish officials continue to regard Iraq as part
of the alliance. During his visit to Syria for the first meeting of
the Turkey-Syria High Level Strategic Cooperation Council, Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said: "The Turkey-Syria High Level
Strategic Cooperation Council is not just between Turkey and Syria.
[Similar councils exist for cooperation] between Syria and Iraq,
Jordan and Turkey, and Turkey and Lebanon. When this activity
increases, I think this region will become a region of peace…"[34]
A similar hope was expressed by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid
Al-Mu’allem in a speech to the parliament in which he reviewed Syria’s
diplomatic achievements in 2009: "…These strategic ties [between
Syria and Turkey] are to be a nucleus that will soon be augmented by
Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq…"[35]
The creation of the Syria-Iran-Turkey-Iraq alliance is perceived as an
expression of Syria’s defiance vis-à-vis the current world order, as
columnist Muhammad Zarouf wrote in the government daily Al-Ba’th:
"…The region needs a strategic force that will put an end to the
collapse and the disintegration that is spreading everywhere [in the
region]. These allow the international forces to interfere in
everything and to subjugate the region to their political will – which
is not necessarily compatible with the interests and will of the
region’s countries and peoples… The aim is to establish a new
regional force that will be able to take part in restoring balance to
the world order, which suffers from unilateralism and from imbalance,
due to the ‘unipolar’ control [i.e. by the U.S.] over the running of
its affairs…"[36]
Turkey
Syria’s rapport with Turkey is a fairly recent development compared to
its good relations with Iran. In the past, Syria-Turkey relations were
rocky due to Syria’s support of the PKK, Turkey’s relations with
Israel, and conflicts over the distribution of the waters of the
Euphrates river and over the Alexandretta region. Tensions mounted to
the point that, in 1998, Turkey deployed forces along its border with
Syria, with the aim of forcing the latter to expel PKK leader
‘Abdallah Ocalan, who had received political asylum and assistance
from Damascus.
In 2003, Syria-Turkish relations began to thaw, as evidenced by
Assad’s historic visit to Turkey in 2004, which was the first visit to
this country by a Syrian president since the end of World War I.
Assad attributed the strategic change in Syria’s policy towards Turkey
to the U.S. troops’ 2003 invasion of Iraq. He said: "Following the war
on Iraq in 2003, we saw that the fire was coming closer to us. Thus,
we tightened relations [with Turkey] in order to protect
ourselves…"[37]
Recent far-reaching developments in Syria-Turkey relations have led to
the establishment of the Turkey-Syria High Level Strategic Cooperation
Council, the mutual abolition of visas, joint military maneuvers, and
the signing of cooperation agreements in a number of areas, including
the military one.
Close relations are in the interests of both countries. Turkey,
controlled by Erdogan’s Justice and Development (AKP) party, seeks to
become closer to the Arab and Islamic world, and to develop into a
prominent regional power. Evidence that Turkey sees itself as a
regional power comes from statements by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu, who said that Turkey is no longer a country that follows
others, but has now become a leading country, and that the other
Middle East countries respect it for the role that it plays.[38]
Turkey’s self-perception as a regional leader is also reflected in its
readiness to volunteer to mediate in inter-Arab crises – between Syria
and Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and Fatah and Hamas – as well as in
international conflicts such as Iran’s nuclear crisis and the
Syria-Israel negotiations.
Likewise, since the AKP, headed by Erdogan, came to power, Turkey has
in some instances adopted a policy incompatible with the interests of
its former allies, the U.S., and the EU; these include its refusal to
permit its territory to be used for launching the attack on Iraq in
2003, and its recognition of the Hamas government in Gaza. It should
be noted that within Turkey itself there are critics of this policy,
which is perceived as "neo-Ottoman."[39] Erdogan himself has denied
pursuing this policy.[40]
For Syria, allying with Turkey gives it numerous advantages: It helps
diffuse Syria’s sense of being under siege because of Turkey’s
alliance with Israel and the presence of U.S. troops in Turkey and
Iraq. Syria, for its part, has stopped supporting the Kurds, and,
according to various reports, has dropped its demand for the
Alexandretta region, which has been a focus of dispute between the two
countries for the past five decades. Also, Syria insists that Turkey
will mediate in its negotiations with Israel, thus contributing to
Turkey’s international status.
The Arab Countries
Syria seeks to reassure the Arab countries regarding its intentions,
emphasizing that its relations with Turkey and Iran do not come at the
expense of its relations with the Arab world, and that no harm to Arab
interests will result – on the contrary, these relations will actually
strengthen them. However, while senior Syrian officials stress the
Arab countries’ special status, Syria does not seem to be assigning
them a leading role in the regional bloc that it is working to
consolidate. Apparently, the Arab countries are meant to join the
regional alliance, when it materializes, but will not be part of its
founding nucleus.
At the annual Ba’th party conference, in December 2009, Syrian
presidential aide ‘Imad Hassan Turkmani clarified the Syrian
perception, saying: "Syria is acting to establish a regional bloc, to
include Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, and to connect the continents… Syria
wants a regional alliance that will first of all serve all the Arabs
and will support the matters that concern them. [This alliance] will
complete the Arab alliance on which Syria relies as a main support…
In policy, there is no room for dreams; there are [only] interests
that [Syria sees] as the basis [of its policy]…"[41]
Syria’s striving to consolidate a regional alliance along these lines
may reflect its understanding, based on the experience of recent
years, that it cannot trust the Arab countries to support it in time
of need, and that it must pull together an axis that currently
bypasses the Arab countries, and will later be joined by them after
they realize its strength and the advantages it offers. This policy
has already borne fruit: One example of this is Saudi Arabia, which
did a complete about-face in its position towards Syria once it saw
Syria’s steadfastness in the face of regional and international
pressures.
At the same time, Syria is trying to label itself as a leader of the
campaign for reconciliation in the Arab world, and it apparently seeks
to lead this world, as evidenced by statements made to Syrian state
television by presidential political and information advisor Buthayna
Sha’ban: "Syria is a central player in the region, and no one can
ignore that. It aspires to be the central player in obtaining the Arab
rights, not only in the Golan Heights, but also in Palestine…"[42]
Syria’s Rejection of the Partnership Agreement with the EU
As part of its aspiration to create a new world order, in which it
would have a position of influence as a member of the regional
alliance, Syria seeks to free itself from the European bear hug, which
is led by France. This was expressed in the shift in Syria’s attitude
towards the Syria-EU partnership agreement.
For years, Syria worked towards signing a partnership agreement with
the EU, its main trade partner. A draft of the agreement was drawn up,
but was not signed due to European reservations regarding Syria’s
domestic and foreign policy; the issue fell off the map. Only in 2008,
and as part of Europe’s change in policy towards Syria, was it raised
again, and an agreement was initialed. The agreement was approved by
the EU in October 2009.
The agreement’s approval was received coolly in Syria. Assad said that
it needed to be re-examined in accordance with Syria’s national
interest, and that the partnership must be between two parties of
equal status and economic soundness, and must not include either
side’s intervention in the other’s domestic affairs.[43]
Syrian officials stressed their fear of the agreement’s impact on
production and on the domestic economy, although when it was initialed
in 2008, senior Syrian economists emphasized that it would benefit
Syria’s economy, and noted that fears of its impact were
unwarranted.[44] However, Assad’s statement quoted above seems to
confirm the reports that Syria’s opposition to the agreement was due
mainly to the conditions it included regarding human rights in Syria,
and regarding Syrian foreign policy.[45] Furthermore, it seems that
Syria is apprehensive about signing an agreement with a powerful
political bloc like the EU, and prefers to focus on bilateral ties
with each individual EU country, as expressed in late December 2009 by
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu’allem.[46]
It seems that another motivation for Syria’s coolness towards the EU
in the present circumstances is this country’s confidence in the
realization of the "four seas strategy" described above, aimed
primarily at creating an economic-political bloc equivalent in its
weight and influence to the EU itself. This is evident from Assad’s
statements at a joint press conference with Finnish President Tarja
Halonen, in which he clarified that "Syria’s top priority is
tightening its relations with the countries in [its own] region,
especially with the Arab countries and with its neighbors, such as
Turkey… We must start with the countries of the region. This does
not mean that we reject other countries… [but] we cannot talk of
good relations with Europe and America when we have problems with the
neighboring countries. That’s natural. [Good relations with the
neighbors] are not a substitute [for good relations with countries
outside the region], but they do take priority over them…"[47]
Statements by Syrian officials and articles in the Syrian press took a
more belligerent tack. For example, Syrian Prime Minister Naji
Al-‘Otri stressed that his country was interested in a partnership of
equals with Europe, and that it had gained a position of power that
allowed it to negotiate these matters in a different way than in the
past.[48]
Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu’allem said at a press conference with
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero that the EU’s approval of
the agreement had taken Syria by surprise, and that Syria now had to
reexamine the agreement, a process that could take until the end of
Spain’s presidency of the EU in June 2010.[49]
Two days after the EU’s approval of the agreement, and ahead of
Assad’s visit to Croatia, the editor of the government daily
Al-Thawra, As’ad ‘Aboud, downplayed the importance of Europe’s five
leading countries, namely France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain.
He said that Europe also includes other countries, each of which can
be a gateway for Syria into the EU, and that Syria is extending its
hand to all the European countries. He added: "We want excellent
relations with any European country [willing to treat us] as a
partner. We approach our partnership with the EU from this broad basis
of bilateral relations that are effective and influential…"[50]
The daily Al-Watan, which is close to the Syrian regime, went so far
as to argue that Syria does not need the EU to develop its economy,
and wondered whether Syria should sign the agreement at all in the
present circumstances.[51]
2. Challenging the Legitimacy of the International Institutions
As part of its bid for a new world order, Syria is challenging the
legitimacy of the international institutions, especially the U.N. and
its Security Council, which it regards, in their present form, as
tools of the American hegemony and hence as requiring structural
reform.[52] In this approach, Syria is aligned with Iran, Libya,
Venezuela and Hizbullah, all of which challenge the existing world
order and are working to change it.
President Assad himself challenged the legitimacy of the U.N.
institutions at a joint press conference with Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez: "…I did not speak [with Chavez] about the
‘international community,’ because today this term refers to a very
small group of powers that are striving to control the world, the
international policy and the global economy. [Instead,] we spoke of an
international movement consisting of countries that can take a just
approach to these issues.
"When we speak of the ‘international community’ in the prevailing
sense of the word, we speak of the hegemony of [certain] international
organizations. Syria and Venezuela call to reform these organizations,
so as to pass from a phase of global anarchy to a phase of global
order. We say that [today], what we have is not order but anarchy. We
all want global order, but [we want it to be] an order in which all
countries take part… We all know that the international
organizations [represent] only some countries, [and the same goes for]
the world order and the international community…
The international organizations, the U.N. institutions, and all the
bodies subordinate to them are controlled by a small group of
countries, and their resolutions are subordinate and connected to the
interests of these countries. [So] obviously, [these resolutions]
cannot be in our favor as well…"[53]
Similar claims were made in the Syrian government press. Faisal Sa’d,
a lecturer at Tishreen University, wrote: "…The U.N. actually became
obsolete in 1991, when the cold war was officially declared at an
end… Today, some two decades after [this organization] became
obsolete, and nothing was left of it except its name, it is becoming
increasingly clear that there is a crucial need to reform [the U.N.]
or to reestablish it in light of the new circumstances, which form a
solid foundation for a new, alternative world order. To this end,
there is a need to change or amend the rationale and the operating
mechanisms of many [U.N. institutions], especially the Security
Council… The ‘surgical’ procedure required [to correct] the workings
of [this body] will not be complete until its functions and
authorities are transferred to the U.N. General Assembly, [which will
then serve as] a true international parliament with the full authority
to formulate and pass binding international resolutions, without
anybody having a power of veto…
"A reform of the U.N. and its institutions cannot be carried out under
[the hegemony] of the capitalist globalization, which was based and is
[still] based upon principles of tyranny and dictatorship, and which
operates through exploitation, coercion, oppression and deception.
>From a logical and objective point of view, the reform must be carried
out through a different globalization [process] – a grassroots one –
that will impose a new world order with [its own] international
institutions, anchored in principles of pluralistic justice and
democracy…"[54]
Syria: The Change in the West’s Attitude Towards Us Was a Result of
Our Support of the Resistance
Syria has placed itself firmly at the head of the "resistance camp,"
whose other main members are Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah, as well as
Qatar and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Syrian spokesmen, headed by
President Assad himself, have declared that resistance is the ultimate
way to confront the West and Israel. At the Conference of Arab
Parties, Assad made clear the importance he ascribes to the
resistance: "…We have now begun to build a new Middle East, whose
essence is resistance. Resistance in the cultural and military sense,
and in every other sense, was and is the essence of our policy, and it
will continue to be so in the future. It is the essence of our [very]
existence…"[55]
Syrian spokesmen clarify that "resistance" is not just military
action, but also means uncompromising insistence on principles in the
face of what they see as Western attempts to impose dictates that
contravene the Arab or Muslim interests. This is one of the
motivations behind the strategic alliance with Turkey and Iran, as
explained by ‘Imad Fawzi Shu’eibi, head of the Data and Strategic
Studies Center in Damascus: "…Resistance is not just military. It
also means building a geostrategic future for this region that is
different from [the future that others] wish [to create] for it. This
is the basis of President Assad’s perception of the ‘four seas
[alliance]’ and of the strategic relations with Turkey as a form of
strategic resistance…"[56]
Syria presents its insistence on its principles and its firm support
of the resistance as the main reasons for the improvement in its
status and for the change in the West’s policy towards it. Assad’s
political and media advisor Buthayna Sha’ban said, "The wisdom of
President Assad, and his perception, which is based on resistance,
steadfastness and dynamic policy… have strengthened Syria’s pivotal
role in the region and enabled us to stand firm and steady in the face
of all the pressures and challenges of the last few years."[57]
Nabil Fawzat Nawfal wrote in a similar vein in his column in the
government daily Al-Thawra: "…If there has been any change in the
course of the American administration, it is [only] thanks to the
resistance forces and their victory, which was supported by the forces
of resistance and steadfastness in Syria and Iran. Syria, the [emblem]
of Arabism, and the heroic resistance forces have come to be the
shapers of events [in the region] and the main players. If in the past
the equation was that there could be no peace without Syria, today the
equation is that there is no peace without Syria and also no war
without Syria. Nobody can impose [upon us] a peace [agreement] that
contravenes the inclinations of our Arab people, nor can anybody
impose [upon us] a war that we do not want. This is proof that the
path of resistance, which President Assad has chosen and which he has
steered with wisdom and competence, is the right path. [Assad] has
brought Syria [to a position of] strategic superiority, where it holds
the reigns of political and military initiative in the region…"[58]
Columnist Salim ‘Aboud made far-reaching claims regarding the success
of Syria’s policy: "…Syria’s policy has managed to shape the
[power-]balance of the Middle East conflict, and to disrupt [the
plans] of the American occupier in Iraq, bringing about his defeat. It
shattered the dreams of the [Bush] administration, and was one of the
reasons for Republicans’ defeat in the U.S. elections. It caused the
whole world to reject the policy of the Bush administration and to
welcome the arrival of a new administration, in hope that the world
would [now] know some calm after the storms generated by Bush’s insane
Zionist policy…"[59]
Resistance and the Peace Process
Syria sees no contradiction between adhering to the course of
resistance and striving for peace. According to its spokesmen,
resistance and negotiations are both means to "restore the usurped
rights," and both can be employed, either simultaneously or
separately, according to the circumstances. On the eve of his November
13, 2009 visit to France, Assad said: "…The essence of peace is not
just negotiations but also resistance. It is a mistake to think that
peace will be achieved [only] through negotiations, [for] it will also
be achieved through resistance. That is why we must support the
resistance, because thereby we support the peace process. Resistance
and negotiations are [two parts of] a single [course], whose aim is to
restore our legitimate rights, which we will never relinquish."[60]
Resistance is presented as Syria’s strategic option, which has proved
its effectiveness in Lebanon and Gaza – as opposed to the option of
negotiations, which has failed because of Israel’s policy. Al-Thawra
editor As’ad ‘Aboud explained: "…All the documents that have been
signed, from the Camp David [Accords] to the Oslo [Accords], created
[only] the illusion of peace. We are living [a reality of] war, not
peace… We want peace, but [we refuse to enter] the corridors of
futile negotiation that we already know will lead nowhere… If
[Israel] does not intend to reach a peace [agreement] and rejects the
demands [for peace], what is the way to security and stability? We
[Syrians] have the answer to this question: resistance. A Middle East
[that embraces] resistance is a Middle East that puts an end to
occupation and strengthens security and stability."[61]
* N. Mozes is a Research Fellow at MEMRI.