Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Obama Needs to Court Syria in the Levant "

Obama Needs to Court Syria in the Levant

Baudouin Long: While Obama is trying to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace-process, Damascus has been kept on the sidelines. Yet, US engagement with Syria is the key to making progress in the region.

In September 2010, Obama launched bilateral meetings in Washington in order to resume the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Mahmoud Abbas, Benjamin Netanyahu, King Abdullah of Jordan, and Hosni Mubarak were invited. At the same time, George Mitchell expressed the US's will to engage in negotiations between Syria, Israel, and Lebanon.

However, Syria, which has not yet signed a peace deal with Israel and shelters many leaders of the Palestinian resistance, was not represented. Damascus did not hide its scepticism about the American initiative, especially as Hamas, which has predicted the failure of the talks, was not participating. Consequently, headway on the Israeli-Palestinian talks will be considerably limited as long as the internal split within Palestine remains unsolved.

While Egypt has failed to reconcile the Palestinians, Syria appears today as the last hope to defuse the situation. Recently, Hamas and Fatah have engaged in talks in Damascus, which shows Syria's will to play a role in Palestinian politics. The question that one can raise is about the extent of Syrian will to force Hamas to make concessions. For Syria, Hamas serves as leverage in its struggle with Israel. Hence, overcoming disagreements between Hamas and Fatah would necessitate Syrian engagement but, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad needs guarantees before promoting such a policy.

It is not unattainable. Damascus has endeavoured for a few years to improve its relations with the international community. Dialogue has resumed with France and to a lesser extent with the US. In addition, Syria has started negotiations with Israel through Turkish intermediaries. Despite being cut off in the aftermath of the 2009 war in Gaza, Syria has recently sent out signals of its readiness to carry on indirect talks. On the Israeli side, despite strong internal opposition, many military and intelligence members support an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Indeed, they consider that it is no longer a real strategic asset and for them, and signing a peace deal with Syria would weaken its ties with Hamas and Iran.

Further Syrian engagement could be gained by deeper US involvement. In fact, President Bashar relies on Hamas and other Palestinian factions waging war on Israel, as they provide him with an asset to negotiate with Israel. It is less than probable that Damascus would relinquish such a trump card without an Israeli commitment to give back the Golan Heights. Furthermore, only the US has enough influence to bring about the success of such negotiations. The French government has long tried to favour peace negotiations between Israel and Syria, which has been on its agenda since Sarkozy held out his hand to Bashar in the wake of the Doha agreement in 2008. Recently, the French president nominated one of his most outstanding diplomats, Jean-Claude Cousseran, as special envoy to revive the Israeli-Syrian track. Nevertheless, Syria opposed this effort and Bashar repeated his will to retain Turkey as mediator.

Is this proof of a lack of Syrian goodwill? It should rather be interpreted as proof of Syrian pragmatism. Bashar knows perfectly well that France has no power over Israel and cannot provide significant guarantees. Moreover, it is crucial for him to keep strong ties with Turkey in order to balance his alliance with Iran. Besides, Damascus is well aware that the US is the only player able to influence Israel. In that sense, Syrian officials have appeared to be critical towards Obama's weak engagement and disappointed by his policy. The US President would have a great interest in focussing on the Israeli-Syrian track.

One may be sceptical, but Syrian behaviour over the last months on two crucial issues: Israel and Lebanon should be looked at. Bashar's official visit to Beirut in late July 2010 is significant of his will to hold Hezbollah back and preserve stability in Lebanon. Moreover, Damascus has made public declarations in early October underlining its readiness to restart the negotiations with Israel. These recent events are an opportunity for Obama administration to focus further on Syria. This approach would bolster progress on both the Israeli and Iranian issues.

France has no power to activate the Israeli-Syrian talks. The US does, but has not yet engaged in true efforts to revive it. Maybe Obama should have French advisors.

Baudouin Long holds a scholarship for Arabic Studies from the French Minister for Higher Education and Research at the French department for Arabic Studies in Cairo. He studied Politics at Sciences-Po Aix and Middle Eastern studies at King's College London.

Related articles on atlantic-community.org:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

November 5, 2010

Meital Tzobotaro, NYU, Center for Global Affairs, Silver Contributor (41)

I like this comment! What's this?

I agree with the author that the middle-east talks should resume full forced. On the other hand, i completely understand the skepticism by many who are reluctant to believe that this time peace will be achieved. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deeply rooted in historic event and both sides have extremists that make such negotiations very difficult.

My hope is that as Iran gains power and continues its nuclear program, it will serve as the former soviet union was to the U.S., Japan, and European alliance. As harsh as this may sound, national security is sometimes the best solution to conflicted states since it gives them a common threat to unite against.

November 9, 2010

Jennifer Nicole Prystupa, NYU-CGA grad student, Silver Contributor (45)

I like this comment! What's this?

Great article. As much as the Syrians are needed at the peace talks, it just goes to show how important the Turks will be and continue to be as a rising Middle Eastern power (EU membership aside) and a key mediator. Syrian pragmatism is Syrian goodwill, and Al-Assad is no fool, though many Westerners would discount him as a proxy of Iran. I do not think that accusation encompasses the entire character of the man, nor the state. He has his own agenda, too. And I agree that the Syrians know what they are doing by using Hamas and Fatah as leverage with Israel for the Golan - that's politics.

In terms of France - or any former colonizer - it (they) has no power at all, especially with anti-Muslim (sorry, religious) laws, like the veil, passed under the guise of secularism. Even the U.S. may make little progress in the short term - or perhaps long - given the fact that the Republicans took the House and Obama might not be in office past 2012.

Again, anyone with a stake in solving this issue needs to be involved - including Syria (and Turkey!).

November 11, 2010

Niklas Anzinger, Student of Philosophy & Economics, Platinum Contributor (708)

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Long,

I would like to make some objections. Please correct me, if I got some points wrong.

In the past decades, Syria was both the most reliable partner for Iran and the Western hope for an approach in the region.

Syria is a brutal dictatorship holding a system of torture, oppression and intesive intelligent service activities to eliminate inner dissent - there is censorship of the internet, hardly any free press and no civil society. Western powers kept silent, which became obvious in the case of German-Syrian lawyer and human rights activist Ismail Abdi, who recently got imprisoned.

The Western strategy allowed Assad to receive trade relations in banking and investment, the expanded private universities and construction - but he was not forced to open his country politically.

I do not think, that the Western approach wo too naive at all. In fact, Syria was correctly judged a friction in the Tehran-Damascus axis. Syria carried out similar plans for getting nuclear weapons to confront Israel, which were torpedoed by the Israeli air force. But in contrast to Iran, the Syrian regime is more interested in the receipt of its autocratic system, less in expansion. Therefore, incentives weakening the domestic policy options of Syria forces Assad to abandon his activities in Syria and military armament. This could eventually lead to a breakup with Tehran.

In fact, president Obama abandoned Bush´s sanction regime against Damascus. Logically, the Tehran-Damascus tie is stronger and Syria expanded its activities to Lebanon, which is likely to get overthrown by Hezbollah. This policy of strengening Syrian opportunities has to be reconsidered. As long as Syria is strong enough in domestic policy, they will be boycotting every impediment for progress in the peace process. Indeed, they the will act pragmatically, but only if they are forced to carry out expansionist and anti-Israel ambitions.

Additionally, I´m generally not very like to justify such relations with a brutal autocracy, but I think the Syrian card could be played against Tehran. The Iranian nuclear armament is the major threat for peace in the region and should be carried out before thinking about how the brutal dictatorship in Syria can be made history. I think the US administration misses that point and Europe shows no interest.

I think my remarks could correspond with your assessment, but I miss the points I just mentioned.

November 11, 2010

Niklas Anzinger, Student of Philosophy & Economics, Platinum Contributor (708)

I like this comment! What's this?

Sorry,

I should be "his activities in Lebanon and military armament".

November 16, 2010

Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (280)

I like this comment! What's this?

An interesting article, which sheds light on one of the players which also must be accommodated in the quest for peace in the Middle East. The author correctly argues that Damascus was skeptical about the September peace talks between Israel and the Fatah faction of the Palestinians.

As regards his observation about “the internal split within Palestine”, I think that Israel, with the support of its US sponsor, is doing everything in its power to keep Hamas and Fatah apart so as to play the good old divide and rule game. Israel is negotiating with Abbas, who calls himself the Palestinian president, but who has since Hamas won the 2008 elections no legitimacy whatsoever to commit the Palestinians.

There is a Palestinian who can easily unite both factions, viz. Marwan Barghouti, “the Palestinian Nelson Mandela”, who is imprisoned in Israel, and whose release is demanded by Hamas in return for the freedom of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas, see http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/israel-and-palestine/091230/isra... Israel refuses to release Barghouti under the pretext that he has “blood on his hands”, but which leader in the Middle East does not have blood on his hands?

Given the fact that the Obama administration is not even in a position to persuade Israel to extend the moratorium of the illegal construction of Jewish settlements on occupied land, I wonder what one can expect from the US – with or without French advisers - having “enough influence to bring about the success of such negotiations”. I am not sure if Israel is willing to give up the Golan Heights, which it is actively colonizing, as Barbara Slavin documents in her article “Unsettled” of July 2, 2010, on, Foreign Policy, see http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/02/unsettled. In my view, Syria is not interested in a bilateral agreement with Israel as long as it does not fit in an all encompassing agreement between all parties concerned. I feel Turkey is best positioned to play honest broker in the Middle East negotiations. It can only succeed if the US and Israel will accept its intermediary. And, unfortunately, it does not look that way…

Finally, Mr Long, may I draw your attention to former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chass Freeman’s remarkable speech of September 1, 2010, to the staff of the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and members of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (http://www.mepc.org/articles-commentary/speeches/america-s-falterin...), especially the suggestions to achieve a break-through by getting “behind the Arab peace initiative”. Mr Freeman not only sees a crucial role for ‘the Turks”, but also for “other non-Arab Muslims”. Perhaps French diplomacy can persuade both the Obama administration and the EU to give the Arab peace initiative due consideration?