Institute for Policy Studies  –  www.ips-dc.orgPolitical Research Associates

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Détente with Damascus?

When the George W. Bush administration asked Damascus to attend last month's Annapolis conference, Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, admits he was stunned.

"[The United States] was really obsessed with making wars. Then we heard that it's not only that they are not interested in brokering peace talks, they were proactively opposing any attempts to make peace talks between Syria and Israel," Moustapha said during a forum at Georgetown University last week.

Syria has, for all intents and purposes, remained a junior member of the much-maligned "axis of evil." Two years ago, Damascus was under fierce U.S. pressure for its alleged support of militants in Iraq, sponsorship of Hamas, purported negative influence on Lebanon's domestic politics, and long-standing "non-peace" with neighboring Israel.

The February 2005 assassination of the Lebanese ex-prime minister Rafik al-Hariri further alienated Arab and European support for Syria, and the United States withdrew its ambassador from Damascus in response to the killing. While Syria claimed it bore no responsibility, the regime was forced to end its 29-year military presence in Lebanon.

But if there's one thing the last two weeks have shown, it's that the Bush White House appears ready to discard its chief imperative—"don't talk to your enemies, especially not the evil ones"—in favor of a more conciliatory gesture: "Let's chat, even if we may not like you."

But it seems that Washington's move toward détente with Damascus is being strained again, and the latest flashpoint is Lebanon, or rather, the assassination of a political figure in Lebanon. The latest victim, Maj. Gen. Francois Al-Hajj, drove past a car packed with 35 kilos of TNT, which exploded, killing him and three of his colleagues.

Hajj's killing marks the first act of political violence in Lebanon since the end of President Émile Lahoud's term in late November and the country's ensuing political impasse over his succession. Hajj, who led the Lebanese military operation against the al-Qaida-linked militant group Fatah al-Islam in the Nahr El-Barid refugee camp, was a prime candidate to replace former army chief Michel Suleiman, who may be a compromise candidate to replace Lahoud.

The parliament's failure to elect someone for the position vacated by Lahoud has thrown Lebanon into its worst political crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war.

To become president, Suleiman has to step down from the army, and the constitution has to be amended to allow a recently retired public servant to take the post. In Lebanon's political system, the president must be a Maronite Chrisitian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the parliament a Shiite Muslim.

As many analysts have suggested, the United States has been trying to lure Syria back into the Arab fold, presumably willing to end Damascus's international isolation and woo it away from reliance on another regional adversary: Iran. Syria is Iran's closest Arab ally. The two countries have had warm relations since 1980, when Syria sided with Iran against Iraq during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

"Ultimately, the United States can get more out of [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad in exchange for the Golan than it can by isolating him. If there are serious negotiations, Washington can demand that Assad stop interfering in Lebanon and Iraq, carry out domestic reforms, and drop Syria support for Hamas and other Palestinian groups that reject peace with Israel," wrote Mohamad Bazzi of the Council on Foreign Relations in the opinion pages of the Christian Science Monitor.

The usual suspect in Lebanon's latest political killing, as befits the narrative, is Syria. Wrote journalist Robert Fisk in the British Independent newspaper: "The Lebanese Information Minister Ghazi Aridi blamed the Syrians for the assassination although, interestingly, and with great concern for his use of words, Walid Jumblatt, who has constantly blamed the Syrians for attacks on democratic politicians in Lebanon, did not do so. Nor did Marwan Hamadi, one of Mr. Jumblatt's parliamentary colleagues.

"It seems, therefore, that Lebanese politics are changing once again and that those who were enemies of the Syrians are no longer necessarily so," said Fisk.

Jumblatt, the current head of Lebanon's Progressive Socialist Party and the most prominent leader of the Druze community, is also one of the most outspoken anti-Syrian politicians and supports the March 14 Alliance, a coalition of parties led by Saad Hariri, son of the elder Hariri.

In a letter to UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on December 12 requested "technical assistance" from the International Investigation Commission, the body already investigating political attacks in Lebanon.

The same commission is investigating the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri.

Because there was general agreement between competing factions—usually described in the media as pro- and anti-Syrian—that Gen. Michel Suleiman will fill the vacated presidential seat, and being that Syrian behavior in Lebanon is a measure of its willingness to cooperate with the United States and the West, Syria's direct involvement in the assassination is by no means an unequivocal fact. After all, al-Hajj, a Christian Maronite, was seen as quite friendly with Hezbollah and Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun.

The Bush administration warned Syria last week not to interfere in Lebanese politics.

"Like the many victims before him, General al-Hajj was a supporter of Lebanon's independence and an opponent of Syria's interference in Lebanon's internal affairs," said Bush.

Meanwhile, Syria condemned the killing of Hajj. The official state-run Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) cited an unidentified government official as saying the assassination targeted the Lebanese Army and it was Israel that benefited from the killing of a national figure. SANA noted that Israel blew up Hajj's car in 1976 in southern Lebanon after he refused to cooperate with its allies.

While Annapolis may have opened the door to diplomacy, the realities on the ground suggest that Syria will not end its relationship with Iran, nor will it bend to international pressure for its influence—positive or malicious—in Lebanon.

Syrian President Assad last week rejected claims that Syria's alliance with Iran would be weakened as a result of Damascus's participation at Annapolis.

"I confirm, on this occasion, that relations will not be shaken for any reason or under any circumstances," said Assad, according to SANA.



Khody Akhavi writes for the Inter Press Service.





Khody Akhavi, "Détente with Damascus?" Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, December 19, 2007).

Please click the following link to bookmark this page:


If the link doesn't appear don't worry, your browser doesn't support this function.

Try pressing 'ctrl + d' on a PC or 'cmd + d' if your using a Mac.

Close
New Profiles
Center for American Freedom

The Center for American Freedom, a new neoconservative advocacy group, publishes the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative “combat journalism” outlet designed to counter the supposedly liberal media elite.

Perle, Richard

Although he has largely faded from public attention since his high-profile role promoting the invasion of Iraq during the first George W. Bush administration, Richard Perle, the neoconservative figurehead associated with the American Enterprise Institute, is again raising public alarm about a hypothetical nuclear weapons program—this time in Iran.

Bryen, Shoshana

Following her acrimonious departure from JINSA, “pro-Israel” hawk Shoshana Bryen will carry on her advocacy efforts at the conservative Jewish Policy Center.

Amitay, Morris

Amitay has been a key “pro-Israel” lobbyist for decades, serving as head of American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and chair of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Bryen, Stephen

Stephen Bryen has played an important role forging connections between right-wing advocacy groups, conservative policy elites, weapons contractors, and the U.S. “pro-Israel” lobby.

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

Latest Feature Articles
Whither the Liberal Hawks?

Jim Lobe | January 31, 2012

Tehran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with mounting threats from hawks in Israel and the United States, has brought the possibility of war sharply into view. But a number of influential members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment—including several prominent liberal interventionists who supported the invasion of Iraq—are warning against further escalation.

Rise of the Vulcans Redux

Peter Certo | December 19, 2011

The purported “end of the neocon consensus” has hardly meant an end to hawkishness in the GOP fold. With the Republican candidates virtually all gunning for Iran, backing right-wing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, and stabling a passel of neoconservative advisers (Ron Paul excepted), voters have plenty of clues about what the foreign policy of a new GOP administration would look like. And while some of the candidates have expressed wariness with neoconservative notions of armed democracy promotion, all the signs indicate that if a Republican wins next year, we will likely be in for a bit if George W. redux.

Turning the Tide on the “Pro-Israel” Debate

Michael Flynn and Peter Certo | December 13, 2011

With key members of the "Israel Lobby" acknowledging the importance of providing a broader space to Israel’s critics, the indelibly beltway Politico recognizing the influence of such critics in a full-length feature, and core Democratic organizations showing an increasing sensitivity to inappropriate uses of the anti-Semite charge, is the United States finally willing to undertake a real debate on what are the best U.S. interests in the Middle East?

The China Divide and the Future of the GOP

Robert Farley | November 08, 2011

The issue of whither U.S. relations with China is an important test case for observing the divide between the free market and neoconservative wings of the Republican Party. Thus far, the GOP presidential candidates have largely failed to articulate a vision of China that comes anywhere close to reflecting the complexity of U.S.-Chinese relations. Among the leading candidates, Mitt Romney has arguably been the most aggressive in his discussion of China policy. Yet, his embrace of a hawkish line towards Beijing would appear to indicate that President Obama’s would-be challengers have not yet found an alternative vocabulary for talking and thinking about one of the critical foreign policy issues of the 2012 election. It seems clear that even though neoconservatives lack grassroots support, they offer what is effectively the only option for an “establishment” GOP candidate, a fact that could have lasting impact both on the viability of any Republican Party foreign policy platform as well as future U.S. decision-making vis-à-vis other hotspots like Iran, Israel, and North Korea.

Right Web | rightweb.irc-online.org


1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036
USA
|
|
202-234-9382

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Right Web is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies; www.ips-dc.org