Israel and Syria: Talking at last

A debate is brewing about diplomatic negotiations between Syria and Israel, who are technically still at war. In this situation, it's quite hard to see how talks could hurt. However the White House's policy on 'no talks with the enemy (lest we appease them)' seems to contradict its Mideast ally's approach.

NYT:

Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East, just became the latest example of a country that has decided it is better to deal with its foes than to ignore them.

The announcement that Israel has entered into comprehensive peace talks with Syria is at odds with the course counseled by the Bush administration, which initially opposed such talks in private conversations with Israelis, according to Israeli and American officials.
...
But in many ways, the Bush administration’s own policies appear to be at odds with his thesis.

Isn't this the same administration that took part in talks (albeit delayed ones) that resulted in the ongoing denuclearization of the North Korean state?

Will Iran and Syria finally divorce?

Just as Iran has its nuclear issue causing the international community to stand on edge, its pal Syria has the Rafik Hariri assassination case, which has also kept news-watchers like myself on the edge of our seats. How long will Iran and Syria's little friendship last? Lebanon and isolation by (in Syria's case) and dislike of (in Iran's case) the United States are two of the common threads. As a result both have been known to harbor or support extremists. Contrary to what the White House says every day, there is no pure evil, no clear enemy, in world politics, or most other things.

But neither Damascus or Tehran should take their alliance for granted.

On Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council voted to establish a special court to try those who participated in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria is the prime suspect in the crime. Its allies blocked passage of the tribunal through the Lebanese Parliament, which is why the Security Council decided to approve it unilaterally. However, an increasingly pertinent question, albeit one only now beginning to provoke interest, is what the tribunal might mean for Syrian-Iranian collaboration in Lebanon.
...
Lebanon, thanks to a series of Security Council resolutions designed to bolster its independence from Syria, investigate the Hariri murder, and reinforce a U.N. peacekeeping force along the border with Israel, finds itself under de facto international trusteeship. For Hezbollah to find the Americans at their doorstep again must have been galling. The United States, France, the United Nations, and leading Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, have attempted to firm up the country against two parallel developments: Syria's persistent efforts to destabilize Lebanon, mainly to undermine a Hariri tribunal that threatens the Syrian regime; and Iran's desire to use Lebanon as an outpost in the Levant from where it might derail American, Israeli, or Western initiatives with which it is unhappy; but also from where it can deter, through Hezbollah, an Israeli or U.S. strike against its nuclear facilities.

But will Syria and Iran remain on the same wavelength in Lebanon now that the regime of President Bashar Assad is more vulnerable than ever? The two countries have cooperated closely, and according to a diplomat who travels to Damascus, Iran is manning listening posts in Syrian territory from which even Russian experts are denied entry. The notion of a sudden Iranian-Syrian split seems, for the moment, naive.

However, with a green light for the Hariri tribunal, things may become more complicated.

So the Mid-East chapter of the "axis of evil" might soon be no more. But don't count on it happening anytime soon.

US diplomacy in the Middle East

US diplomacy in the Middle East: Iraq, Syria, and why it matters

With the previously dominant neoconservative hawks in Washington seeming to take the back seat in US foreign policy, America has finally started to embrace a more pragmatic approach to diplomacy in the Middle East — to an extent.

Diplomatic relations with such a tumultuous region can be hard to maintain at times, but keeping the channels of communication open is essential in order to help fix the problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere. In addition, discussion with states like Syria and Iran can resolve ongoing tensions. Unlike war, diplomacy is soft and does not always produce immediate effects. Some are dissatisfied with the outcome of diplomacy. However, also unlike war there are few instances where diplomacy actually hurts the problem one or both sides wish to resolve.

On 3 May, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, in a much-needed discussion. At the top of the agenda was Iraq, and Syria's borders — which many extremists cross through to enter Iraq — were also an issue. Even though the meeting lasted a modest 30 minutes, just the fact that Rice spoke to Moallem illustrated a turning point in the Bush administration's foreign policy. This discussion came during a conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on the Iraq issue. Iran and Syria are both in attendance, as America finally showed a more logical and less stubborn diplomatic policy in similar talks on Iraq in late March. One development of the summit comes as no surprise: Iran blames the US for Iraq's woes, which is only partially correct. Both Iran and America are to blame. Although the US started the war, and has made it worse, Iran and other external (and internal) actors have only inflamed it further.

A while back, the influential, bipartisan Iraq Study Group, or Baker-Hamilton commission, recommended in its report that the United States work with Syria in the fight against Islamic extremism and to help stabilize and secure Iraq. This set off shockwaves in Washington, making some politicians, including President George W. Bush, show their cowboy international diplomacy mentality again — that is, they scoffed at and ignored the sensible recommendations. The ISG emphasized discussion and cooperation with all relevent Middle Eastern states, even the ones the White House had a particular distaste for. The report said:
"Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability."

The meeting between Condi Rice and Walid Moallem was the first direct, official, and high-level talks between Syria and the United States in years. Remember: Syria has been labeled an 'evil' state by Bush, and an honorary member of the infamous "axis of evil". Way to be diplomatic, Mr. President. While some — including a prominent Newsweek article and conservative American commentators like Michelle Malkin — call talks like this "talking with the enemy", Rice said her discussion with the Syrian foreign minister was "professional", and that she "didn't lecture him and he didn't lecture me." However positive this news might be, signs are yet to reveal themselves of direct talks between the US and Iran. America came close to talking to its Persian arch-nemesis, but an official diplomatic discussion never panned out. Neither American nor Iranian diplomats actually took the initiative of beginning the discussion, another reflection of the state of US diplomacy in the Middle East. Further, more broad discussions are also needed between the United States and Syria.

The two-day summit on Iraq resulted in an International Compact for Iraq (ICI), a five-year plan for financial help and 'national reconciliation' for Iraq. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon placed the stated 'financial commitments' to Iraq at over $30 billion. The conference included delegations from the United States, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and the European Union. Such a summit brought together all the G8 and UN Security Council powers, several members of the Arab League, and then some, but was still seen as a relative failure. Nevertheless, it brought more attention to the Iraq humanitarian issue of international interest. The conference also brought out a less resistive foreign policy from the US.

As this is the Middle East, surely not in its finest days, pessimism remains. Abd-al-Bari Atwan wrote in the Pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, translated by BBC Monitoring:
"The Sharm al-Shaykh conference will conclude by issuing a communique. There will be a photo opportunity and smiles, but, after that, the region will return to its situation and the conditions in Iraq will be even more dangerous and turbulent."

In these times it's hard to talk about Syria without bringing up Iran. They’re currently like two peas on a pod. But things didn’t used to be so peachy for Syrian-Iranian relations. Isolation by the United States and the fall of Saddam Hussein's Iraq are a couple of factors that have led to Syria getting closer to Iran — a predominantly Shia nation and wannabe nuclear power slated as the next regional power. In fact, Saddam's overthrow has led to a massive inbalence of power. The ruthless dictator, now dead, kept Iran, and many sectarian factions, in check.

In early April, there was a row over the decision by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) visit to Syria. Syria is a Middle Eastern nation that had been isolated by the Bush administration in some misguided notion of hope that alienating an active power in a region that needs all the help it can get would help things. Of course Pelosi’s excursion revealed a wider hypocrisy: the fact that a Republican delegation had visited earlier left the White House and the media unfettered, as did the visit of representative, Darrell Issa (R-CA), on 5 April — a day after Pelosi’s much-debated trip. Like Pelosi, Issa met with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, a dictator, but one with the potential for more amiable feelings for the United States.

The White House said that Pelosi's trip 'sent the wrong message', making Syria think it is a valid member of the international community. This level of logic is not the kind that should be resonating from the White House press room, nor any other branch of the government. Of course, as the Bush administration intends to alienate nations like Syria, it is doing a fine job, depending on how you look at it. While America and Syria are not very engaged, Syria is less likely to help the US on issues like, say, Iraq. Iraq is devastated as it is, and the militants and terrorists within its borders do not need any more additions.

I supported Nancy Pelosi's recent (unofficial, non-policy related) diplomatic trip to Syria, whether a political stunt or not. By isolating Syria, this current administration has forced it nearer to Iran — by no means a positive influence. Lucky for the US, Syria is open to working with America and has an interest in the outcome of the current civil conflict in Iraq as well as the spread radical Islamic terrorism. The Syrians have even more to worry about political stability against terrorists than the US does: they are situated in the Middle East hotbed of terror, America is not. Along with many experts and foreign governments, the Iraq Study Group and many members of Congress have urged the White House to talk to Syria before relations deteriorate further and Iraq gets even worse.

Syria’s foreign policy remained fairly moderate — that is, until they were shunned by the United States. Syria also fights against terrorist groups and ideologies like jihad and al-Qaeda, and has an interest in the wider Middle East conflicts. Pelosi has met with the Syrian foreign minister and is expected to talk with President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian press has been very friendly to Pelosi, slapping labels such as 'brave lady' to the first ever female speaker and highest ranking Congressional Democrat; Syrian — mostly state-run — media pointed to her visit as 'positive'.

Not only does the transnational flow of terrorists and their radical movements need to be halted, but a helpful combination of good PR, economic agreements, and open-channel diplomacy should be kept with states suspected of harboring — or even directly or indirectly supporting — terrorism. Countries like Syria, which is a major hub for insurgents entering Iraq, could help in the fight against terrorism if they were not shunned by the US. In Syria's case, good relations with America could even bring the state further from more devious states like Iran. Lest we forget, terrorism is a problem for other governments too, even 'evil' ones. Most every state in the Middle East and North Africa fears terrorism of the radical Islamic persuasion.

Channels of diplomacy need to be kept open. US-Syria relations are needed and welcomed by Syria. Syria isn’t as seemingly sinister or incessantly meddling as Iran, and its close relations to Iran deal largely with the United States. Unlike Iran, Syria is not interested in a so-called Shia crescent across the Mid-East. Syria may be authoritarian, but so is Egypt, an American ally, which shares the Syrian policy against Islamic extremism. Iran has been a (mostly) bad influence on Syria, but there is still hope.

The common misconception is that the US talking to Syria is like talking to the enemy, whomever the enemy actually is. In reality, neither Syria nor Iran are real enemies. Al-Qaeda — or what’s left of it — is an enemy; Nazi Germany was the enemy in World War II, of course that was easier to define because it was a nation-state, not a movement or ideology. It is hard to make the case that diplomatic relations with Syria would hurt. There is also the tolerance issue. While we shouldn’t tolerate Syria’s mass human rights abuses, for instance, how was Nancy Pelosi a terrorist when she put on a frankly western-looking headdress? Just because others are different doesn’t make them wrong, yet another issue both the extremist fringe in Washington and in Tehran and Damascus need to recognize. There’s one thing the US has in common with Iran, Syria, and certainly others.

The US and other powers should work with Syria while working with Israel in order to stifle Syria's terrorist group support. Just because Syria has a deplorable human rights record shouldn’t keep the US from talking to it. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan also commit unjustified acts, and America remains close diplomatic relations with those three countries. On the human rights front, the US should try to nudge Syria in the right direction and work on its own human rights situation. This will cover the fronts of Syria-terrorist, Syria-Iran, and Syria-Israel relations, and, by working with Syria and other Middle Eastern states, America and the international community can better Iraq as well as the states they are working with. Win for US, win for Syria, win for Iraq, and win for Middle East and international political stability; both good and bad for Israel; not too good for Iran (but they are in control of much of their fate in these matters).

The US cannot fight its war — in Iraq or against the ever-ambigious 'terror' — alone. It needs to be willing to reach out to friends and foes alike, observing the greater good while still keeping on the ethical side of things. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two American 'allies' and key political players, have hosted recent Middle East diplomatic initiatives on topics ranging from a new Palestinian unity government to the aforementioned multi-national solution for Iraq's woes. Be sure to keep an eye on these not-too-radical nations as diplomacy in the Mid-East progresses, hopefully in a forward direction.

May 2007 has seen a shift in White House policy on discourse with states like Syria. While it is good that the world’s powers are meeting — hopefully on equal grounds — on a topic as important as Iraq, one must wonder what has really been accomplished by meetings like the one in early May. Keeping up efforts to work alongside the United Nations, by any means a bastion of global diplomacy, is a best bet if the State Department really has modified its policy for the better.

It's time for all parties with a vested interest in the outcome of the Iraqi civil war to open their minds and look at the sensible options. At the moment US popularity is very low. That should only encourage and give warrant to a flexible diplomatic campaign, an emphasis on multilateralism, and the need for a massive rethink of the Bush administration's "Global War on Terrorism". A diplomatic, multilateral foreign policy campaign has been dismissed time and time again for a militant, unilateral 'us against them', 'with us or against us' policy. We've seen the disastrous effects of such a policy. It's time for change.

Middle East diplomacy (part 1): another Iraq summit

Diplomatic relations with such a tumultuous region can be hard to maintain at times, but keeping the channels of communication open is essential in order to help fix the problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere. In addition, discussion with states like Syria and Iran can resolve ongoing tensions. Unlike war, diplomacy is soft and does not always produce immediate effects. Some are dissatisfied with the outcome of diplomacy, but also unlike war there are few instances where diplomacy actually hurts the problem one or both sides wish to resolve.

I supported US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent (unofficial, non-policy related) diplomatic trip to Syria. By isolating Syria, this current administration has forced it nearer to Iran — by no means a positive influence. Lucky for the US, Syria is open to working with America and has an interest in the outcome of the current civil conflict in Iraq as well as the spread radical Islamic terrorism. The Syrians have even more to worry about political stability against terrorists than the US, also. The Iraq Study Group and many members of Congress have urged the White House to talk to Syria before relations deteriorate further and Iraq gets even worse.

Yesterday US Secretary of State Condi Rice met with the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, in a much-needed discussion. At the top of the agenda was Iraq, and Syria's borders — which many extremists cross through to enter Iraq — were also an issue.

The 30-minute session with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem marks a diplomatic turning point for the Bush administration, which had resisted talks with Syria and Iran despite the recommendations of allies abroad and the Iraq Study Group and lawmakers from both parties at home.

The meeting was the first direct, official, and high-level talks between Syria, which President Bush has labeled an 'evil' state, and the United States in years. While some call talks like this 'talking with the enemy', Rice said her discussion with the Syrian FM was "professional", and that "I didn't lecture him and he didn't lecture me." However positive this news might be, signs are yet to reveal themselves of direct talks between the US and Iran. America came close to talking to its Persian arch-nemisis, but an official diplomatic discussion never panned out.

Both the U.S. and Iran had sounded interested, even eager, to improve on nearly three decades of name-calling and accusations. U.S. diplomats had pointed to the seaside conference about Iraq's future as a possible opening, and Iran's hardline president welcomed talks.

In the end, neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki wanted to make the first move.

This discussion came during a conference in Egypt on the Iraq issue. Iran and Syria are both in attendance, as America finally showed a more logical and less stubborn diplomatic policy in similar talks on Iraq in late March. One development that comes as no surprise: Iran blames the US for Iraq's woes, which is only partially correct.

This summit on Iraq has resulted in an International Compact for Iraq (ICI), a five-year plan for financial help and 'national reconciliation' for Iraq. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon placed the stated 'financial commitments' to Iraq at over $30 billion. The conference included delegations from the United States, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and the European Union.

technorati tags: condi+rice, ban+ki-moon, iraq, international+compact+for+iraq, middle+east, syria, iran, diplomacy

Republican meets Syrian president, Pelosi battle continues

It's getting harder and harder for critics to criticize US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's diplomatic trips in the Middle East. I have written in defense of her. We have already seen some positive effects, namely Syria and Israel opening up to talks. Now a Republican, Rep. Darrell Issa, has met with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad.

"It is difficult to isolate Syria which is pivotal to finding solutions to all issues in the region," the Syrian agency quoted Assad as saying. Issa, who is of Lebanese dissent, also met Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem.

More than a dozen U.S. lawmakers have visited Damascus in the last four months and met Assad after the Iraq Study Group recommended to Republican President George W. Bush engaging with Damascus and Iran to help stabilize Iraq.

Pelosi urged Assad on Wednesday to end alleged Syrian support to rebels in Iraq and to use its influence with the Palestinian group Hamas.

Pelosi said holding a dialogue with the secular Syrian leader, whom the Bush administration has been trying to isolate, was in the U.S. interests.

This is hypocrisy at its extreme — American polarization mixing with regional dialogue. Pelosi gets heavily slammed by the White House and many members of the public — even CNN, and NYT to a lesser extent — for going to Syria and other countries on a largely-diplomatic capacity. Other Republicans have visited Syria and now Issa has met with the country's leader!

For more analysis on the Pelosi-foreign policy issue:

By law, Congress must keep out of diplomacy. In history, House speakers and lawmakers have crossed that line, some with the blessing of the president and some against his wishes.

Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi's dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip. But in a nation deeply divided over America's role and standing in the world, the Democratic-led Congress's push into foreign policy has prompted a ferocious reaction from a White House doubly protective of its turf.
...
International uproar over a House speaker is something relatively new, said Brookings scholar Thomas E. Mann.

Pelosi is not making policy. That would be bending the law, although it is sometimes done. She is visiting, talking, being diplomatic without saying 'This is official policy' or 'This is where the United States stands' like Secretary Rice or President Bush can do.

Of course Pelosi's diplomacy has not been flawless. There were political and communication troubles on the Israeli issue. But is it really worse than nothing, no diplomacy with Syria at all? No, it isn't.

Update: A member of Pelosi's office points out what's fact and what's fiction. I am not a huge supporter of Pelosi, but the fact she can get slammed for taking a congressional diplomatic trip and others don't is very disturbing. The Washington Post editorial (see link in last paragraph) is obviously anti-Pelosi. Although it does point out some truths it is smothered in partisanship. The American news media has also cast a negative light on the trip. This is, in my opinion, all getting kind of ridiculous.

I guess the White House still does have plenty of support — enough to crack the line of political polarization once again and turn many against something they have little reason to dislike. I have yet to hear a convincing, logical argument outrightly against Pelosi's visit to Syria. It is not meddling. She is not going against Bush's policies any more than other Congresspeople have when they've visited.

technorati tags: darrell+issa, nancy+pelosi, pelosi, syria, bashir+al-assad, syria+visit, pelosi+syria, issa+syria, politics, foreign+policy, diplomacy, news

More on Pelosi's diplomacy...

It is highly hypocritical of many observers and the government to be criticizing Pelosi for even talking to Syria, an important player in the Middle East that has been isolated by the United States, leading it to turn to Iran as a close ally.

I still wonder why there was no uproar when politicians visited in the past. Since when can't a US policy-maker make a foreign trip and meet officials? Syria isn't perfect, but it is only an 'enemy' of the US because of Bush's haphazard "axis of evil" inclusion.

She has allowed the Syrians and Israelis to communicate by relaying diplomatic messages. That is a good thing. Also she can take foreign policy trips if she damn well pleases. Republican congresspeople can do the same; I don't mind.

U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about "ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon."

Wait, isn't Pelosi basically doing the same thing as these congresspeople did, but on a wider scale? (After all, she is also the House speaker, a major position.)

Pelosi is not instating official US foreign policy also, it is just a trip. Just recently three GOP congresspeople went to Syria, why didn't you all attack that? She is helping diplomacy, a good thing considering the White House's failure in Iraq. She is acting as an official does, she is not instituting official policy like Secretary of State Rice or President Bush do.

Pelosi is getting slammed left and right. However, this is much less partisan politics and much more just a congressional visit. Policy makers make official visits all the time. How is this visit different? Pelosi is visiting a country that the US administration doesn't care for. Pelosi is laying foreign policy groundwork; the Bush administration effectively has no real policy with Syria!

I have even heard allegations and cries of 'terrorist' because Pelosi wore a moderate headscarf — people saying she has no right to wear one. It's a headscarf, not a veil! She does have a right to dress in a headscarf if she wants to. What's wrong with dressing differently? I doubt she conformed anyways. She has any right to dress in a headscarf or a suit or whatever so piss off. Those saying things like this — that because she dressed differently or just the fact she visited — are just as bad as many fundamentalists in the Arab world: restricting dialogue by slapping dirty labels on people and saying they do not have the power or right to do something as simple as making a diplomatic visit.

Furthermore, keep in mind the White House's foreign policy record and how Congress has failed to check those policies. Foreign policy does not lie solely under the president.

Both Israel's acting president and prime minister have praised Pelosi; and she has gotten a surprisingly warm reception in the Arab press.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has relayed messages of peace from a nation supposedly the enemy of another. When has Secretary Rice done that in even an official capacity? The United States accuses Syria of destabilizing the Mid-East, but does a fine job of that itself. One reason Syria is making ties to unhelpful countries and groups is because of US isolation — its a look never-ending under the current Bush administration policy.

See this post and this post for background info on Pelosi's visit to Syria and the reaction to her visits.

Syria, Israel, and Pelosi

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Syrian President Bashir al-Assad is ready for renewed peace talks with Israel. Pelosi is currently visiting various Middle Eastern countries — including Israel, Lebanon, and Syria — at the condemnation of the White House. I fail to see how this is, as US President Bush put it, undermining US foreign policy, considering how America’s foreign policy lies in shambles from his war on terror policies. Just because Bush blocks out the vital entity of Syria from his diplomacy does not mean others have to.

Pelosi did express worries over Syrian support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorist groups, but also said the Middle Eastern nation had a role in the Israel-Palestine peace negotiations. Syria is also blamed for allowing some terrorist fighters into Iraq, although it has sealed much of its border. It is home to many Iraqi and Palestinian refugees. Because of the Israeli occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights, they have their own interests with Israeli peace talks. Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert said he was ready to begin talks too.

Pelosi’s visit has contrasted with the Bush administration’s often hostile or meaningless foreign policies, though some see her as overstepping her bounds. Remember: the Baker-Hamilton ISG report strongly pushed for talks between the United States and Syria (and Iran) over Iraq.

There have been changes in the administration policy, albeit small ones, when talks that included Syria and Iran were announced in March. However, these talks are only indirect. A real step forward is needed for the sake of the horrendous situation in the Middle East, diplomacy is needed.

"The meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well", Pelosi stated. The Bush administration has been trying its hardest to isolate the Syrian government, which is suspected of killing a Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in 2005. The assassination led to Syria leaving Lebanon and a new, more independent Lebanese government being set up. The assassination still remains shrouded in mystery; Syria has received much of the blame and international condemnation has been the norm.

However, diplomacy cannot work without isolation. If the US is able to make better ties with Syria, Syria may stray from Iran, whose influence has been a major issue. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States — and many other Mid-East states — all share the common interest and worry: Iraq. Pelosi’s reception by the Arab press is quite interesting, and overall positive. Common themes include: this visit is a blow to the Bush administration in a domestic political and foreign policy sense; Pelosi is taking a step forward and opening up communication, which is needed; she is also recognizing Syria’s importance in the Middle East, including in Iraq and Israel-Palestine; she is seeing reality and hopes to work on the issues at hand.

See this post for background on Syria.

technorati tags: syria, pelosi, nancy+pelois, bush, al-assad, harari, lebanon, iran, usa, united+states, diplomacy, foreign+policy, politics, news, israel, olmert, palestine, iraq, isg

Israel might be preparing for an attack Syria might make, maybe

Reports are coming out suggesting Israel's defense forces (IDF) and government might have an attack plan in case tensions with Syria elevate — not least they are preparing for a Syrian offensive. The attack may go ahead if another alleged attack plan by Syria (background) on its own Israeli-held Golan Heights is instigated from fear of Israeli attack. Israel has occupied the Golan Heights, which rightfully and legally belong to Syria, for decades. There have been rumors of a compromise, but the US would not support one between its ally, Israel, and apparent enemy Syria.

This all also ties into the fear of a US strike on Iran, which is a close Syrian ally as Israel is a close American ally. Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said it would be a "miscalculation" by the Syrians if they see a need to attack the Golan Heights. And who says Middle East geopolitics is simple?

Also, the speaker of the American House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, visited Israel, Lebanon, and Syria. The White House condemned the latter-most visit to Syria. President Bush deemed it "counterproductive". This administration should know a thing or two about being counterproductive in foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Syria is an honorary member of the Bush's haphazard — in the sense it is very unhelpful with foreign relations — 'axis of evil'.

technorati tags: syria, israel, pelosi, golan+heights, middle+east, diplomacy, IDF, politics, news, international+affairs, foreign

Diplomacy under fire: Pelosi visits Syria

White House criticizes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) trip to Syria
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House, produced uproar by the White House and others when it was let known she would visit Syria in her latest diplomatic tour of the Middle East. If a planned trip was slammed so much, imagine how annoyed the Bush administration was when she arrived in Syria. (At least she is not visiting Iran!)

White House anger failed to quell when she actually made the visit today. Pelosi rightfully stated that keeping an open line of communication with Syria, which holds some standing in the Mid-East, is a good thing in order to help with the situations in Iraq and Lebanon.

Syria’s foreign policy remained fairly moderate — that is, until they were shunned by the United States. Syria also fights against terrorist groups and ideologies like jihad and al-Qaeda, and has an interest in the wider Middle East conflicts. Pelosi has met with the Syrian foreign minister and is expected to talk with President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian press has been very friendly to Pelosi, slapping labels such as 'brave lady' to the first ever female speaker and highest ranking Congressional Democrat; Syrian — mostly state-run — media pointed to her visit as 'positive'.

Channels of diplomacy need to be kept open. US-Syria relations are needed and welcomed by Syria. Syria isn’t as sinister or meddling as Iran, and its close relations to Iran deal largely with the United States. Unlike Iran, Syria is not interested in a so-called Shia crescent across the Mid-East. Syria may be authoritarian, but so is Egypt, an American ally, which shares the Syrian policy against Islamic extremism. Iran has been a (mostly) bad influence on Syria, but there is still hope.

Pelosi hopes to be able to relay Israel’s diplomatic message to Syria, and vice versa. Dialogue is key to diplomacy; diplomacy is key to peace. The Middle East needs peace, and keeping a stubborn, aggressive mindset like that of the White House cannot achieve such an objective. American hostility is hardly needed. Interesting how an administration accusing others of hindering the peace process is indeed hindering it on its own.

Accusations and pejorative labels need to be dropped if Bush wants any bright area whatsoever in the already-gloomy area of history labeled "George W. Bush's foreign policy". Ignorance and 'us against them', 'with us or against us' catchphrases of political rhetoric is 79 percent of Bush diplomacy. Another 15 percent is warfare. 5 percent more is baseless and objective-less foreign visits. That leaves roughly 1 percent left for any sort of pragmatic, positive maneuvering by this administration — the leaders of the world's most powerful nation, and one of the most increasingly despised.

Update: Pelosi is not the first American politician to visit Syria. Why didn't the White House call it a 'bad idea' when three Republican congresspeople visited recently?

technorati tags: syria, middle+east, nancy+pelosi, pelosi, politics, white+house, bush, middle+east, pelosi+syria, foreign+policy, diplomacy, USA, news

Spotlight on Syria: what we know, what they can do, their motives and actions, and more...

Spotlight on Syria ^{search, news}
General references: Wikipedia, CIA, BBC, FRD/LoC, DoS, CUL

Can this oppressive police state and fighter of Islamic extremism really be an ally to the US in its "war on terror" and troubles in Iraq? Yes. But can it happen in an okay manner accaptable to both Western and Middle Eastern powers?

President Bush critisizes Syria for its human rights — he shouldn't be one to talk, as Syrian leader points out on visit to Moscow. How free are the Syrian people?; how much can Syria do to help the Middle East? One must recognize that both the Syrian and American governments are fighting two common causes: Islamic extremism and human rights [in the process of fighting Islamic extremism or in the name of said fight].

Syria and Iran have become closer friends as of recent; the international community (especially the US) has moved further away from Iran recently. I plan to draw up a little map of Syria's social network soon to help clarify this whole international relation's web.


There is a surprising little amount of information about Syria — as I have found out when compiling and writing this post. The reason it is so surprising is the fact that Syria is in the news regularly and it is part of the geographical area called the Middle East. If there is ever no big news coming out of the mid-east, you know something is wrong. Syria was granted indipendence in 1946 after the French ended their rule over the former Ottoman Empire land.

First off, why is Syria so anti-Israel and anti-US, even siding with Iran (which it has not had an exactly peachy relationship with historically)? The fact that Israel occupies land that rightfully belongs to Syria, the Golan Heights, is one major element to Syria's foreign policy. As we all know and has been shown (especially recently), Arabs and others in the Middle East are very proud of their land; their land is extremely important to them. Israel is more powerful and fruitful than any other Middle Eastern state, so one may propose that the reason Arab states and peoples are so attached to their land is its all they definitively have. When Israel takes away land, this produces an extreme outcome — for reasons aforementioned. Imagine you have one toy, and your young neighbor has many better toys. Let's say your neighbor took away or threatened to take away your toy — or parts of it. You would feel extremely volatile. Tie in some nationalism and exploited cultural [extremism], and add the fact that many need land to survive, and you have an aspect of the Middle Eastern situation between Israel and the Arab states, in a nutshell.

The Golan Heights were captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War.

In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967, Israel made massive territorial gains capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. The principle of land-for-peace that has formed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is based on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for peace deals recognising Israeli borders and its right to security. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.

The peace talks between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights stalled in January 2000. The Israeli control of this recognized area of Syria has led Syria to back the extremist security wing of Hezbollah, as well as other groups. Syria has also aided other Islamic and Arab terrorist organizations — whether directly or indirectly.

Syria has been receiving a plethora of refugees from strife-ridden nations such as Iraq and Palestine.

The Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton commission) report recommended the US work with Syria in the fight against Islamic extremism and the stablilizing of Iraq. This set off shockwaves through out Washington, making politicians, including President Bush, showing their ignorant cowboy international diplomacy mentality again. Meaning, 'we won't work with them unless they stop doing all their bad stuff' what is left out of this thinking is a sprinkle of reality '...even if its stuff we do and have control to stop without really harming ourselves, and work with us without incentive'. British PM Tony Blair has shown his support for talks with Syria and Iran, after all, you cannot be best friends with everyone you hold diplomatic discourse — or aim to do so — with!

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.

As was reported about the ISG recommendations

The report said Bush should put aside misgivings and engage Syria, Iran and the leaders of insurgent forces in negotiations on Iraq’s future, to begin by year’s end. It urged him to revive efforts at a broader Middle East peace. Barring a significant change, it warned of a slide toward chaos.

Being left out of big matters which affect you directly equals hostility and unrest which does not equal peace.

Yet another significant dilemma is Syria's history with its neighbor, Lebanon. This relationship, which was heavily exposed after the 2005 killing of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri — possibly by the Syrian government — has obviously put Syria into the dominating roll over Lebanon. Syria pulled its troops out of Lebanon only last year [2005].

Syrians think of themselves as family, and believe strongly in the aspect of respect. Though people — including the press — can now critisize the parliment, prime minister, and others in the government, the president and army are off limits. Syria has been in a state of emergency effectively since 1963. Which is similar, but not absolutely comparable to, how the United States has been since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Believe it or not, Israel has declared war on — meaning technically been at war with — Syria since/after the Yom Kippur War. As of 2005, Syria was rated seven on a scale of one (most free) to seven (least free) by civil liberty and political rights group Freedom House. On the whole human rights front, an in-depth Amnesty International report lists and explanatorily delves into the abuses and status of human rights in Syria. A summary of the summary:

Freedom of expression and association remained severely restricted. Scores of people were arrested and hundreds remained imprisoned for political reasons, including prisoners of conscience and others sentenced after unfair trials. However, about 500 political prisoners were released under two amnesties. Torture and ill-treatment were common. Human rights defenders continued to face harassment. Women and members of the Kurdish minority continued to face discrimination.

So, yeah, Syria is horrible in regards to every aspect of human rights.

Another problem, besides human rights, with Syria is its relations to terrorist groups. Mind you, the Islamic brotherhood and many other groups are strongly condemned and against the law (can you say death penalty), but its anti-Israel groups like Hezbollah that get Syria's support. In a CFR report and recap of the whole Syria-Lebanon and Syria-terrorist shebang, a few key points should be noted:

Some experts characterize Syria’s involvement in terrorism as “passive support.” But Syria has been involved in numerous past terrorist acts and still supports several terrorist groups.

Syria—along with Iran—gives the Lebanese militia Hezbollah "substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid," according to the State Department. Iranian arms bound for Hezbollah regularly pass through Syria, experts say.

The US and other powers should work with Syria while working with Israel in order to stifle Syria's terrorist group support. On the human rights front, the US should try to nudge Syria in the right direction and work on its own human rights situation. This will cover the fronts of Syria-terrorist, Syria-Iran, and Syria-Israel relations, and, by working with Syria and other Middle Eastern states, the US and international community can better Iraq as well as the states they are working with. Win for US, win for Syria, win for Iraq, win for Middle East and international political stability; good and bad for Israel; not too good for Iran (but they are in control of much of their fate in these matters).
technorati tags: syria, bush, international+relations, terrorism, war+on+terror, Islam, religious+extremism, human+rights, civil+liberties, politics, news, in+the+news, current, foreign+affairs, israel, golan+heights, diplomacy, baker+hamilton, iraq+study+group, harari, lebanon, freedom+house, united+states, profile, country, iran, syrian+society, international, foreign, world, middle+east, history, reference