Is the "international community" falling back in love with Syria?
October 28, 2006
Véronique De Keyser visiting Assad in Damascus years later, in September 2013 (after the chemical massacre), on what she says was a “humanitarian mission.”
I actually laughed a few days ago when I read the title of this piece on Naharnet, "Syria Panics as Tribunal for Hariri's Assassins Takes Shape."
Panic? You don't even need to be in Syria, as I am now, to realize that this is at most wishful thinking on the part of Annahar and some Lebanese factions. First of all, following very mild Brammertz commission reports, the Syrian regime feels it is more than ready for an eventual legal showdown having engaged experienced international lawyers to argue its case. (I already know who the British QC is, but maybe it is still a secret? Here's a hint: he's a prominent lawyer of Arab origin.) Secondly, regardless of what is going on internally (or perhaps what is not going on), it seems that Syria's political isolation is beginning to dissipate, even for the "arrogant and stupid" Bush administration which will soon be told it needs to get help for Iraq.
An American journalist asked me yesterday what I thought of the forthcoming report from James Baker's Iraq Study Group, recommending that the US talk with Syria and Iran; I replied that it was the most sensible thing I'd heard for ages, whether for the sake of Iraq, the region, or even simply the US's. The current administration's behavior will probably be influenced by the upcoming congressional elections, but in the meantime, Syria has more than enough "talking" to do with Europe.
In January 2005, when I was still on the Board of Directors of the British Syrian Society (from which I resigned, after having been a founding board member when I had expected the Society to have a different agenda, but that's a whole other story), four of us went to Brussels to meet with the EU delegation in charge of Syria. That was shortly before the assassination of Rafik Hariri, and already then it was difficult to make a case for maintaining, let alone improving, the EU's relations with Syria.
We were two Syrians and two Britons, including this Board colleague of mine whose op-ed yesterday left a lot to be desired in my opinion, as I don't think the reason to engage with Syria should be because it's not Iran. In any case, Syria became "bracketed" with Iran way before Hizbullah was even created, but that's also the subject of another post. (Or, if you're interested, read this Chatham House report on Iran to which I contributed, and which came out as I was already on maternity leave.)
At the EU Parliament, my colleagues and I took turns in trying our best smooth talk with the various European parliamentarians, and I distinctly remember spending some time speaking with Véronique De Keyser, who (just like her colleagues) seemed reluctant to even consider getting the EU Association Agreement back on track.
Incidentally, I know many of you think all I do is criticize the regime – which I undoubtedly do a lot – but I've also done and continue to do my fair share, in both formal and informal capacities, to try to present a case for the country as a whole (with all its potential in human, economic, social terms) and as a part of the region (as an inevitable part of any problem, and of any solution), regardless of the regime in place. Most of what I do happens to be in closed meetings and behind the scenes, but I thought I should mention that I am not of the same opinion as many critics of the regime who confuse regime and country. As far as I'm concerned, Syria has legitimate demands and rights, and I will always argue and fight for them when necessary. But, as usual, I digress.
Our lunch in Brussels was spent discussing human rights, internal reform, and cooperation on the regional front … or lack thereof on all accounts. The EU pretended not to be happy with Syria's performance (then why had they applauded the pretend-steps taken by the regime, and why had they ignored the squashing of the Damascus spring?), and wanted to get something in return for additional engagement. The situation in Iraq, at that point, was the one most urgently in need of help, but the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1559 was on everyone's lips. Little did we know then, all of us, how quickly things would change, how Hariri would overtake all other issues, and how hastily Syria would be made to leave Lebanon … in a way ending the relevance of 1559, but opening the way for other equally ambiguous resolutions.
Since Syria's withdrawal, I've had a number of meetings with European officials who were adamant about the "disarming Hezbollah" part of Resolution 1559, and who insisted this was Syria's responsibility. I argued that they had no legal leg to stand on, and I couldn't see how they could possibly "make" Syria disarm the most efficient of all Lebanese (and Palestinian, come to think of it) party. I recall forcefully making this particular point (i.e. Syria is done with 1559, whether you like it or not) to a couple of French officials (highly involved in the resolution) who tried hard to convince me otherwise, but couldn't actually come up with the supporting evidence.
Fast forward to the Israeli aggression on Lebanon in July 2006. Suddenly, by simply watching Israel destroy Lebanon and Hizbullah fight back, Damascus has once more become the unavoidable stopover. By doing nothing, Syria actually demonstrated not only that it had been right on a number of points (regarding American positions), but also that it was needed. And suddenly, Syria is not alone anymore, and everyone has noticed that it has not served anyone's interests to ignore it.
Indeed, the European Union (and in particular the team dealing with Syria mentioned above) seems to have gone back on its own decisions, in spite of the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed on any of the issues they initially pretended to adopt. In fact, with regards to human rights in particular, Bashar Assad made it perfectly clear in his interview with Hamdi Kandil, on Dubai Television, that he had warned Europeans not to interfere with internal Syrian affairs, and that any foreign embassy's intervention on behalf of a Syrian prisoner of conscience (not the term he used, of course) would be considered as treason on part of the detainee. In other words, Europe was warned on that front, and Europe seems to have bowed.
Lo and behold, the same Madame de Keyser with whom I had lunch and who we all tried to convince of the importance of Syria's engagement with the Association Agreement (which the commission was reluctant to accept) has prepared a resolution, adopted by the European parliament's foreign affairs committee, to deepen cooperation with Syria and ultimately sign an association agreement.
Suddenly, Europe decides it's time to speak with Syria, even though the latter changed absolutely nothing in its behavior and even after the unsolved Hariri killing. It may not be love yet, but they are certainly dating again.
Say what you like about the Syrian regime, as I often do, there's obviously something to be said for staying the course, apparently. Syria has been consistent in its intransigence and hasn't budged an inch in its internal or even external affairs (apart from begging to talk to Israel, which annoys me to no end). Europe and the US, by constantly changing their parameters, haven't been consistent and have been back-pedalling furiously. In the long run, it's anyone's guess as to who's going to be the final beneficiary, but for the time being, the Syrian regime doesn't seem too bothered. And it's certainly not panicking.
