The Pelosi pandemonium
April 11, 2007
Nancy Pelosi at the Great Omayad Mosque in Damascus.
There are good news and bad news to report after Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus. The good news is that it seems to prove that there is no such thing as bad publicity (mostly for Syria), that more Americans are now vaguely aware of a place called Syria, and that some have even understood the meaning of “the road to Damascus” in its original and current political sense. The bad news is that many now think we actually killed John The Baptist, decapitated him and burried his head in the Omayyad Mosque.
Against my better judgement, I browsed some popular right wing blogs discussing the issue; the comments alone about Pelosi wearing a scarf as she visited Omayyad Mosque would scare the living daylights out of any normal person. When several level-headed and knowledgeable people mentioned that it was only a sign of respect, just as women wear a head cover to meet with the Pope, or as one would wear appropriate attire to enter a church or a synagogue, they would be chastised with the admonition that there is no moral equivalence between those and a mosque! To read these disparaging comments and the sheer ignorance, hatred and aggressiveness about all things Islamic, Arab and female was truly an eye opener, even for someone who follows media as closely as I do.
Still, most Republicans and neocons (including those in Lebanon) and the usual array of "independent" journalists (especially those from Lebanon) were simply infuriated by the visit. In other words, it was a highly successful PR coup for Syria, regime and country alike!
In the short term, this visit changes absolutely nothing (this is obviously not the first time members of Congress or government officials visit Syria recently), but holds many benefits for all involved, summarized herewith very superficially. The AIPAC-fearing/loving/abiding Pelosi and her cohort of Democrats show a reasonable approach to international relations (while safeguarding Israel’s interests) and a willingness to reconsider America’s position, following the advice of experts (like those of the Iraq Study Group), hoping this diplomatic evidence can put Democrats back in the game as wiser strategists for Iraq. The Bush administration and its foreign policy “gurus” show that they are adamant about dealing with “rogue states” and score points against unruly Democrats, while reaping, behind the scenes, the benefits of actually engaging with Syria.
And last but not least, the Syrian regime, in all innocence, shows how indispensable it is, how right it was to be “steadfast” and how well this reflects its wisdom on all other issues. Hey, the Syrian regime can even claim to have caused ripples on Capitol Hill, in the White House, and in practically every major and semi-major publication in the US, getting Republicans and Democrats to actually debate (or at least lecture each other) on a new subject that touches on most Middle East problems. Not bad!
All of the above are milking this visit to suit their particular agenda, and it seems that all are succeeding on their own respective turfs, judging by the amount of column inches and blog entries dedicated to the affair. Fellow blogger George Ajjan, an American Republican of Syrian extraction, as he describes himself (and to whom I should clarify that I am NOT British-Syrian … and if I were, I would be Syrian-British) has a nice entry on the subject, simultaneously showing extreme distaste of Pelosi while seemingly approving the ultimate benefit of talking to Syria, if only for America’s sake.
There are numerous articles on the subject in mainstream media which I haven’t bothered to read, but I found the language of this Washington Post editorial, certainly not its usual fare, overly indignant and undiplomatic, demonstrating the significance of this whole Syriagate affair which seems to be just beginning.
For the Lebanese, of course, at least the “life loving” ones, things don’t look so rosy, regardless of their predictions of impending doom for Syria, and especially after the Arab summit which was a success for Syria no matter which way you look at it. The collective reaction of March 14 (aka they who love life, unlike the rest of us apparently) seems to have been to warn the Syrians: don’t be so smug, this just proves that you are very weak, or something to that effect. How logical.
In fact, the Daily Star insists that Syria had better not believe this fantasy, but the livid tone of the editorial seems to show that the paper itself believes the contrary, and that Syria’s isolation is effectively “caduque” (to quote the quintessential “irrelevant” and isolated leader). Still, they tell us that politicians visiting Lebanon come to “support Lebanon” and prove its importance, but politicians visiting Syria come to “send a strong message” and prove its weakness. Clutching at straws, they pick and choose the statements that will “prove” that the Hariri investigation is neither forgiven nor forgotten, that the tribunal is coming come hell or high water, and that the end is nigh. These are the people probably praying that Président Sarkozy, knowing his transatlantic political leanings and hoping the Chirac legacy will include Lebanon’s care, will conduct a smooth transition with the next American administration. (I think Sarko – and Ségo, for that matter – have more urging matters in mind, but who am I to break an illusion.) They are also the people probably hoping for “4 more years” of the same team (give or take a Bush) given the Democrats’ scandalous propensity to talk to Syrians.
And that’s the shocking truth: it’s not just about the Syrian regime … it’s about the Syrian people as well, which is definitely less amusing. Indeed, the reactions to Pelosi’s little tour of Old Damascus were often offensive, and not only in the barrage of insults she received for merely wearing a headscarf. Most commentators were beside themselves with fury at the fact that Pelosi actually talked to Syrians and was received so well by them – as visitors usually are. Obviously, such images do nothing for the continued portrayal of backward Syrians (especially as compared to their “life-loving” neighbors) and seem to show a human side they would rather leave undiscovered. In a way, it was even amusing to see how incensed they were by the warm, jovial, generous reception she got; how dare Damascus compete with more “worldly” and “sophisticated” capitals, heh? Who the hell do these Damascenes think they are, talking to Nancy Pelosi?
Nancy Pelosi’s stopover in Damascus managed to get most of America’s political and media circles to discuss Syria’s delicate situation, and to rehash the basic gripes with the country. Frankly, I was surprised to see surprise at Pelosi’s disregard for the appalling human rights situation in Syria (and only in Syria – the other countries she visited seem to be paragons of humanity). Regardless of whether or not the Speaker of the House is entitled to an opinion on the matter, what exactly did we expect from a Congress that has for the past few years fearfully acquiesced every one of Bush’s evil plans (from invasion to invasion), freedom-curtailing legislation (Patriot Act, anyone?) and liberal interpretations of law to suit specific American whims (Guantanamo to name but one)? Given their record on Israel alone, it is simply naïve to ask someone like Pelosi or Lantos to show concern for our brave prisoners of conscience, whose fate tragically continues to slip slowly from the public’s attention as the regime toys around with their lives.
As for Israel and the “message” sent or not sent via Pelosi to Syria, this is clearly an evolving story with fresh messengers popping up every now and then, but we should not underestimate the ties that bind Pelosi’s group to Israel’s advocates back home. If she had a message, it first came from Washington’s lobby, via Tel Aviv, and the bargaining over a certain price to pay probably didn’t just take place in Souq Al Hamidieh! I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss this at a later stage.
In any case, I don’t know by what strange coincidence the ICG’s latest report deals with the subject of Syrian-Israeli talks You can see for yourself, and I may or may not have the time to dissect in detail, but the short of it is that I find it ridiculous. As usual, the onus is on the other, never on Israel, to provide every single reassurance. This is not how you resolve conflicts. I had already written my objections to ICG’s Arab-Israeli conflict solution in The Guardian’s CIF; let me tell you, I am even less impressed with how they plan to treat the specific Syrian case! More soon, if I get around to it.
