These days the Middle East is where diplomacy goes to die, with the conflict in Iraq, Iran’s unchecked nuclear weapons ambitions, civil war among the Palestinians and growing threats from terrorist groups. Yet the time may be ripe for the Bush administration to reprise its greatest diplomatic success and test whether Syria, like Libya before it, can be persuaded to change its behaviour and play a more constructive role.
At first glance, Syria appears an unlikely candidate for a diplomatic breakthrough. President Bashar Assad brutally stifles all domestic dissent. Damascus continues to undermine democracy in Lebanon and has been implicated in the 2005 car-bombing of Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri. Syria opposes the Middle East peace process. It harbours Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, who refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist. It provides weapons to Hizbollah and has weapons of mass destruction programmes (which may have been the target of the recent Israeli air strike inside Syria) and supports other radical groups. Damascus has become close to Iran, working together to destabilise the region.
The Bush administration has opposed direct talks with Syria, viewing them as “legitimising” the Assad regime. Instead, it has ostracised Syria, recalled the US ambassador and used financial sanctions to squeeze Damascus. The idea of forcible regime change has even been aired by US officials.
It would be better if the administration relearnt the lessons of its successful engagement with Libya. In 2003, Britain entered extended negotiations with the son of Libyan leader Muammer Gadaffi. The US was brought in to close the deal. In return for normal relations with the US and Europe, Mr Gadaffi agreed to halt his sponsorship of terror and the verified dismantling of his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes.
Is a similar deal possible with Syria, with Israel serving as America’s proxy? This summer, Israel’s media reported that the two sides had been holding secret talks, although it is unclear how much substantive progress was made. Ehud Olmert, Israeli prime minister, has so far been reluctant officially to push this opening further. There are also credible reports that the Bush administration has strongly discouraged him from engaging Damascus.
This reluctance is short-sighted. A change in Syria’s behaviour would have numerous benefits for both Tel Aviv and Washington. A normalised Syrian-Israeli relationship would remove a frontline state that has previously worked to disrupt the Middle East peace process. It would weaken Hamas, while strengthening Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, and other moderates willing to negotiate a two-state solution. In addition, turning Damascus would hurt Hizbollah and better secure Israel’s northern flank. Syria has been a big arms supplier for Hizbollah in southern Lebanon. Part of any deal with Syria would also include far greater enforcement of its border with Iraq to prevent infiltrations by suicide bombers. Removing this source of terror will be increasingly important as the US transfers more authority to Iraqi forces.
Successful engagement with Syria would be a blow to Iran, reducing both its regional swagger and malevolent influence over Lebanese domestic affairs and the Middle East peace process. Peeling away Tehran’s strategic partner would also subtly reinforce the regional division between the Arabs and the Persians, thereby helping Washington bring greater pressure on Iran to curtail its nuclear ambitions.
In the Middle East, things never get better with time, they get worse. Left to its own devices, Syria will continue its support for Hizbollah, erode Lebanese democracy and play a spoiler’s role in advance of the Bush administration’s planned November regional peace conference. More worrying, in a few years’ time, Iran may be able to extend its nuclear umbrella over Syria, which could embolden Damascus, Hizbollah and extremist groups in Gaza and the West Bank to engage in provocative behaviour while limiting Israel’s freedom of action.
Libya stands as the Bush administration’s greatest diplomatic achievement, unless it can be duplicated. At a time when American credibility in the Middle East is increasingly questioned because of the Iraq war, a successful engagement with Syria would demonstrate US commitment to Israel’s security, a just peace for the Palestinians and regional stability.
The Financial Times, September 23, 2007
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8fbe2c54-69d0-11dc-a571-0000779fd2ac.html
