Syria is showing two different faces to its Arab neighbors and to the world; they are playing a perilous game. This past week Syrian President Bashar Assad said that he hoped US forces would fail to oust Saddam Hussein. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Syria now faces a critical choice. It could continue direct support for terrorist groups or embark on a more hopeful course. Either way, he said, Syria bears the responsibility for its choices.
One face of Syria is its membership of the UN Security Council that voted in favor of Resolution 1441. During the 1990s it became involved in the peace process between Palestine and Israel, a result of the Madrid conference.
It strengthened its diplomatic ties with the US and other Western countries and in June 2002 it arrested Mohammed Haydar Zammar, a suspected Al-Qaeda member. In addition, Syria has provided what it refers to as “valuable information” to the US regarding Al-Qaeda, which they claim saved the lives of “many American soldiers.” Yet President Bashar has complained that the United States still has his country on its list of countries that support “state-sponsored terrorism.”
The other face of Syria is the reason it is still on the list. Syria has a history of flirtation with terrorism, both as a weapon and a political tool. Under the long rule of President Bashar’s father, Hafez Assad, open support of terrorist organizations was part of the Syrian policy both internally and externally.
His Baath Party used the technique of playing one group against another until the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni group, threatened his power.
This resulted in his killing over 10,000 people and the destruction of the better part of the city of Hama. Subsequently, Syria changed from open support to “terrorist subcontractors.”
Another important change was in the very description of “terrorism.” Damascus now differentiates between Sunni Muslim fundamentalists like Al-Qaeda and groups that it sees as national liberation movements, such as Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
In an interview shortly after taking office Bashar explained that his Baath Party, the only political party in Syria, represented an ideology that was moving toward a pan-Arab awakening, especially after the Palestinian intifada. This could explain why both the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are headquartered in Damascus. Hezbollah’s military operations began in the suburbs of Beirut and in the Beqa’ Valley of Lebanon. This valley has served as a training ground for Hezbollah and similar groups.
It is supported by both Syria and the Iranian “Revolutionary Guards.” Syria sees Hezbollah as the necessary tool to control Israeli aggression into Lebanon. The pattern that seems to emerge in this scenario is that President Bashar is trying to establish his own personal image as a “regional leader” who defends some Arab causes without yielding to pressure from Israel, the United States and other Western countries. Yet this does not explain why he withdrew his military troops from Beirut in 2001 after Israel had withdrawn its forces the previous year, but then, in 2002, redeployed 20,000 troops back into Lebanon.
The Lebanese are divided on this occupation. Some of their leaders believe that the Syrian presence helps to stabilize this fragile country that is still confronting Israel. Others believe that Syria has visions of incorporating Lebanon into its borders permanently.
The United States has adopted an uncompromising position that will require Syria and Lebanon to begin to dismantle the military, political, logistical and propaganda apparatus of the terrorist organizations in both countries. The dissociation of states from terrorism is the cornerstone of American war policy. The question is, which face will Syria show?
If it complies with the US and international policies and starts a program of destroying the very organizations it has long supported, the message from Damascus would have to be that President Bashar has decided to abandon the policies of his father and a number of his close advisors and to begin instead to lead the Syria of the peace talks and the UN Security Council. Can he evolve from this situation as the “Arab leader” he wants to project?
If he chooses to ignore the warnings from the US and continues to give a haven to these terrorist groups, then he will place his country and Lebanon in danger of economic sanctions and great international political pressure.
President Bashar’s only way out is to push for a final peace settlement between the Palestinians and Israel, together with a conclusion to the problem of the Golan Heights between his country and Israel. He then needs to withdraw his troops from Lebanon and close down the terrorist camps and headquarters in both countries.
With a free state of Palestine and the resolution of the Golan Heights issue, there can be no further need for the terror weapon or the terror political tool, and Syria will emerge as the symbol of an Arab nation that knew when these methods had outlived their usefulness and was wise enough to set them aside.
(Adrienne McPhail is a freelance journalist based in Riyadh.)
Arab News Features 6 April 2003
