Following its occupation of Iraq, the United States began a campaign of intimidation and threats against Syria openly accusing Damascus of supporting terrorism. The US Congress then passed the Syria Accountability Act to be followed by another move from Washington, involving this time France when the two countries pressed the Security Council to issue Resolution 1559 calling on Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. In light of these developments the Arab public now believes Syria may become the third country Washington seeks to subjugate after Afghanistan and Iraq.
The accelerated turn of events in Iraq and the intensified resistance against the occupation forces made Washington seek Syria’s help asking Damascus to tighten control over its borders with Iraq to prevent fighters supporting the Iraqi resistance from crossing over. Syria responded positively thus leading Washington to ease its verbal attack on Damascus to some extent. Following the re-election of George Bush for another four-year term and the purging of the moderates in the administration in favor of neocons and the extreme right, Damascus has become aware of the necessity for dealing with the new administration in some form or another.
President Bashar Assad announced Syria’s readiness to sit down and negotiate with Israel unconditionally and for such negotiations to start from where they stopped in the year 2000. Bashar also wanted the Israeli government to commit itself to the promise made by then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin regarding the complete withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights. Damascus has thus thrown the ball into the court of Israel which continuously worked to thwart any serious attempt to resume the negotiations.
State Department’s Richard Boucher responded by announcing Washington was ready to help in the reconvening of direct negotiations between Syria and Israel as soon as possible.
However, observers believe the Syrian move came in response to America’s continuous pressure on Damascus — a pressure that could threaten Syria’s national interests. In my opinion, this may not be true. Syria took the right step, extending its hand and seeking unconditional peace. Such a stand would earn Syria international support and pressure Israel into entering into negotiations although the Jewish state would try to find excuses to derail the negotiations as it did in the past. Syria offered a peaceful initiative at a time when it did not find itself obliged to offer concessions to Israel or submit to American pressure for it has enough cards in its hand that allow it to confront the situation.
Damascus did not withdraw its forces from Lebanon but conducted a redeployment of those forces thus rejecting the illegal Resolution 1559. Damascus has Lebanese supporters who accept continued Syrian presence in the country in appreciation of Syria’s role in ending the Lebanese civil war. The two governments agree on the unified tract in any negotiations with Israel which is still occupying parts of Lebanon.
As for relations with the US, Syria has strong influence over many forces inside Iraq, especially those opposing the American military presence such as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, Kurdish and other Shiite parties who worked with Damascus against the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. It is thus important for Washington to cooperate with Damascus, especially as America has not yet achieved its strategic objectives in Iraq.
The political influence that Syria enjoys implies it is not obliged to offer concessions to Israel or fear American pressure. It must be clear for all that there would be no peace in the Middle East without Syria being an effective party. Everything now rests with Israel. Would the Jewish state move forward and accept the negotiations for a just and lasting peace or would it stall and seek excuses to thwart any initiative aimed at resuming the peace negotiations, even if it comes from the American side?
