Condi Rice and the White House assailed recent elections in Syria with a high diplomatic prominence usually reserved for more relevant geo-political issues with the latest attack on Syria. This iteration of our neo-con formulated anti-Syrian crusade seems to many crassly transparent and exposed due to inconvenient timing; that is we are emphasizing the Syrian elections as a "sham" a mere month after the sham of elections in Egypt! Apparently, our Administration is publicly arguing that democratic failures in ally Egypt's system is much less of a tragedy than in putative foe Syria. Further, the severity of our diplomatic rancor entails language that strongly suggests that the immediate establishment of model democracies is a paramount objective in the region, and that Syria is the only obstacle to this utopia. Yet, such a utopian policy, despite bouts of self-delusion to the contrary, is not a paramount U.S. regional objective, nor can it be. Thus leaving the aforementioned attack on Syria as further deteriorating the credibility of the source of this diplomatic assault rather than its intended target.
What the State Department's high - level attack possessed in hostility, it lacked in perspective and context. The Syrian government is authoritarian, so criticism of its democratic bona fides are legitimate, but does Syria's democratic ethos compare substantially worse in quality to our major Arab allies? The short answer is certainly not. However the administration continues to fervently imply the opposite as illustrated by recent statements. Our condemnation seems to reveal a continued effort to purposely misunderstand Syria's position in this incendiary region, just as other de-stabilizing initiatives have done, ill serving traditional U.S. strategic interests. The Baker - Hamilton Commission certainly understood this fact, yet it too was disdainfully ignored.
Administration officials seem to be averse to acknowledge many important steps toward progress in Syria today. There were no mitigating references to renewed efforts of economic liberalization in Syria; a process that now includes an acceptance of foreign investment and ownership of assets that is being pursued with purpose despite the difficulties imposed by our policy of isolation. There is no mention of the protection of minority rights and equality under Syrian law, which by and large has been effectuated by the government. There seems inveterate in general policy to be an absence of recognition or care that in Syria Christianity is not only tolerated, but is honored and respected to the point where Christmas and Easter are national holidays, whereas in ally Egypt, Christians are intermittently fleeing for their lives. That policy combined with the positive fact that Syrian citizens are not categorized nor stigmatized by religious sect is truly unique in the Middle East. Additionally, there is no tacit acknowledgement of the innate, unofficial democratization that is occurring via the expansion of non - state media sources utilized by the Syrian people. This expansion of news sources is courtesy of the government's benign neglect, coupled with a certain resignation about the popular demand for information. Politically critical expression certainly exists, although with restrictions that ebb and flow.
Rather than acknowledging the good with the bad to encourage the former, neo-con policy advisors are so concerned with the rights of Syrian citizens that they are now supporting an opposition led by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood! A bizarre and perilous twist that has not gone as unnoticed in the middle - east as it has in our own media. With the assistance of neo-con zealot Eliot Abrams and others, these extremists now have a new address in Washington D.C. under the auspices of the "Syrian opposition", something previously unthinkable. While Secretary Powell and George Tenet praised Syria as an ally in the War on Terror, elements in the Administration are considering further destabilization tactics by replacing those former allies with Islamists. I dare say our State Department condemnation did not include any mention of the types of "democrats" we are supporting.
It is increasingly obvious that zealots in this administration have proffered an unofficial and unorthodox policy of instability that continues, checked only by the reality of its endemic failure. Recently, the Bush Administration shocked even the Israelis when it dissuaded them from re-engaging Syria regarding the return of the Syrian Golan Heights, and worse still we continue to interfere excessively in the clannish, sectarian political affairs of Lebanon as another counter - productive means of hostility toward Syria. Additionally, abandonment of the peace process and isolation of the Palestinian Authority, and our subsequent insistence of Palestinian elections without substantive progress on a two state solution, resulted in more despair, economic deprivation, continued diplomatic inaction, a democratically elected Hamas government, and spasms of civil war between Palestinians. These influential self proclaimed 'lovers of democracy', most especially the externally imposed variety, who have dominated debate and policy regarding the Middle East, and who are members of organizations with deceptively noble appellations, have provided us the prospect of war and occupation without end, sectarian violence in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, the denial of national aspirations and historical relationships, and of course the Jeffersonian democrats of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Throughout the developing world, peace and security can be potent elixirs for authoritarian governments to acclimate to increased political reform. Whereas a sense of insecurity can often hamper progress, as fear often breeds stasis. When Bashar assumed power in 2000, U.S./ Syrian relations were well grounded and engaged, and there were no active external threats. This sense of security proved fertile for the new, western educated President's initial impulse towards greater liberalism, ushering in what was commonly referred to as "the Damascus Spring". In the wake of factional concerns and increasing external threats, that liberal impulse was suspended. I believe it is no coincidence that current economic reforms are occurring as the regime has successfully passed through the U.S. imposed abyss and has a renewed sense of confidence, but that the sense of insecurity is still palpable enough to icline against another Damascus Spring. If we are truly concerned with the state of conditions for the average Syrian as Condi's condemnation implies, then our current policy of isolation and destabilization against Syria should be replaced by engagement, and ultimately the very de-facto US/Syrian concordat based on mutual interests both nations had previously enjoyed to their respective benefit. If the aforementioned Syro-American concordat re-emerges, bringing forward peace and stability in the Levant, a more pro-active if less bellicose diplomatic effort on behalf of democratic improvements in the political system in Damascus would be more credible and able to produce results.
Economic liberalization is often an essential precursor for a successful transition to political liberalization. This is an ethos that the Syrian people and their government publicly accept. Syrians have suffered from conflict with Israel, but have also been transgressed by the economic paralysis that inevitably comes from a state dominated economic model that suppresses the vast natural instincts and talents inherent in their culture and evident in their ancient history. The Asaad government understands this and desires to embrace it. The recently passed foreign investment law affirms that understanding. Syrian authorities with success have sought corporate investments from Qatar, India, Britain, Iran and Europe. The new banking liberalization law has allowed private banks to slowly emerge in Syria for the first time since the Baath Party won control of the government almost a half century ago with the governments' approbation, including attracting Lebanese banks to establish offices in Damascus. Since, despite propaganda to the contrary, the Asaad government is neither endemically anti - American, nor even endemically anti - American interests, and since it has always had a prominent occidental orientation including its steadfast and principled embrace and respect of religious freedom and tolerance, we should encourage, or at minimum cease opposing investment and reconstruction of their private (non-military) sector economy as an impetus to enhancing Syria's western values.
President Assad's Father assumed power the traditional way in the developing world, via the military. Hafex Asaad was a senior military officer who rose to the Presidency in Syria, just as Attaturk did in Turkey, Sadat/Mubarek did in Egypt, and Musharaff did in Pakistan. Unfortunately, Syria seems to have the misfortune of being the only real diplomatic victim of a flawed neo-Wilsonian ideology in current U.S. foreign policy. Aside from the neo-Wilsonians who dominate the White House, those of us who are acolytes of Reagan know that in the developing world, democracy must be viewed as a logical means to a better end, and not THE end itself: and that authoritarian/ military governments often provide the security and stability required to reach a successful, if quite deliberate transition to the emergence of identifiable democratic rights.
The legal or constitutional basis for the virtual cart blanche powers of the Syrian Presidential system is based on the Emergency Law that was passed by the late President Hafez Asaad when he won power and assumed the Presidency. The practical basis for the establishment of this Executive Rule was vast and based on the preceding history of post-mandate Syria. Prior to Asaad's ascension, Damascus was the coup capital of the region, suffering through coups and counter - coups. Such a backdrop breeds weakness of institutions at home and a sense of ineptness abroad. Only strong Executive authority with a passionate commitment to a unifying national identity, and a personality and intellect to match can rectify such political weakness and acute instability. In the developing world with its mature, modern democratic institutions and no sense of imperiled survival, you get the 5th Republic and DeGaulle. In the developing world, absent said institutions, where enemies with more money and better arms occupy your land, where part of your country has been severed from you by past colonial masters, and where domestic opposition can take the form of sectarian, factional or islamist violence, you get the Emergency Law and Hafez Asaad. Both were the successful antidotes to their country's most pressing ills, and later as uber nationalist figures, both were best able to direct their countrymen to accept major change towards peace as DeGaulle relinquished "Algier France" and Asaad relinquished the "rejectionist" policy against Israel.
Fifty years is yesterday in Syria, so there must always be protection from the very palpable threats of that past. Presently, circumstances and external policies being what they are, systematic change would be untenable and ironically not even in the interest of the Syrian people. For now, considering current regional realities and trends, I am impressed enough with the resurrected moves from President Bashar Asaad toward greater economic freedom and openness to foreign investment, and in general the rhetorical recognition of democracy as a positive principle to be pursued.
Our nation must develop policies that work towards creating an environment in the Levant that is conducive to organic rather than imposed democratization: for the latter the regionally perceived exemplar is Iraq (and to a lesser extant Lebanon), a humanitarian and sectarian disaster that has not exactly burnished American ideals among either popular or elite perspectives in the region. Only a properly paced, organic movement that works within current government structures and respective national interests can succeed. Such an occurrence would be the future exemplar that could light the fire of democratic values throughout the Middle East, and is a long - term goal of those who truly do care about the living and political standards in Syria and the region.
High - level diplomatic assaults should be reserved for issues that directly serve our national, strategic interests. Perhaps the more relevant sham of note was not the quality of the recent Syrian elections, but its implied pretense that our current Administration cares about the interests of the Syrian people or others in the region. Currently, democracy does not prosper in Syria, nor does it in other countries in the region. Certainly, recent elections bear this fact out. I trust that the path to greater openness in Syria is virtually inevitable and will ideally take a form of consensus between the government and an increasingly informed and affluent citizenry. This process will be facilitated by policies of engagement and entente, or hindered by policies of isolation and the stoking of internecine fissures that produce unnecessary conflict. Perhaps James Baker could call Condi Rice and the White House to explain that diplomatic haughtiness is not a feasible substitute for a foreign policy.
