U.S.–Syrian Relations: Inflexibility and Failure

Syria continues to be frustrated in regards to its persistent endeavors to change America’s attitude toward its regional policies. Syria wants to convince the administration of President Obama to leave behind the antagonistic policy toward Syria that was laid out by President Bush the Son and his neoconservative brethren. Syria hopes to stop the application of diverse forms of pressure upon their government, while preventing any future American attempts to change the regional and international policies of the Syrian regime.

U.S.–Syrian relations through the first decade of this millennium have been hesitating, oscillating between taking a step forward and several steps backwards. Diplomacy between Syria and the U.S. did not see any stability or consistency in standards and practices. The two sides were unable to formulate a plan for building normal relations, while most of the issues outstanding between the two countries remained without any solution, portending further backsliding and collapse.

Conflicts between the policies of the two countries (Syria and the United States) had come to the surface violently and directly ever since the administration of the most recent President Bush conceived the idea of invading Iraq. Prior to this point, during the administration of Bush the Father, relations between Syria and the U.S had been rather normal, with Syria having contributed military forces to the U.S.-led effort to liberate Kuwait in 1991. However, this track record was not enough to satisfy Syrian apprehensions as to the dangers of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Syria took a stand against the proposed invasion because it was seen as a sign of a radically new American approach in dealing with Arab countries. It was an approach that had been undertaken by American administrations against other countries in other regions. In this case, the 2003 invasion was designed to “threaten” the unity of Iraqi territory and the authority of its government, igniting sectarian conflicts between different groups of Iraqis. The U.S. could thus rationalize creating a military presence facing eastern Syria, mirroring the antagonistic Israeli military forces sitting to the west. All of this threatened the security of Syria and its political system, and creating internal conflicts within the country.

The WikiLeaks documents that were recently released affirm that the intentions of “Bush 43’s” administration to invade Syria were widespread. If the invasion of Iraq had succeeded without any unpleasant surprises for the Americans, if it were not for the early steadfastness of the Iraqi resistance and the success of its activities from the very first weeks of the American occupation, the American armies would certainly have continued their march in the direction of Syria.

These factors influenced Syrian policy because the regime was not satisfied with merely denouncing the invasion of Iraq but rather opened its doors and its borders to the Iraqis and the Syrians who wanted to join the resistance against the U.S. Likewise, the Syrian government welcomed tens of thousands of Iraqis that emigrated from Iraq fleeing the invasion and its accompanying internal strife.

The administration of Bush the Son did not forgive Syria for its hostile attitude toward the invasion of Iraq. The American administration found its chance to retaliate by opposing the reelection of the pro-Syrian Lebanese president Emile Lahoud in 1994 under Syrian auspices, while at the same time spearheading a resolution in the Security Council demanding that Syria withdraw from Lebanon.* The Bush administration exploited the incident of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri’s death, accusing Syria of masterminding an assassination plot. The U.S. gathered the members of the Security Council, plus a number of countries from the region and around the world, encouraging the adoption of a resolution that forced Syria to withdraw its army from Lebanon, which at that time numbered as many as 30,000 soldiers. Syria’s influence manifestly declined once its army withdrew from Lebanon. Not only had Syria’s military posture declined but also its influence on the regional political and security environment. The Syrian attitude at that time became largely irrelevant both regionally and internationally. When the American administration thought seriously of invading Syria, it withdrew its ambassador from Damascus (the U.S. embassy is even today without an ambassador),** then imposed economic punishments upon Syria, forbade cooperation with any Syrian authorities and passed resolutions to freeze their bank accounts and refuse them permission to travel to the United States. These sanctions are still being renewed year after year, mostly recently in May of 2010. The Syrian policy of convincing the administration of President Obama to repeal these measures has not been met with any success.

The American administrations (both that of Bush and that of Obama) have accused Syria of adopting a policy of supporting terrorist organizations (meaning those Palestinian movements that Syria still permits to stay on its territory) and that it tries to acquire missiles and weapons of mass destruction by planning armament programs that are forbidden because they involve cooperating with Iran and North Korea. The Americans claim that the Syrian policies and practices represent a danger to international security and American foreign policy, and that they are ruining the security of Iraq and Lebanon because they are part of establishing a strategic relationship with Iran. The U.S. demands that weapons be moved from one shoulder to the other, and that Syria’s policy align with the demands of American policy in the region.

As opposed to the claims of the American administration, and pursuant to the suggestions of the policy of France and other European countries, Syria has changed its regional policies to a large degree over the past several years. Syria has reconciled with political currents and parties in Lebanon that it had not attempted to previously, even going so far as to exchange diplomatic representation with Lebanon. Syria has acquiesced in the election of a president by agreement and the formation of a coalition government and has closed its borders with Iraq to anyone belonging to the resistance. It has concluded a truce with all the Iraqi political groups and has not renewed its interest in involving itself in the internal affairs of Lebanon and Iraq in a conspicuous fashion. At the same time, it has publicly backed discussions of Palestinian reconciliation and tried to convince the Hamas movement to moderate itself somewhat in its approach to other Palestinian movements and in regards to its indiscriminate missile launches. Syria has warmed in its relations to Saudi Arabia; indeed it has coordinated with the Saudis in Lebanon to the utmost degree. Syria is working seriously to re-invigorate its relationships with Egypt and has averred on numerous occasions that its relationships with Iran are based on interests and are not an unending spring of milk and honey.

At the least it must be admitted that Syria is increasingly adopting policies of moderation and collaboration, except that the American administration is convinced that this does not represent a genuine change in the regime. The U.S. still adopts an antagonistic attitude toward Syria and refuses to contemplate any improvement in its relationships, let alone a return to normalcy. Syria has tried to move its policy one step forward in the direction of a positive evolution in relations with the American administration, yet so far this has been answered only by the two countries stumbling backwards, being bound up in inflexibility and antagonism. The American attitude toward this corresponds to the verse of poetry that reads: whenever nature makes a channel, man must builds dams upon it.

*Translator’s Note: This event actually occurred in 2004. Lahoud was constitutionally allowed to serve one six-term which ended in 2004. However, Syria pressed the Lebanese to allow Lahoud to serve an additional term. The U.S. opposed this. Lahoud ended up serving as president for an additional three years until 2007.

**Translator’s Note: Obama appointed an ambassador after the publication of this article during the recess between the 111th and 112th Congresses.