The Meaning of Washington’s New Ambassador to Damascus

President Obama’s recent announcement of the appointment of Robert Ford as American ambassador to Damascus after five years of vacancy represents positive tangible progress in easing the tensions of Syrian-American relations. Over the past few years, these relations have witnessed ups and downs with the development of crises in the region, especially in Iraq and Lebanon, as well as the Palestinian issue.

Robert Ford will assume a position that has remained vacant since the previous U.S. president, George Bush, recalled the American ambassador to Syria, Margaret Scobey, after the assassination of the previous Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq al-Hariri, in 2005.

Ford has considerable diplomatic experience in the Middle East, speaks Arabic fluently, and has held different positions in diplomatic delegations in Bahrain, Egypt, and Turkey. Ford worked as an ambassador for his country in Algeria between 2006 and 2008 and as U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad.

President Obama’s decision is also important for its implications. President Obama announced that his recent decision comes as a “commitment to use engagement to advance U.S. interests by improving communication with the Syrian government and people.” This is a clear indication of the political damage done by previous U.S. positions towards Syria. After years of attempts to isolate and exclude Syria from the political scene and the course of events in the region, this decision by Obama serves as a recognition on behalf of the American administration of the importance of the role that Syria plays in the region, and as an indicator of a new page in Syrian-American relations after long years uncertainty.

Against the backdrop of recent developments, the American position came as an understanding of these changes. Accordingly, Barack Obama put forward this new decision to appoint Robert Ford as the American ambassador to Damascus.

Barack Obama’s decision to appoint an ambassador to Damascus has come after trying periods in the relations between the two nations which reached their peak during the Israeli aggression in Lebanon in 2006, when Washington’s embarrassing decision making began in regards to relations with Damascus. The war did not succeed in reaching Israel’s goal, conducted with America’s backing, of dragging Syria and Lebanon into uneasiness. Syria did not withdraw its announced principles regarding the conflict with Israel, nor did Syria retreat from its legitimate alliances in the region, despite pressure from the sword that was thrust upon them.

Since the first days of the aggression in Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the US tried to apply a political tactic designed to remove Damascus from its active role through marginalization and isolation, or at least neutralization. However, the reality of events on the ground the eventual outcomes of the aggression pushed America to reconsider its previous stance and agree to opening the channels of communication with Damascus.

More than four years after the end of the war in Lebanon, the U.S. administration is now convinced that it was mistaken in its attempts to isolate Syria.

Syria was able to endure the external pressure through the increased skill and confidence that pushed the previous administration to consider a new way to repair relations with Syria and to recognize Syria’s central role in the region. At the same time, opinions in the European Union toward Syria grew positive when many influential voices expressed the conviction that without Syria “attempts to maintain the peace process are in vain.” This is helped in breaking the intensity of the American positions toward Damascus and helped open doors that were closed in previous periods. Accordingly, the previous American administration opened avenues for dialogue with Damascus through informal channels in the beginning. This was illustrated by the successive delegations to the Syrian capital over the past four years, culminating with the first official visit for Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Damascus. The Speaker led a political movement opposing the policy of isolation and dismissal against Syria, which had been used by the two previous Bush administrations. For years, this policy attempted to isolate and pressure Syria while avoiding any mention of the nation in discussions about the so-called peace process in the Middle East, content to repeat the phrase “Syria knows what it can do.” So the Speaker’s visit was the beginning of the journey to reorganize Syrian-American relations, despite the objection of important figures in the White House in those years.

As a result, there is a renewed spirit in the official relations between Damascus and Washington after the appointment of the new American ambassador which serves as a progressive step in reevaluating the path of relations between the two nations. This is a long-awaited step on the path toward the development of an American position based on the logic of truth and justice, after long decades of immature policies aligned with Israel.