Where Is the Secret?
Published in Al Thawra
(Syria) on 5 January 2011
by Assad Aboud (link to original)
(Syria) on 5 January 2011
by Assad Aboud (link to original)
Translated from
by Maha Khalil.
Edited by Hoishan Chan.
Syrian-American relations have witnessed rising tensions, but they have always been motivated by some need. Although both sides have power, each one knows the importance of the events of the region in particular and international relations in general. Away from the trough of the history of Syrian-American relations; including tensions, developments and their current situation, we don’t see the cornerstones of trust between two countries.
Syrian-American relations during the eight-year Bush administration seemed to be in dramatic decline. Many documentaries and books referred to the excessive use of armed force which has already occurred. The bombing of a small farm near the city of Abu Kamal had a very bad impact on Syria’s attitude toward the United States and the Bush administration. During the first term of his reign, President Bush and Congress showed hostility to Syria. Additionally, Congress enacted a law punishing Syria. The main reason for this hostility was Syria’s attitude towards the war in Iraq.
The Obama administration has taken a different perspective on the war in Iraq and created potential for establishing understanding with Syria. The U.S. policy towards Syria has changed and the language of dictation has been clearly replaced with the language of dialogue, which has created obstacles to understanding the U.S. policy toward Syria. Through the declarations of politicians, U.S. policy seems to be contradictory, in particular in its attitude toward Syria. Supporting these declarations, Israeli President Netanyahu said that the U.S. is the one that did not stop Zionist settlements in Palestinian territories.
Undoubtedly, Obama has shown, more than once, his good intentions towards Syria. But he does not seem to be comfortable enough to form a policy of his country, and he is also unsatisfied with the current policy towards Syria. The contradictions in these declarations are indicated in something like the declaration on the appointment of a U.S. ambassador to Damascus. The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in her talk with the Syrian Information Minister Dr. Mohsen Bilal, said she thinks that it is a good start to improve the relations between two countries.
It is normal to make declarations like that. But what do ambassadors really do?
It is no longer difficult to see the confusion in the American policy decision and its impact on the development of U.S.-Syria relations.
Syrian-American relations during the eight-year Bush administration seemed to be in dramatic decline. Many documentaries and books referred to the excessive use of armed force which has already occurred. The bombing of a small farm near the city of Abu Kamal had a very bad impact on Syria’s attitude toward the United States and the Bush administration. During the first term of his reign, President Bush and Congress showed hostility to Syria. Additionally, Congress enacted a law punishing Syria. The main reason for this hostility was Syria’s attitude towards the war in Iraq.
The Obama administration has taken a different perspective on the war in Iraq and created potential for establishing understanding with Syria. The U.S. policy towards Syria has changed and the language of dictation has been clearly replaced with the language of dialogue, which has created obstacles to understanding the U.S. policy toward Syria. Through the declarations of politicians, U.S. policy seems to be contradictory, in particular in its attitude toward Syria. Supporting these declarations, Israeli President Netanyahu said that the U.S. is the one that did not stop Zionist settlements in Palestinian territories.
Undoubtedly, Obama has shown, more than once, his good intentions towards Syria. But he does not seem to be comfortable enough to form a policy of his country, and he is also unsatisfied with the current policy towards Syria. The contradictions in these declarations are indicated in something like the declaration on the appointment of a U.S. ambassador to Damascus. The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in her talk with the Syrian Information Minister Dr. Mohsen Bilal, said she thinks that it is a good start to improve the relations between two countries.
It is normal to make declarations like that. But what do ambassadors really do?
It is no longer difficult to see the confusion in the American policy decision and its impact on the development of U.S.-Syria relations.