Kaitlin MacKenzie JTW Columnist printable version send your friend message to author add comment ()

Tuesday, 30 June 2009

After more than a four-year absence, the U.S. will return its ambassador to Syria. Imad Mustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, was informed of the decision Tuesday, June 23, by U.S. acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. U.S. State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters "We're prepared to move forward with Syria to advance our interests through direct and continuing dialogue...We continue to have concerns about Syria's role in this region, and we think one way to address those concerns is to have an ambassador in Damascus." Kelly said the decision "reflects the administration's recognition of the important role Syria plays in the region," and added, "We hope that they will continue to play such a constructive role to promote peace and stability in the region.[i] Mr. Obama has yet to name the new ambassador, who would have to be confirmed by the Senate; the Syrian government also has the right to object to the candidate.

The previous U.S. ambassador, Margaret Scobey, was removed in February 2005 as part of the Bush administration’s protest of the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri during a bombing in Beirut. There was widespread suspicion in Syria and abroad that Syrian intelligence officers were responsible for the plot, although Damascus rejected this charge. Since Scobey’s departure, a chargé d’affaires has been the highest-ranking American diplomat in Damascus.

President Obama has been reviewing U.S. policy toward Syria in light of his administration’s goal to promote a comprehensive peace in the region and for Israel to normalize relations with its neighbors. Thus, the decision to restore full relations, among others, is much in line with his administration’s other steps to rehabilitate U.S. relations with the region. In the weeks leading up to the announcement, a string of high-profile diplomats visited Damascus: the State Department twice dispatched Mr. Feltman and Daniel Shapiro, the top Middle East officer at the National Security Council official, to Damascus for exploratory meetings – the first senior U.S. officials to visit Syria since early 2005 – and George J. Mitchell, the administration’s special envoy for the Middle East, met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad two weeks ago. Mr. Mitchell stated, “My visit to Syria was a part of our effort to move toward the President’s objective [of a comprehensive peace in the region]. And we had serious, productive discussions that will continue as we seek to begin progress on all of the tracks that I’ve described, including Israel and Syria.”[ii] Furthermore, prior to Mr. Mitchell’s visit, a group of American military commanders visited Damascus to discuss possible options to address the insurgency in Iraq and how Syria might be able to help stabilize Iraq. The influx of insurgents from Syria to Iraq has been an issue for quite some time and is a point of concern for American officials.

Syrian officials seem optimistic of the situation. Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem gave his opinion regarding Syrian-U.S. relations prior to George Mitchell’s arrival: "With the speech, we hope Obama can deliver everybody's dreams! Including his own dream and that of the Palestinians – to see the occupied territories freed from occupation and all Israelis to be able to live in peace," Mouallem said.[iii] Despite voicing his concern over how much Obama will be able to achieve, given the opposition in the U.S., Mouallem maintained, "We approve of Barack Obama a lot. The man put a comprehensive peace back on the agenda. He also intends to pull out of Iraq completely. We are ready to help with that, but we need our conditions in the matter addressed, too.”

While relations between the two countries seem to be warming, lingering tensions must be addressed. Issues of contention include Syria’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah, the charge that Syria allows militants to cross into Iraq, and, of course, worldwide suspicions regarding the existence of a secret nuclear program, though Damascus denies this allegation. Obama’s recent decision to renew sanctions against Syria is also a sore point. Both Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, and Walid al-Mouallem have made statements against the U.S.’ decision, calling it "very problematic" and shows that it still can be "captive to Israel's interests."[iv] Mouallem said, “It seems anachronistic to us that Obama recently renewed the Syrian Accountability and Restoration of Lebanese Sovereignty Act. The issue has been resolved! We withdrew our troops from Lebanon and have exchanged ambassadors with Beirut.” Syria’s issues with the UN also have the potential to derail any further negotiations. In particular, their differences over the Hariri tribunal and nuclear inspections could throw a wrench in the works. And, on March 4, 2009, the U.S. announced that UN inspectors had found growing evidence of hidden nuclear activity in Syria, and European allies said a lack of Syrian transparency demanded utmost scrutiny.

The recent visits and diplomatic advances seem promising, but should be taken at face value. Washington has long desired the separation of Damascus and Tehran, and seems to be taking advantage of the situation at hand in order to achieve its goals. The West has often characterized the nature of the Iranian-Syrian partnership as a “marriage of convenience” – meaning that if the situation becomes unprofitable for either state, the partnership would be dissolved. Breaking the ties between the two states would make it much easier to negotiate with each. Also, the effort to advance Syrian-Israeli talks, in the context of a comprehensive peace plan for the Middle East, could cause further tension and contribute to the deterioration of the Syrian-Iranian relationship. Indeed, some feel the recent news that the United States would reinstate their ambassador in Damascus is a shrewd move by the Obama administration and may very well be related to the administration’s position towards Iran.  Andrew Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, stated, "I think the Obama administration strategy – while not fully formed – was always that it wanted to engage with both Iran and Syria, and it wanted to play one side off the other. This does have to do with that. I don't think we fully understand all of their reasoning on this ... but by announcing that it will send an ambassador to Damascus, it sends a message both to Damascus and Tehran."[v]

The U.S. has tried to isolate the Syrian regime in the past, but was unsuccessful at producing any change. Perhaps now that Syria’s strongest partner in the region, Iran, is losing face in the eyes of the world, the U.S.’ goal has been accomplished – Syria has few options at this point and stands to gain the most by engaging with the United States. With regard to the recent renewal of sanctions, though Damascus claims it was unfounded, given they met the requests for sanctions to be lifted, it seems this was done to buttress the U.S.’ hand. The Obama administration is well aware that bringing Syria into the dialogue is necessary to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East and is likely to use as many carrots as possible to achieve this goal.

Note: This article was firstly published in Hurriyet Daily News on 29 June 2009.