LONDON: President Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader, can be forgiven for feeling nervous as he listens to the accusations being levelled at him by the United States. Warnings from Washington about Syria’s alleged chemical weapons, backing for Iraq and shelter for its fugitive leaders, and support for Israel’s worst Palestinian and Lebanese enemies are having a chillingly cumulative effect. Tony Blair insisted in the Commons yesterday that there were “no plans” to invade Syria now that Iraq was free of Saddam Hussein. Britain certainly has no such intention. He did not manage to sound entirely convincing about the US.
Opponents of the Iraq war will feel vindicated by Washington’s anti-Syrian drumbeat. Here, they will argue, before the dust has settled over Baghdad, are George Bush’s next targets: Damascus today, Tehran and Pyongyang tomorrow as a victorious America tackles opponents across the globe, unfettered either by the UN or by willing allies. And Syria is not even a member of the president’s “axis of evil”.
Supporters of the US who felt that fears about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the imperative for regime change made a case for war may feel they have been taken for a ride. Mr Blair made clear he opposes any military move against Syria, citing his own contacts with President Assad, who he hopes will play a role in a reinvigorated Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Britain’s interests and the interests of the Middle East require that this line be maintained. Syria is not Iraq. It is not in breach of UN disarmament resolutions, as Iraq was for 12 years. Damascus denies possessing weapons of mass destruction, though neighbouring Israel has never formally admitted to having the nuclear weapons no one doubts it possesses.
Like Israel, Syria is not a party to the international convention banning chemical weapons. Unlike Iraq it has never used them against its own people or others. If the US is so certain about Syria’s unconventional arsenal it cannot harbour many doubts about Egypt, the largest recipient of American aid after Israel. Syria’s human rights record is far from unsullied though it has improved since President Assad took over from his late father. Rule by the Ba’ath party — a sister branch of the unlamented Iraqi variety — may be unsavoury, but that’s all.
So what is the Bush administration up to? Even the gloomiest observers of Washington’s hawkish neo-conservatives do not believe Abrams tanks are about to deploy to Syria. Colin Powell’s warning of economic and diplomatic measures is nearer the mark. The US is making hay while the post-war sun shines. Mr Assad is vulnerable because of the loss of illegal Iraqi oil imports and a mounting sense of regional isolation. The US and Britain agree he would be taking risks if he allowed Arab fighters or weapons across his border or sheltered senior Iraqis — though UN backing for the war would have made such demands easier to enforce. The US also wants Syria to rein in political support for groups like the suicide-bombing Palestinian Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Lebanese Shia organization Hezbollah. That could help calm the Israeli-Palestinian front — though only if Mr Bush follows Mr Blair’s urgent advice and exploits new opportunities in order to resolve the Palestinian question as well as focusing on Damascus.
There is no mistaking the alarm at the threats against Syria, not least in a Europe divided by the Iraq crisis. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, who speaks for all 15 member states, including Britain, spoke plain common sense the other day when he urged the US to “cool down.” ‘excellent advice’.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.
