Sunday, January 31, 2010

Syria Regains Pivotal Regional, Int'l Role - The Triumph of the 'Course of Resistance'. Part III

 

by N. Mozes

 

3rd part of 3

 

Syria's Rejection of the Partnership Agreement with the EU

As part of its aspiration to create a new world order, in which it would have a position of influence as a member of the regional alliance, Syria seeks to free itself from the European bear hug, which is led by France. This was expressed in the shift in Syria's attitude towards the Syria-EU partnership agreement.

 

For years, Syria worked towards signing a partnership agreement with the EU, its main trade partner. A draft of the agreement was drawn up, but was not signed due to European reservations regarding Syria's domestic and foreign policy; the issue fell off the map. Only in 2008, and as part of Europe's change in policy towards Syria, was it raised again, and an agreement was initialed. The agreement was approved by the EU in October 2009.

The agreement's approval was received coolly in Syria. Assad said that it needed to be re-examined in accordance with Syria's national interest, and that the partnership must be between two parties of equal status and economic soundness, and must not include either side's intervention in the other's domestic affairs.[43]

 

Syrian officials stressed their fear of the agreement's impact on production and on the domestic economy, although when it was initialed in 2008, senior Syrian economists emphasized that it would benefit Syria's economy, and noted that fears of its impact were unwarranted.[44] However, Assad's statement quoted above seems to confirm the reports that Syria's opposition to the agreement was due mainly to the conditions it included regarding human rights in Syria, and regarding Syrian foreign policy.[45] Furthermore, it seems that Syria is apprehensive about signing an agreement with a powerful political bloc like the EU, and prefers to focus on bilateral ties with each individual EU country, as expressed in late December 2009 by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem.[46]

 

It seems that another motivation for Syria's coolness towards the EU in the present circumstances is this country's confidence in the realization of the "four seas strategy" described above, aimed primarily at creating an economic-political bloc equivalent in its

weight and influence to the EU itself. This is evident from Assad's statements at a joint press conference with Finnish President Tarja Halonen, in which he clarified that "Syria's top priority is tightening its relations with the countries in [its own] region, especially with the Arab countries and with its neighbors, such as Turkey... We must start with the countries of the region. This does not mean that we reject other countries... [but] we cannot talk of good relations with Europe and America when we have problems with the neighboring countries. That's natural. [Good relations with the neighbors] are not a substitute [for good relations with countries outside the region], but they do take priority over them..."[47]

 

Statements by Syrian officials and articles in the Syrian press took a more belligerent tack. For example, Syrian Prime Minister Naji Al-'Otri stressed that his country was interested in a partnership of equals with Europe, and that it had gained a position of power that allowed it to negotiate these matters in a different way than in the past.[48]   

Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem said at a press conference with Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero that the EU's approval of the agreement had taken Syria by surprise, and that Syria now had to reexamine the agreement, a process that could take until the end of Spain's presidency of the EU in June 2010.[49]

 

Two days after the EU's approval of the agreement, and ahead of Assad's visit to Croatia, the editor of the government daily Al-Thawra, As'ad 'Aboud, downplayed the importance of Europe's five leading countries, namely France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain. He said that Europe also includes other countries, each of which can be a gateway for Syria into the EU, and that Syria is extending its hand to all the European countries. He added: "We want excellent relations with any European country [willing to treat us] as a partner. We approach our partnership with the EU from this broad basis of bilateral relations that are effective and influential..."[50]

 

The daily Al-Watan, which is close to the Syrian regime, went so far as to argue that Syria does not need the EU to develop its economy, and wondered whether Syria should sign the agreement at all in the present circumstances.[51]

 

 

2. Challenging the Legitimacy of the International Institutions

 

As part of its bid for a new world order, Syria is challenging the legitimacy of the international institutions, especially the U.N. and its Security Council, which it regards, in their present form, as tools of the American hegemony and hence as requiring structural reform.[52] In this approach, Syria is aligned with Iran, Libya, Venezuela and Hizbullah, all of which challenge the existing world order and are working to change it.

 

President Assad himself challenged the legitimacy of the U.N. institutions at a joint press conference with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez: "...I did not speak [with Chavez] about the 'international community,' because today this term refers to a very small group of powers that are striving to control the world, the international policy and the global economy. [Instead,] we spoke of an international movement consisting of countries that can take a just approach to these issues.

 

"When we speak of the 'international community' in the prevailing sense of the word, we speak of the hegemony of [certain] international organizations. Syria and Venezuela call to reform these organizations, so as to pass from a phase of global anarchy to a phase of global order. We say that [today], what we have is not order but anarchy. We all want global order, but [we want it to be] an order in which all countries take part... We all know that the international organizations [represent] only some countries, [and the same

goes for] the world order and the international community...

 

The international organizations, the U.N. institutions, and all the bodies subordinate to them are controlled by a small group of countries, and their resolutions are subordinate and connected to the interests of these countries. [So] obviously, [these resolutions] cannot be in our favor as well..."[53]

 

Similar claims were made in the Syrian government press. Faisal Sa'd, a lecturer at Tishreen University, wrote: "...The U.N. actually became obsolete in 1991, when the cold war was officially declared at an end... Today, some two decades after [this organization] became obsolete, and nothing was left of it except its name, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a crucial need to reform [the U.N.] or to reestablish it in light of the new circumstances, which form a solid foundation for a new, alternative world order. To this end, there is a need to change or amend the rationale and the operating mechanisms of many [U.N. institutions], especially the Security Council... The 'surgical' procedure required [to correct] the workings of [this body] will not be complete until its functions and authorities are transferred to the U.N. General Assembly, [which will then serve as] a true international parliament with the full authority to formulate and pass binding international resolutions, without anybody having a power of veto...

 

"A reform of the U.N. and its institutions cannot be carried out under [the hegemony] of the capitalist globalization, which was based and is [still] based upon principles of tyranny and dictatorship, and which operates through exploitation, coercion, oppression and deception. From a logical and objective point of view, the reform must be carried out through a different globalization [process] – a grassroots one – that will impose a new world order with [its own] international institutions, anchored in principles of pluralistic justice and democracy..."[54]

 

 

Syria: The Change in the West's Attitude Towards Us Was a Result of Our Support of the Resistance

 

Syria has placed itself firmly at the head of the "resistance camp," whose other main members are Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah, as well as Qatar and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Syrian spokesmen, headed by President Assad himself, have declared that resistance is the ultimate way to confront the West and Israel. At the Conference of Arab Parties, Assad made clear the importance he ascribes to the resistance: "...We have now begun to build a new Middle East, whose essence is resistance. Resistance in the cultural and military sense, and in every other sense, was and is the essence of our policy, and it will continue to be so in the future. It is the essence of our [very] existence..."[55]

 

Syrian spokesmen clarify that "resistance" is not just military action, but also means uncompromising insistence on principles in the face of what they see as Western attempts to impose dictates that contravene the Arab or Muslim interests. This is one of the motivations behind the strategic alliance with Turkey and Iran, as explained by 'Imad Fawzi Shu'eibi, head of the Data and Strategic Studies Center in Damascus: "...Resistance is not just military. It also means building a geostrategic future for this region that is different from [the future that others] wish [to create] for it. This is the basis of President Assad's perception of the 'four seas [alliance]' and of the strategic relations with Turkey as a form of strategic resistance..."[56]

 

Syria presents its insistence on its principles and its firm support of the resistance as the main reasons for the improvement in its status and for the change in the West's policy towards it. Assad's political and media advisor Buthayna Sha'ban said, "The wisdom of

President Assad, and his perception, which is based on resistance, steadfastness and dynamic policy... have strengthened Syria's pivotal role in the region and enabled us to stand firm and steady in the face of all the pressures and challenges of the last few years."[57]

 

Nabil Fawzat Nawfal wrote in a similar vein in his column in the government daily Al-Thawra: "...If there has been any change in the course of the American administration, it is [only] thanks to the resistance forces and their victory, which was supported by the forces of resistance and steadfastness in Syria and Iran. Syria, the [emblem] of Arabism, and the heroic resistance forces have come to be the shapers of events [in the region] and the main players. If in the past the equation was that there could be no peace without Syria, today the equation is that there is no peace without Syria and also no war without Syria. Nobody can impose [upon us] a peace [agreement] that contravenes the inclinations of our Arab people, nor can anybody impose [upon us] a war that we do not want. This is proof that the path of resistance, which President Assad has chosen and which he has steered with wisdom and competence, is the right path. [Assad] has brought Syria [to a position of] strategic superiority, where it holds the reigns of political and military initiative in the region..."[58]

 

Columnist Salim 'Aboud made far-reaching claims regarding the success of Syria's policy: "...Syria's policy has managed to shape the [power-]balance of the Middle East  conflict, and to disrupt [the plans] of the American occupier in Iraq, bringing about his defeat. It shattered the dreams of the [Bush] administration, and was one of the reasons for Republicans' defeat in the U.S. elections. It caused the whole world to reject the policy of the Bush administration and to welcome the arrival of a new administration, in hope that the world would [now] know some calm after the storms generated by Bush's insane Zionist policy..."[59]

 

 

Resistance and the Peace Process

 

Syria sees no contradiction between adhering to the course of resistance and striving for peace. According to its spokesmen, resistance and negotiations are both means to "restore the usurped rights," and both can be employed, either simultaneously or separately, according to the circumstances. On the eve of his November 13, 2009 visit to France, Assad said: "...The essence of peace is not just negotiations but also resistance. It is a mistake to think that peace will be achieved [only] through negotiations, [for] it will also be achieved through resistance. That is why we must support the resistance, because thereby we support the peace process. Resistance and negotiations are [two parts of] a single [course], whose aim is to restore our legitimate rights, which we will never relinquish."[60]

 

Resistance is presented as Syria's strategic option, which has proved its effectiveness in Lebanon and Gaza – as opposed to the option of negotiations, which has failed because of Israel's policy. Al-Thawra editor As'ad 'Aboud explained: "...All the documents that have been signed, from the Camp David [Accords] to the Oslo [Accords], created [only] the illusion of peace. We are living [a reality of] war, not peace... We want peace, but [we refuse to enter] the corridors of futile negotiation that we already know will lead nowhere... If [Israel] does not intend to reach a peace [agreement] and rejects the demands [for peace], what is the way to security and stability? We [Syrians] have the answer to this question: resistance. A Middle East [that embraces] resistance is a Middle East that puts an end to occupation and strengthens security and stability."[61]        

 

 

N. Mozes is a Research Fellow at MEMRI.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

Endnotes:


[1] SANA (Syria), December 29, 2009.

[2] Le Monde (France), July 26, 2006.

[3] IRNA (Iran), January 12, 2010.

[4] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 517, "Ahmadinejad and Assad: Iran and Syria Are Leading a New World Order; The Time of America and the West Is Over, May 26, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3334.htm.

[5] Al-Thawra (Syria), August 30, 2009.

[6] Teshreen (Syria), September 6, 2009.

[7] Syria is permitting the Iraqi TV channel Al-Rai, which supports and encourages armed action against the U.S. forces in Iraq, to broadcast from its territory.

[8] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 492, "An Escalating Regional Cold War - Part I: The 2009 Gaza War," by: Y. Carmon, Y. Yehoshua, A. Savyon, and H. Migron, February 2, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3281.htm.

[9] Al-Watan (Syria), September 3, 2008.

[10] Al-Watan (Syria), August 10, 2008.

[11] Al-Hayat (London), August 26, 2008.

[12] It should be noted that the 2006 Baker-Hamilton report stated that Iraq's neighbors had a significant influence on its stability and prosperity, and called on the U.S. administration to act diplomatically in order to create an international consensus for the stability of Iraq and of the region. The report assumed that Syria, like Iran, had an interest in preventing chaos in Iraq.

[13] Al-Hayat (London), Al-Watan (Syria), February 19, 2009.

[14] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 13, 2008.

[15] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 510, "The Doha Summit – A Defeat for the Saudi-Egyptian Camp," April 8, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3243.htm.  

[16] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 565, "The March 14 Forces after the Formation of the New Lebanese Government: From Electoral Victory to Political Defeat and Disintegration Within Five Months," November 22, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3804.htm.   

[17] See MEMRI Special Dispatch 2595, "Al-Riyadh Editor: 'Why Shouldn't Lebanon Return to Syria?,'" October 14, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3705.htm.

[18] See Special Dispatch No. 2598, "Al-Riyadh' Editor Retracts Call to Return Lebanon to Syria," October 15, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3708.htm.

[19] In the course of January 2010, the Syrian daily Al-Watan published a number of anti-Egyptian articles, which claimed that Egypt had adopted the American policy and was party to Israel's siege on Gaza, and that it was the only Arab country undermining the atmosphere of reconciliation in the Arab world. Egypt was also accused of sabotaging the inter-Palestinian reconciliation out of pride. Al-Watan (Syria), January 12, 18, 21, 2010.

[20] Al-Thawra (Syria), December 24, 2009.

[21] Al-Hayat (London), August 20, 2009.

[22] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), November 15, 2009.

[23] Teshreen (Syria), May 10, 2009.

[24] Al-Thawra (Syria), September 30, 2009.

[25] Al-Hayat (London), December 3, 2009.

[26] SANA (Syria), April 2, 2009.

[27] SANA (Syria), April 9, 2009.

[28] Khorasan (Iran), April 19, 2009. See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 521, "Ahmadinejad: Iran Is a Nuclear Power Ready to Participate in Running the World", June 8, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3335.htm.

[29] ISNA (Iran), May 6, 2009.

[30] Fars (Iran), May 5, 2009. See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 517, "Ahmadinejad and Assad: Iran and Syria Are Leading a New World Order; The Time of America and the West Is Over," June 8, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3334.htm.

[31] Teshreen (Syria), June 18, 2009.

[32] Al-Thawra (Syria), May 17, 2009.

[33] IRNA (Iran), August 19, 2009.

[34] Al-Thawra (Syria), December 24, 2009.

[35] http://sns.sy, December 29, 2009.

[36] Al-Ba'th (Syria), October 28, 2009.

[37] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 4, 2010.

[38] Yeni Safak (Turkey), May 25, 2009.

[39] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1114, "Hamas Visit to Turkey Deepens Secular-Islamist Rift," March 14, 2006, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1635.htm.

[40] Habervaktim (Turkey), December 8, 2009.

[41] Al-Ba'th (Syria), December 31, 2009.

[42] Teshreen (Syria), December 8, 2009.

[43] Al-Thawra (Syria), November 2, 2009.

[44] Al-Thawra (Syria), August 26, 2008; Teshreen (Syria), December 16, 2008.

[45] Al-Hayat (London), October 11, 2009.

[46] http://sns.sy, December 29, 2009.

[47] Al-Thawra (Syria), October 23, 2009.

[48] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), December 9, 2009.

[49] Al-Watan (Syria), October 15, 2009.

[50] Al-Thawra (Syria), October 28, 2009.

[51] Al-Watan (Syria), November 3, 2009.

[52] Apparently, Syria's challenge of the U.N. is also aimed at delegitimizing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which is investigating the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri.  

[53] Al-Thawra (Syria), September 4, 2009.

[54] Al-Watan (Syria), September 17, 2009.

[55] SANA (Syria), November 12, 2009.

[56] Al-Hayat (London), December 3, 2009.

[57] Al-Hayat (London), August 18, 2009.

[58] Al-Thawra (Syria), September 13, 2009.

[59] Al-Thawra (Syria), September 30, 2009.

[60] SANA (Syria), November 12, 2009.

[61] Al-Thawra (Syria), November 23, 2009.

…/…

No comments:

Post a Comment