A Change in Attitude, Lebanon as a Model
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 01/04/07//
Syria managed to reclaim its position on the Arab map through the Riyadh Summit; it is a position set to be reinforced by its hosting, and assuming, the presidency of the upcoming summit, effective in March.
Damascus also managed to reclaim its position as a destination point for figures of international significance, as it readies itself to receive Nancy Pelosi, number three in the US power hierarchy, and after that, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, following visits by a number of EU officials.
It is a new diplomatic situation for Syria, which until recently has been facing a degree of boycotting and isolation, which led Syrian officials to coming to the conclusion that such Arab and international openness toward their country represented a confirmation of the firmness of the positions they defended during the period of isolation that were essentially based on a policy of alliance with Iran and the opposition to the emerging ruling powers in both Iraq and Lebanon, in conjunction with the proclamation of its continual readiness to negotiate with the regional and international parties playing an active role in these two countries.
The terms laid before Damascus during this isolation period consisted of a change in attitude, particularly in Lebanon. In this context, it was notable that upon addressing the Summit, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as well as members of the Syrian delegation was extremely keen on portraying the consensus reached in Riyadh as conforming to Damascus' demands of this high-ranking Arab gathering.
However, a closer examination of the resolutions pertaining to Lebanon will reveal that the Arabs have adopted, although through euphemistic terms, the demands made by the Fouad Siniora government, confirming the legitimate, constitutional and representative character of this government, whether in connection to the necessity of establishing the international tribunal, the means of assimilating the ramifications of the Israeli war, the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, or dealing with the unanimously adopted resolutions emerging from the Lebanese dialogue pertaining to the relationship with Syria (particularly those dealing with sovereignty and equal footing), which came in contrast to the political and field attitudes of Damascus' allies in Lebanon.
Prior to the adoption of these resolutions, the Summit's host and chairman, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, expressed his criticism during the opening session regarding the continuation of the Beirut sit-in and the threats of its escalation, unless the resolution championed by Damascus' loyalists in Lebanon is not adopted.
In other words, the outcome of the Arab diplomatic moves prior to and during the Summit was a Syrian departure from a vehemently opposing role to the existing governmental situation in Lebanon to a role that is in harmony with the Arab resolutions in support of this very situation.
As for the reconciliations witnessed by the Summit, they were a result of Syria's flexibility, rather than a convergence of the Arab stance with Syrian policies. These reconciliations revealed that the Lebanese crisis was not a result of Syrian-Arab contentions, but rather that these differences were a result of the Syrian approach to this crisis, which ensued following the assassination of the former head of the Lebanese government, Rafik al-Hariri.
As for the UN Secretary General's expected talks with Syria, they will be based on the principals that the UN chief declared in his address to the Riyadh Summit and his comments to speakers in Beirut, of whom Syria's main ally, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, was not among.
The international tribunal, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the government's seven-point plan are among the main highlights of these talks.
Accordingly, it would be highly unlikely that Ban Ki-moon's visit to Damascus would be a success or for the international official to emerge from this visit with an impression confirming a positive change in Syria's attitude, unless Syria complies with the international legitimacy and resolutions pertaining to these two issues.
Indeed, it is not that far fetched to say that this visit could determine the extent of this Syrian change of attitude in Lebanon, taking the acceptance of and the cooperation with the international tribunal and facilitating the UNIFIL mission as a starting point, extending to the permanent peacemaking in southern Lebanon, and the fulfillment of all provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
The obsession of containing the US failure in Iraq plays a key role in the visit of the speaker of the US House of Representatives to Damascus. The US Democratic leader is a staunch advocate of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton committee, particularly those pertaining to engaging Syria and Iran, which were long shunned by the Republican administration, as well as reviving the Arab-Israeli path, also neglected by the Bush administration.
Despite this, neither the US Democrat Party, nor its congressional leaders have managed to issue any endorsement to the precept that priority should be given to confronting the US influence in an area dear to Iran and Syria's allies in Lebanon.
Therefore, any breakthrough ushered by Pelosi with Syria will depend on her ability to prove that she is indeed capable of subjecting her allies to a ceiling of resolutions of international legitimacy.
Accordingly, Syria's ability to break free from the Arab and international isolation will mainly depend on a convergence of the Syrian policies towards the Arab consensus and the international legitimacy rather than the other way around.
Syria will be in more need for such change upon assuming the presidency of the summit next year, as this presidency requires flexibility in dealing with hot files and impartiality in dealing with internal Arab conflicts.
Next year will also witness Serge Brammertz's final report on the investigation into the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri, and before that, the establishment of an international tribunal, described by the UN chief as one of his top priorities.
|
