Syria and the Lost Opportunities
Randa Takieddine Al-Hayat 2004/09/22
It is regrettable for Syria to lose an important European ally like France. The French President had long warned the Syrian President, via direct or indirect messages, of the necessity of Syria accepting the text pertaining to the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), included in the European Union partnership agreement, without asking for unrealistic conditions. However, Syria continued to refuse this text; but last week, it agreed to sign it without any amendments and without any European relinquishments, simply because it is currently under heavy international pressure.
Regrettably, the recent Syrian position does not cancel the lost opportunity for rapidly signing the agreement, after France, Britain, Germany and the United States worked for the adoption of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1559. It is true that there is no direct link between the Syrian- EU partnership agreement, and between resolution 1559; however, the French declarations indicates that signing the partnership agreement is on hold at the time being.
The Syrian diplomacy should not have lost the opportunities that were in favor of Syria. It would have been easier for Syria not to challenge the international community, and not to have exhibited such a terrible production that was approbated inside the Lebanese Parliament for amending the constitution. Syria could have worked for choosing a candidate other than the current President; nobody really understood Syria's challenge of the international community, and its insistence on such a production for an internationally unaccepted process. Even inside Lebanon, this process was not popular and was totally rejected.
After all that happened, how would Syria face the report of UN Secretary General, which was requested by Washington and Paris, and which details all Syria's activities, including the amendment of the Lebanese constitution, and the Syrian presence in Lebanon?
Why was the constitution amended, and why was the current President's term extended? Aren't there enough candidates for the Lebanese presidency that are not suspected by the Syrians? There are plenty; but why did the Syrians commit all these diplomatic mistakes and why did the Syrians waste all these opportunities?
In all cases, according to the Chirac's directions, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier played an essential role in explaining to the Arab countries the incentives that carried France to adopt Security Council resolution 1559. In Amman where Barnier was closely following the efforts for the release of the French hostages in Iraq, he called many Arab leaders in order to clarify to them that France is working for the recuperation of Lebanon's sovereignty and independence, which does not mean that France chose to take part of the American- Israeli bloc. Barnier is implementing an old French diplomacy that has a clear agenda for Lebanon, and that wishes for Lebanon to be independent, sovereign and economically prosperous. While contacting the Arab leaders, Barnier found out that no single Arab leader agrees with what Syria is doing in Lebanon, and no single Arab leader agreed with what Syria ventured lately in Lebanon, especially concerning the amendment of the Lebanese constitution.
The Paris II Summit, which was organized by Chirac in order to help Lebanon, indeed gave Lebanon a breathing space in 2004. However, this breathing space will be absent in 2005, along with the reform initiatives, as Lebanon has still not implemented any of its duties. Where is the Syrian diplomacy which previously committed itself to helping Lebanon rise, and has reached a stage where both Syria and Lebanon have become needy? After what happened lately, where is Syria going to find someone to help it?
Now what? Will Syria really withdraw its troops from Lebanon? Will it give Lebanon freedom and a breathing space? Or will it continue in the same conduct of letting by the diplomatic opportunities which will ultimately subjugate Syria to further international pressure? France does not support any sanctions on any country, and the French President repeatedly asserted his refusal of the concept of sanctions. However, what if some members of the Security Council showed their desire of imposing sanctions on Syria? Wouldn't this be an economic catastrophe for Syria?
More than one French official assured that France does not want to get into any confrontation with Syria. France is seeking to make Syria realize that it is about time for Syria to realize the seriousness of the international message directed to it. The story of a Syrian-American trade off in Iraq vis-à-vis Lebanon is not that convincing, because Syrian diplomacy is not neophyte, and it is totally aware of the current American
danger in this cause.
The U.S. and France are constantly discussing this issue, and the French officials currently do not doubt the American intentions interested in Lebanon's sovereignty. The proof to all this is the statements of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David M. Satterfield, who called for a clear change in the Syrian conduct in Lebanon. It is time for Syria to haste the change of its diplomacy which refuses to deal with facts and realities on ground, and which wastes the chances for openness and progress; it is time to relinquish the defeated slogans.
|
