WASHINGTON, DC: A series of meetings between United States and Syrian diplomats, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterpart, Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, at the United Nations last week are stirring speculation that Washington may at last be moving toward engaging Damascus.
Instead of focusing on specific issues of special interest to the United States – mainly Washington’s demands that Syria crack down hard against the infiltration of Sunni extremists into Iraq and stop supplying Hezbollah in Lebanon – the discussions also reportedly covered other topics as well, notably Damascus’s appeals for Washington to involve itself directly in a burgeoning peace process between Syria and Israel.
Both Damascus and Tel Aviv have called for US engagement as a way of furthering year-old indirect talks that have been mediated by the Turkish government. While Rice has publicly blessed the process, hawks within the administration of US President George W. Bush, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney’s office and a deputy national security adviser in charge of the Middle East, Elliott Abrams, have opposed any additional involvement.
“Nothing is a breakthrough, and I’m not sure that there will be one, Rice, who met with Moallem on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, told Bloomberg TV. “But it’s time to talk about some of the changes that are taking place in the Middle East.
While the Rice-Moallem contact reportedly lasted only 10 minutes, her chief regional deputy, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch, met with the Syrian official in a longer meeting later, according to the Wall Street Journal, which suggested that the talks portended a “potential thaw between Washington and Damascus.
I consider this a good progress in the American position , Moallem told the Journal in a reference to his meeting with Rice. “The atmosphere was positive. We decided to continue this dialogue.
Still, some observers voiced skepticism that the meetings signaled a major shift in Washington’s willingness to seriously engage Damascus in the nearly four months before Bush leaves office.
“It’s clearly time for a rethink of [Syria] policy, and I think Rice and others in the administration are trying to shepherd it forward, said Joshua Landis, a Syria specialist at the University of Oklahoma who publishes the widely read blog, Syria Comment (www.syriacomment.com). “Rice is definitely open to it – and the whole Department of Defense has been kicking for this for a long time – but she can’t get it past the White House.
As with Iran and North Korea, the split between administration hawks and realists over Syria is a familiar one. While Rice’s predecessor, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, argued for engaging with Damascus both before and after the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the hawks – then led by Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld – favored a policy of ”regime change” against the government of President Bashir al-Assad.
Rumsfeld’s resignation in November 2006 and his replacement by the more realist Robert Gates – not to mention the stunning deterioration in Washington’s regional position resulting from the war’s outcome, the routing of Fatah by Syria-backed Hamas in Gaza, and the growing sectarian violence In Iraq – tilted the balance of power within the administration.
Over the strenuous objections of neo-conservatives and other hawks, Rice invited Syria to take part in last November’s Annapolis Summit that launched the formal resumption of direct talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority.
It was shortly after the meeting that Turkey began mediating indirect peace talks between Damascus and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, reportedly centered on the return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in exchange for Syria’s agreement to normalize ties and cut its links to Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran.
While, according to virtually all accounts, those talks made major progress, they have been suspended since early September pending the formation or election of a new Israeli government. Olmert, who recently resigned as head of the ruling Kadima Party due to a corruption scandal, is currently serving as a caretaker.
In addition, Damascus has long insisted that a final peace accord could be reached only if Washington strongly endorsed the deal and normalized ties, something that the White House, despite the urging from the State Department and several former senior US diplomats – including the ex-head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – has so far ruled out.
Whether the past week’s meetings suggest that the balance of power within the administration has shifted should become clearer in the coming weeks, particularly if Washington sends an ambassador or senior-ranking official to Damascus, as has long been urged by Syria.
According to Landis, the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, pressed the White House last December to go there himself but was rebuffed. Now head of US Central Command and a White House favorite, Petraeus could decide to renew his request which, if granted, would likely be seen as evidence of a serious shift.
“With its Lebanon policy a shambles and its efforts to isolate Syria defied by France, Turkey, and Israel itself, it really doesn’t make sense for the White House to continue stiffing the Syrians , said Landis. “It’s really just pure stubbornness at this point.
Jim Lobe is the Washington Bureau Chief of the international news agency Inter Press Service (IPS) and is best known for his coverage of US foreign policy. This abridged article originally appeared in Inter Press Service and is distributed with permission by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews). The full text can be found at http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44081.
