Cover Story

Bernard Kouchner, the seasoned French Minister of Foreign Affairs, arrived in Damascus on August 25, 2008 for talks with his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Mouallem and President Bashar al-Assad. This was the first visit for a senior French official to Syria since relations broke-down under former President Jacques Chirac in 2005. Kouchner discussed the situation in Lebanon after signing of the Doha Agreement in May, along with bilateral relations between Syria and France, which have witnessed dramatic progress since President Nicolas Sarkozy came to power in 2007. One aspect of warming relations was President Assad’s visit to Paris last July. Another is Sarkozy’s visit to Damascus in September. Kouchner gave an exclusive interview to FW: about what the future holds for Syrian-Lebanese relations, and the role of Paris in the Middle East.

Syria and Lebanon have recently agreed to exchange embassies, as pledged in Paris last July. Does that really change anything for France, given that there has never been a Syrian embassy in Beirut? A Syrian ambassador will certainly be more connected and powerful than any other foreign ambassador in Lebanon. Doesn’t this end up working in Syria’s favor?
The announcement of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Syria and Lebanon is a historic event we can only welcome. As a neighboring country with historical and human ties to Lebanon, it is utterly normal and desirable for Syria to have an embassy in Beirut, like all other countries that are important to Lebanon. There’s no question of putting words into anybody’s mouth. An exchange of embassies is necessary to healthy, lasting relations between two countries and will help strengthen regional stability.

As Syrians become more liberal, and technology allows people more access to each other, society’s need for etiquette creates the new rules of Syrian courtship.

Dania Akkad

Rosy-cheeked and sweaty after a strenuous hour of kickboxing, 23-year-old Leila was leaving the gym when she spotted something on her car.

“I’ve been watching you,” a scribbled note said. “I want to know you better. Please call me.”  For weeks, Leila punched and jabbed, only to find the same scribbled phone number waiting for her at her car after her workouts. Who was this? She didn’t bother to find out. Then one day, one of her classmates, who had been kicking punchbags beside her for weeks – but had never talked alone with Leila -- approached.

The US Presidential race is in the lull before the storm. Democrat Barack Obama survived the primary battle against Hillary Clinton and now faces John McCain, the Vietnam war hero
whom the Republicans are backing.
The two parties will have conventions at the end of the summer to officially nominate their choices and to announce vice-presidential selections.
In the meantime, the country is getting a respite from the withering attacks of the Democratic primary and the negative campaigning expected in the fall. Although Obama has a surprising 15 point lead in one poll, the history of similar races (notably the first Jimmy Carter race in 1976) suggest that, in the fall, the race will tighten and that
voters will go into the privacy of the voting booth with the two candidates running neck and neck.
At this point, media attention is turning toward Michele Obama, wife of the Democratic candidate.
As a highly educated, attractive, and articulate woman, Michele faces many of the same opportunities and challenges that Syria’s Asma al-Assad has grappled with since her marriage to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in 2000.
It’s not too much of a stretch to say that Barack Obama’s chances in the November election depend in large measure on the ability of Michele Obama, over the next couple of months, to master the lessons that Asma al-Assad has learned over eight years.
The common wisdom in the US is that a presidential candidate’s wife is never decisive in the vote for or against her husband. Yet that wisdom does not address the larger point that voters select a candidate primarily on “character” and not on issues.
Voters want a president who is “like us.” Who “understands us.” Who has a feel for the “common man.” Who will do the “right thing” in an emergency, and especially in foreign affairs where the system of checks and balances is weak and presidents, for the most part, have a free hand.
Guess what? The candidate’s spouse tells voters who he is, how he functions, how he makes decisions, and how he will act when facing unforeseen circumstances. The spouse may be the
primary way that voters decide who the candidate is as a person—and this is key.
As an aside, it’s worth noting that there does seem to be a certain minimum threshold for the first lady. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, for example, was the leading Democratic candidate in the 2004 race. Most say that his candidacy was destroyed early in the process primaries when he let out a rather un-presidential war whoop in a moment of victory.
Most commentators don’t realize that Dean was actually destroyed by fellow liberals: the liberal New York Times Magazine featured a front page photo of his wife, in jeans and sweatshirt, sitting in a rather unladylike pose. The article inside made it clear that his
wife was highly educated, articulate, opinionated, had her own career as a physician—and regarded presidential politics as a joke and the traditional role of the first lady as vacuous. If Dean’s wife could not get excited about his presidential project, how could the nation? And, who wants a first lady greeting the Queen of England or the Pope while wearing blue jeans?
The specific problem with Michele Obama is not blue jeans and a dismissive attitude toward presidential politics.
She, like Asma al-Assad, is stylish and well understands the difference that good leadership can make in the life of a people. The problem with Michele is that, in the primaries, she has just been too good.
Michele has given rousing speeches before large audiences. Her words were absolutely unique in their invocation of her “just folks” working class background combined with her insight into the inequities and frustrations of the status quo.
Michele displayed appropriate outrage, as well as insight, compassion, tenderness, and humor.
Michele’s instincts for ordinary people were on display, for example, in South Carolina, an early and decisive primary, where she spoke before a large African-American audience.
Folks in this audience undoubtedly came to the event expecting that this working class woman who had won a first class education, become a lawyer, and now belonged to the country’s elite would cloak her remarks in low key arrogance toward fellow African-
Americans. Let’s face it, the newly arrived in any culture are seldom sincerely gracious. Nevertheless, the crowd was prepared to accept her and to applaud her. When Michele came
on stage, the first thing she said was, “Is it OK if I take off my shoes? My feet are killing me.” The audience gasped as Michele removed her shoes and launched into her speech—in bare feet.
Michele’s remarks in the primaries were more blunt and more straightforward than those of her husband. Barack, on the other hand, is a seasoned politician who has mastered the necessary art of being straightforward without pinning himself to positions that could later cause problems. Some of Michele’s etched phrases have been easy for right wing cable news to take out of context and replay on an endless loop.
. (Also, her rather innocent actions:
A Fox News commentator recently accused her of engaging in a “terrorist fist jab” after she affectionately fistbumped with her husband on stage.
The “fist bump” is the latest and coolest alternative to the handshake among US rap musicians.)
Yes, Michele does say exactly what she thinks. And, one can imagine that she does not suffer fools lightly. In short, the Michele we saw in the primaries was a perfect target for the right. Add to that, she was also a more sharpedged advocate for liberal positions
than her husband.
Clearly, Michele has talent. That’s putting it lightly. She loves to talk politics with the American people and she seems to savor the prospect of confronting and destroying her right wing detractors. Still if she continues as she has in the primaries, she will
overshadow her husband among liberals, and she will draw so much fire from the right that the nation forgets that it is Barack, not Michele, who is actually on the ballot.
When Bill Clinton first ran for president in 1992, he and his wife Hillary offered,
“Two for one.” Subsequently, Hillary assumed a policy position within the administration. Most memorably, she spearheaded the tough battle for health care reform—an effort that
roused tremendous opposition and ultimately failed. Hillary, like Michele, was more outspoken and was perceived as more liberal than her husband.
She became an easy target for the right. And her policy role ensured that the Clinton administration would suffer from dual power centers and skewed lines of influence and authority: pure chaos, in other words. The “two for one” approach may have been a good
way to prepare Hillary for an eventual presidential bid, but it invited divisive politics. Although the blame for the scorched earth politics of the eight years that follows undoubtedly rests primarily with what was the new, uncompromising strain of right wing
politics . . . Hillary stood out in a way that served the right in their effort to
divide and conquer.
After an additional eight years of right wing players running the country using the same tactics of fear and division, Americans are exhausted. In the primaries, they voted for change with Barack Obama because he offered to rise above partisan politics and to pursue the common interest.
What Barack Obama has not done is to make clear the role that his wife will play. The public assumes that Michele will be another Hillary. It is of the utmost importance to her husband’s chances in November, that Michele makes her intentions absolutely clear.
She must gently decline the two for one model without offending Hillary supporters by appearing to criticize the former First Lady. In addition, Michele needs to announce that her role will be traditional, and she needs to name examples of first ladies whom
she has admired. Last week, with her appearance on the women-oriented TV show The View, Obama took the first step in this direction by praising Laura Bush for her calming effect on US politics.
Asma al-Assad has figured out that a low political profile approach combined with absolutely clear goals and state of the art administration can bring significant progress in her work on poverty, computer education, and women’s rights. Assad might offer to
Michele the following wisdom:
You have two young children. Make them your priority and your focus.
The public likes to see a mother take her role seriously. Let your concern for good work rise naturally out of your concern for your children and your family.
Leave politics to the men. Politics is tiring. Most people’s personal lives consist of family, sports, food, and running a household. Connect with the people by non-political means and you will be in a position to accomplish real change.
The US, like Syria, is a republic. The First Lady may have a largely nonpolitical role—yet it is extremely important in a country where there is no royal family to speak for the entire nation on a level higher than public policy or party politics. Ultimately,
“who we are as a people” trumps the details of any particular law. If the citizens of a country feel good about themselves and about where they are going together, then the pols and policy wonks can work out the details.
You just can’t do it all, so do a few things well. You have plenty to keep you busy in the non-governmental field. Let it be the thrust of your time away from your family. Let
your example energize the citizenry. Persuade by doing, rather than by public advocacy.
Barack Obama understands the zero sum calculation: if a public figure wins adherents in such a way that he or she also gains enemies, the two tend to cancel each other out. Asma al-Asad has grasped this point and has applied it to the challenges of the role of first spouse. She has proven that an educated, articulate, intelligent president’s wife, even in the toughest neighborhood in the world, can be effective without undermining her
husband. Can Michele Obama learn these lessons? Can she learn them quickly enough to prevent disaster in November?

While French planes were bombing Damascus on May 29 1945, Prime Minister Faris al-Khury was at the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco, presenting Syria’s claim for independence from the French Mandate. The French had been controlling Syria since the infamous battle of Maysaloun in 1920, and had already bombed Damascus earlier in 1925. The French officers were unfazed by Khury’s actions, expecting to force Syria into obedience after they had categorically refused to sign a treaty with France.

WalladaBintal-Mustakfi, the daughter of Mohammad III of Cordoba, one of the last Umayyad Caliphates in Spain,was a spectacular woman for her age and time. She excelled in poetry, and was particularly talented at finishing incomplete poems, left behind by others. She embroidered her verses on the trim of her clothing, to show the world-publicly-what it meant for a woman to make the change needed in society.

Syrian First Lady Asma al-Assad went to Spain to attend the elebrations of Damascus as Capital of Arab Culture at an event at the Alhambra Palace in Granada on January 31, 2008. Accompanied by Queen Sophia of Spain, the First Lady attended a spectacular concert by the young Syrian singer Waed Abu Hassoun, a brilliant player of the lute, performing the poetry of Wallada Bint al-Mustaki, the legendary princess of Cordoba during the Umayyad Empire, and her lover, Ibn Zaydun, another great poet from the Umayyad Era. In addition to Abu Hassoun was the performance of the Spanish band Pina`nas, composed of three-brothers who were performing the words of Ibn Arabi, the Sui mystic and philosopher. The breath-taking palace, which mirrors the greatness of Arab architecture in Spain, was once described as “a pearl set in diamonds” due to the brilliant color of its buildings and the luxuriant woods around them. Once the residence of the Muslim kings of Granada, the Alhambra Palace—known in Arabic as al-Hamra, is now a museum of Islamic architecture. Enclosed by strongly fortified walls, and lanked by 13-towers, the Alhambra Palace is one of the treasured sites of UNESCO. The greatness of the palace itself, the charm and elegance of the First Lady and Queen, along with the heavenly voice of Waed Abu Hassoun, all made the magical event at the Alhambra Palace a groundbreaking success—to say the least. It reminded the world of the greatness of Arab and Islamic culture, taste, and beauty. Nizar Qabbani, the famous Syrian poet, once said that the Arabs went to Spain as lovers—not conquerors—and took pride in what they saw and left behind in Granada. This time, centuries later, Granada greeted the First Lady as a lover as well; elegant, eloquent, charming, and impassioned about the history of Damascus and its effects on world culture and heritage. From Madrid, she spoke to a Spanish news agency about her trip to Granada, the event at the Alhambra Palace, and what all of this means for Damascus as it celebrates being Capital of Arab Culture in 2008. What does it mean for Syria and its citizens that Damascus has been selected as the Arab Capital of Culture for 2008?