Politics

Imad Moustapha

An important announcement last week, here in Washington, attracted considerable attention from many political analysts and observers in the United States. Nicolas Burns, the Undersecretary of State, informed the US Congress in a writ-ten statement that the State Department was dissolving a ‘Syria de-stabilization’ unit that had been in operation for the last four years. Its tasks included coordinating a series of ‘aggressive’ measures, including, among others, weakening the Syrian currency, ‘whispering’ to international banks that they should not do business with Syria, blocking Syrian attempts to promote trade and economic relations with foreign parties, bolstering opposition groups, dissuading tourists from going to Syria, orchestrating a propaganda warfare, and preventing Syria from acquiring spare parts for its Boeing leet. In a nutshell, this unit was in charge of a dirty war against Syria aiming at ‘regime change.’ Now why did the State Department decide to dissolve this unit? Is it be-cause the guys there suddenly saw light and decided to mend their ways? Or is it because an epiphany has converted them into diplomats who favor engagement to the arrogant concept of nations reengineering? No, the reason, simply put, behind this decision was that it didn’t deliver the expected results, and henceforth a ‘more standardized approach’ would be adopted. The implications of this whole story are multifold. One can think of it as

George Jabbour

Syria celebrated its first National Day on Wednesday April 17, 1946. It was not its Independence Day. That day goes back to March 8, 1920, or per-haps to the autumn of 1941. The National Day was when all foreign troops (British and French) evacuated Syria. One of the invited speakers on the occasion of her National Day was the representative of Palestine, Akram Zueiter, a famous thinker and a man of letters. In his speech he did not congratulate the Syrians. Instead, he warned; “The Syrian Republic does not have the right to consider herself free from foreign troops and totally independent and sovereign when her southern part, Palestine, continues to be under occupation.” The short sentence defined the ABCs of Syria’s foreign policy from that time, until the present.

The U.S. Congress in 2002 and 2003 conducted hearings on passage of the Syrian Accountability Act in which venomous language toward Syria and, in particular, President Bashar al-Assad could be heard. In testimony before the House Committee on International Relations in September 2002 on whether or not to pass the Syrian Accountability Act (House Resolution 4483), Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) proclaimed, “Our inaction on holding Syria accountable for its dangerous activities could seriously diminish our efforts on the war on terrorism and brokering a viable peace in the Middle East…Syria should be held accountable for its record of harboring and supporting terrorist groups; stockpiling illegal weapons in an effort to develop weapons of mass destruction; and transferring weapons and oil back and forth through Iraq.” In support of the resolution, co-sponsor Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) assert-ed, “We will not tolerate Syrian support for terrorism. We will not tolerate Syrian occupation of Lebanon. We will not tolerate Syrian making weapons of mass destruction.” At the same hearing, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) said, “This is not too big a nut to crack. Syria is a small, decrepit, little terror state that has been yanking our diplomatic chain for years.” Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), specifically commenting on Bashar al-Assad, said that “he, individually, presents what may be…the most dangerous obstacle in the Middle East; both with respect to Iraq, both with respect to Hizbullah and his absolute condemnation, by action, of any kind of peace process whatsoever.” Al-luding to President Bashar’s background in ophthalmology, Rep. Shelly Berkley (D-NV) stated the following: