Diplomacy

Throughout history diplomats have used a little known device to break impasses, or stand-offs, between sovereign states. That device was called the “back channel.” So when King Henry VIII, of England, was “not talking” to the Pope about his desire for a divorce, he might have conceivably used a “third party” (someone friendly to both the royal court in London and the papacy in Rome) to keep the dialogue open—and potentially resolve the conflict. I would like to put forward the case that “back-channel diplomacy” should be much more broadly defined to include a great many different types of bilateral contacts between societies that are often at “loggerheads” with one another. Contacts that are educational, cultural, economic as well as political and diplomatic. So, let me begin this discussion by stating its fundamental premise: what unites human beings is fundamentally more important than what divides them. It may seem self-evident but just reflect how hard it is to achieve that when it comes to Syrian-US relations. So what is to be done? Well, first of all we can begin by building bridges since expatriate Syrians (and other expatriate communities around the world) are in a unique position to do this. With our knowledge of our “new” countries--Canada, the U.S., etc.—and our profound understanding of our homeland, we have the ability to create and nurture important “back channel encounters” between the West and the Middle East. Such encounters could be educational exchanges, or hosting visiting professors, or student exchanges, etc. As an illustration of what can be accomplished by such programmes, let me commend the great work of Syria’s ambassador in Washington, H.E. Imad Moustapha. When diplomatic contacts between the US and Syria were more or less Back-channel diplomacy improved relations between the US and both China and the USSR. It can do the same today in Syrian-US relations.

non-existent, Ambassador Moustapha undertook an extensive lecture tour of American universities and colleges, discussing Syria, and explaining its official position on various international issues. The Syria Project, a discussion series about Syria, was recently established at George Mason University’s Centre for Religious Studies in Washington. Indeed, the head of the Centre for Religious Studies, Professor Marc Gopin, with the help of the Syrian Public Relation Association in Damascus, and its president Dr. Nizar Mayhoub, has visited Syria and lectured on several occasions, making a significantly positive contribution to constructive bilateral relations between the US and Syria. So, what do such relationships generate? Well, for starters, a much deeper understanding of the so-called “enemy” society. Ignorance, or prejudice, about the other side is perhaps the greatest impediment to better relations between the two countries. Certainly, most Arabs, and I would argue almost all Muslims and Christians in the Middle East, feel deeply misunderstood in the West, particularly in the US. And most of us also feel they we are victims of a double standard policy vis-à-vis the Arab World. The US media, and the Bush administration, strongly criticize the political system in Syria but not the regimes in Cairo and Amman. The US media and the Bush administration don’t stop calling for democratic reform and fair elections in the Arab world. But when Hamas becomes the democratically elected government in the occupied west Bank and Gaza in an election that everyone acknowledges was free and fair, the US government and media betrayed their commitment to democracy and resorted to cutting off financial support to the Palestinians. So how do we encourage this deeper understanding of one another? I would argue that this can be done through many more back channel contacts among nations. The more we know and understand each other, the better suited we will be to establish better relations. I believe that cultural and educational exchanges are central to Syria’s future.