Go east!
Go east!
“Let us head east” has been a popular phrase within political circles in Damascus since 2005. Is it just a catchy media slogan, aimed at provoking Europe and the United States, or is it a strategic shift in the political pendulum of Syria’s foreign policy?
The United States, with the support of French President Jacques Chirac, tried to enforce a political isolation of Damascus after the assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister
Rafiq al-Harriri in February 2005. One of the measures taken by the Syrians to combat this was to “head East” and expand Damascus’ foreign alliances.
Back then, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem appeared before the Syrian Parliament and announced that his country was reaching out to Asia, and seeking to strengthen relations
with Latin America and Africa. This coincided with Syrian attempts at learning from the Malaysian and Chinese experience in economic reform and a scheduled trip for President
Bashar al-Assad to attend the Non-Allied States Conference in Havana, Cuba in late 2006, which was canceled at the last minute. This was one year after his first official visit to China and his second trip to Moscow since becoming president in 2000. Assad had already visited Tehran to congratulate President Mahmud Ahmadinejad after his election victory in 2005 and this coincided with jumpstarting Syrian-Turkish relations after a Syrian
presidential visit to Ankara in 2004 and 2007.
Syria was convinced that the world is not limited to the United States, France, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. There is another world out there, a vast world where diplomatic relations are welcomed and not as politically expensive. Internationally
there is Russia, India, and China.
Regionally there is Turkey and Iran, in addition to important world players like Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, and South Africa.
While this strategic shift was taking place, a notable visitor came to Damascus; the Indian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs visited in the Autumn of 2005. This coincided with increased talk in certain American and European circles of “regime change” in Syria. India wanted to show the world, sending a strong message that everybody could hear, that New Delhi wants strong, strategic, and historic relations with Damascus. It wanted to say that India, in addition to providing the Syrians with choice, was opposed to the attempted isolation of Damascus.
Back then, an Indian official accompanying the Minister told me, “Nations are like human beings; they appreciate those who stood by them in times of need. India wants Syria to
remember this courageous initiative.”
India went even further, inviting Foreign Minister Moualem in 2007 and then Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Dardari at the beginning of this year to New Delhi. Again, this was while the United States and certain European countries were conditioning any dialogue with Syria with the election of a president in Lebanon. The two visits by Moualem and Dardari laid the groundwork for President Assad’s visit, which took place on June 18-21, 2008. It was the first for a Syrian leader in over 30-years of bilateral relations; late President Hafez al-Assad had visited India to attend the Non-Allied States Conference in 1983.
It would be wrong, however, to place Assad’s visit within the framework of the astonishing openness of French President Nicolas Sarkozy towards Damascus. Back in late 2007, Sarkozy
had suspended talks with President Assad, saying that they would resume only after a new president was elected in Beirut. He lived up to his promise and after Michel Suleiman was voted into office last May, Sarkozy began a dramatic shift towards Syria. Under Chirac, the policy was isolation, boycott, and pressure on European nations to cease any talk with the Syrians. Now there is talk of opening a new chapter in Franco-Syrian relations; politically, economically, and culturally. This would include an upcoming visit for President Assad to Paris on July 12 and a groundbreaking one by Sarkozy, as head of the EU to Syria in August.
It is interesting to note that Assad’s visit to India came before his trip to France. Syria wanted to show that it is serious on “heading East.” It wants to benefit from India’s economic experience and the political support it is showing Damascus. For its part, India is searching for new markets in the Arab World. Damascus becomes India’s gate for the Middle East, and New Delhi becomes Syria’s gate to the international community. It should be noted that one of the masterminds of this policy is the Indian Ambassador to Syria, Gautam Mukhopadhaya, a seasoned statesman with grand political and diplomatic skills who has a strategic vision for his country’s relations with the Middle East.
The experience of previous years—where Syrian officials betted only on the US and the EU—should not be repeated. Back then, the Syrians used to say that they want a European role
in the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli peace conference, with the purpose of provoking the Americans and getting them to offer concessions to Damascus, and play a greater role in the Middle East peace process. Syrian officials did not have serious bets on Russia, India, and China. The world has changed.
American policies are facing losses in the Middle East. New powers are emerging, and certainly India is one of them. That is why the policy of “heading East” is now a must. It
would be more beneficial, however, if it concentrated on strengthening ties with India, China, and Russia, while keeping channels open with the United States and EU. Syrian-Turkish relations can be a model in this respect, for bilateral relations between Damascus
and New Delhi. The Turkish choice, from a Syrian perspective, was brilliant in terms of strategic depth. It was not only a political maneuver, but manifested itself with tangible results, being economic treaties between both countries, and Turkish sponsorship of
indirect talks between Syria and Israel.
This was not, however, at the expense of bilateral relations between Syria and Iran. Syria succeeded in keeping channels open with both Tehran and Ankara, and can do the same in the
international community, with India naturally being a prime option.
Ibrahim Hamidi is the bureau chief for the Londonbased al-Hayat newspaper in Damascus.
The United States, with the support of French President Jacques Chirac, tried to enforce a political isolation of Damascus after the assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister
Rafiq al-Harriri in February 2005. One of the measures taken by the Syrians to combat this was to “head East” and expand Damascus’ foreign alliances.
Back then, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem appeared before the Syrian Parliament and announced that his country was reaching out to Asia, and seeking to strengthen relations
with Latin America and Africa. This coincided with Syrian attempts at learning from the Malaysian and Chinese experience in economic reform and a scheduled trip for President
Bashar al-Assad to attend the Non-Allied States Conference in Havana, Cuba in late 2006, which was canceled at the last minute. This was one year after his first official visit to China and his second trip to Moscow since becoming president in 2000. Assad had already visited Tehran to congratulate President Mahmud Ahmadinejad after his election victory in 2005 and this coincided with jumpstarting Syrian-Turkish relations after a Syrian
presidential visit to Ankara in 2004 and 2007.
Syria was convinced that the world is not limited to the United States, France, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. There is another world out there, a vast world where diplomatic relations are welcomed and not as politically expensive. Internationally
there is Russia, India, and China.
Regionally there is Turkey and Iran, in addition to important world players like Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, and South Africa.
While this strategic shift was taking place, a notable visitor came to Damascus; the Indian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs visited in the Autumn of 2005. This coincided with increased talk in certain American and European circles of “regime change” in Syria. India wanted to show the world, sending a strong message that everybody could hear, that New Delhi wants strong, strategic, and historic relations with Damascus. It wanted to say that India, in addition to providing the Syrians with choice, was opposed to the attempted isolation of Damascus.
Back then, an Indian official accompanying the Minister told me, “Nations are like human beings; they appreciate those who stood by them in times of need. India wants Syria to
remember this courageous initiative.”
India went even further, inviting Foreign Minister Moualem in 2007 and then Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Dardari at the beginning of this year to New Delhi. Again, this was while the United States and certain European countries were conditioning any dialogue with Syria with the election of a president in Lebanon. The two visits by Moualem and Dardari laid the groundwork for President Assad’s visit, which took place on June 18-21, 2008. It was the first for a Syrian leader in over 30-years of bilateral relations; late President Hafez al-Assad had visited India to attend the Non-Allied States Conference in 1983.
It would be wrong, however, to place Assad’s visit within the framework of the astonishing openness of French President Nicolas Sarkozy towards Damascus. Back in late 2007, Sarkozy
had suspended talks with President Assad, saying that they would resume only after a new president was elected in Beirut. He lived up to his promise and after Michel Suleiman was voted into office last May, Sarkozy began a dramatic shift towards Syria. Under Chirac, the policy was isolation, boycott, and pressure on European nations to cease any talk with the Syrians. Now there is talk of opening a new chapter in Franco-Syrian relations; politically, economically, and culturally. This would include an upcoming visit for President Assad to Paris on July 12 and a groundbreaking one by Sarkozy, as head of the EU to Syria in August.
It is interesting to note that Assad’s visit to India came before his trip to France. Syria wanted to show that it is serious on “heading East.” It wants to benefit from India’s economic experience and the political support it is showing Damascus. For its part, India is searching for new markets in the Arab World. Damascus becomes India’s gate for the Middle East, and New Delhi becomes Syria’s gate to the international community. It should be noted that one of the masterminds of this policy is the Indian Ambassador to Syria, Gautam Mukhopadhaya, a seasoned statesman with grand political and diplomatic skills who has a strategic vision for his country’s relations with the Middle East.
The experience of previous years—where Syrian officials betted only on the US and the EU—should not be repeated. Back then, the Syrians used to say that they want a European role
in the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli peace conference, with the purpose of provoking the Americans and getting them to offer concessions to Damascus, and play a greater role in the Middle East peace process. Syrian officials did not have serious bets on Russia, India, and China. The world has changed.
American policies are facing losses in the Middle East. New powers are emerging, and certainly India is one of them. That is why the policy of “heading East” is now a must. It
would be more beneficial, however, if it concentrated on strengthening ties with India, China, and Russia, while keeping channels open with the United States and EU. Syrian-Turkish relations can be a model in this respect, for bilateral relations between Damascus
and New Delhi. The Turkish choice, from a Syrian perspective, was brilliant in terms of strategic depth. It was not only a political maneuver, but manifested itself with tangible results, being economic treaties between both countries, and Turkish sponsorship of
indirect talks between Syria and Israel.
This was not, however, at the expense of bilateral relations between Syria and Iran. Syria succeeded in keeping channels open with both Tehran and Ankara, and can do the same in the
international community, with India naturally being a prime option.
Ibrahim Hamidi is the bureau chief for the Londonbased al-Hayat newspaper in Damascus.
Post new comment