What's next for Syria after Annapolis?

Analysts view the lead up to the conference and the events that took place at the conference as an opening for Syria to improve its relations with the West, particularly the United States, and Arab countries with which it has had recent tensions. Before Annapolis, King Abdullah of Jordan visited Damascus for the first time in four years and President Bashar al Assad received calls from Turkey’s Prime Minister and Saudi Arabian officials. In addition, Syria appeared to be relatively well received at the conference. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack stated Syria’s participation indicates, “they understand that there is another pathway that they can choose to take, a more constructive pathway.”

Syrian officials say they attended Annapolis in good faith, with the belief that peace is the only choice for stability in the region. Syria also succeeded in adding the issues of the Golan Heights and comprehensive peace to the Annapolis agenda. Further, the conference opened windows for potential compromises for the presidency in Lebanon and a follow up international conference hosted by Russia in 2008. Although there is a long road ahead in the peace process, all of these are positive indications that a real dialogue to discuss a real and lasting peace may begin.

Despite the low expectations for the Annapolis Conference, and criticism from Hamas and Iran, the Arab world and the international community should view Annapolis as relatively successful. It’s not every day that all of the parties who were present in Annapolis can be brought together in one place to discuss issues critical to peace in the Middle East. However follow up is vital. If the United States and other powers stop at Annapolis without further action on resolving regional issues, all of the efforts to gather the parties together will have been futile. But what should come next, specifically in regard to Syria?

Although the Palestinian-Israeli track is vital to any lasting solution in the Middle East, the Syrian-Israeli track is equally as important. This track should be further examined and pursued with the United States playing an important role as mediator between the two countries. This is not to say that the United States should be the only intermediary between Syria and Israel, but it must stop advocating the position that it has no role to play in future negotiations between the two countries. A binding agreement between Syria and Israel on the issue of the Golan Heights could yield significant rewards on the Palestinian-Israeli track, specifically because it would put indirect pressure on Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and any other state or party opposed to comprehensive peace in the region.

In addition, with the current instability in the West Bank and Gaza, it is far more likely that the Israelis can achieve a lasting agreement with Syria. In fact, Israeli security officials reportedly agree with the stance that achieving a binding agreement with Syria has a better chance of success than giving concessions to Mahmoud Abbas, who may not be able to give Israel the level of security it desires. The Palestinian track should not be ignored, but could be looked at through the goal of achieving peace between Israel and Syria first.

This raises the question as to whether Syria would pursue peace with Israel without a concurrent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Syria has always been a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and has consistently held the position that it supports comprehensive peace in the region. It may feel that an agreement with Israel alone may put pressure on the Palestinians to make concessions it does not want to make. Yet, more must be done to explore this track. A peace agreement between Syria and Israel would change the entire dynamic of the Middle East and its relationship with Israel because Syria embodies Arab nationalist sentiment and has been the most vocal Arab state against American and Israeli policies in the region. The reported follow up conference being organized by Moscow in early 2008 would be an excellent opportunity to pursue further discussions of this track within the context of comprehensive peace. The Annapolis Conference was a good way for Syria to get its foot in the door for future dialogue and negotiation, and for Washington to ease tensions between the two states. Follow up initiatives will be important and will truly tell how committed interested parties really are for peace.