 |
| Volume XI, Spring 2004, Number 1 |
| |
| ABSTRACT: U.S. Policy Towards Syria and the Triumph of Neoconservativism |
| |
| Stephen Zunes |
| |
Dr. Zunes is a professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as the Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project [www.fpif.org] and is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
The recent passage of the Syria Accountability Act by an overwhelming majority in Congress and the growing anti-Syrian rhetoric by the Bush Administration may signal the bipartisan adoption of the neo-conservative agenda in U.S. Middle East policy. While the Syrian government has engaged in a number of policies that are indeed of serious concern, many of the claims in recent legislation and in administration statements contain gross exaggerations which - following similar exaggerations regarding Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq - serve to undermine U.S. credibility. For example, the Syria Accountability Act, which calls for sanctions against the Damascus regime, includes language regarding Syria's alleged military threat and ties to terrorism that were provided solely by Bush administration officials who had made similar allegations regarding Iraq that are now known to be false.
The legislation also implies a rejection of Syria's offer of strict security guarantees and full diplomatic relations with Israel in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from Syrian territory seized in the 1967 war. The legislation supports the Israeli position of maintaining its control of the occupied Golan Heights.
Perhaps more problematic are the gross double standards employed by both Congress and the administration against the Damascus regime:
• rejecting of Syria's calls for a WMD-free zone for the Middle East in favor of demands for unilateral Syrian disarmament, allowing U.S. allies like Israel and Egypt to maintain their much larger WMD stockpiles while denying Syria a deterrent;
• demanding that Syria unilaterally dismantle its medium-range missiles while supporting U.S. allies like Turkey, Israel and Egypt in their missile programs;
• demanding that Syria honor U.N. Security Council Resolution 520 calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon following years of U.S. support for Israeli defiance of this and similar resolutions;
• insisting that Syria be removed from its non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council for its violations of Security Council resolutions while tolerating the recent inclusion of U.S. allies like Morocco, Turkey and Indonesia on the Security Council, despite their ongoing violations of Security Council resolutions
• exaggerating Syria's support for international terrorism, despite its important cooperation against Al-Qaeda, while maintaining close ties to the Saudi regime in spite of a lack of similar cooperation
Furthermore, the inclusion of language in the Syria Accountability Act alleging that Syria "threatens the national security interests of the United States" and that Syria will be "held accountable" for harm to U.S. forces in Iraq from the anti-occupation resistance forces appears to prepare the groundwork for possible U.S. military action against Syria.
This increased hostility toward the Damascus regime comes in spite of the fact that Syria's military strength, hostility toward Israel, support for international terrorism, and internal repression have actually lessened in the past decade. In addition, despite Syria's longstanding hostility toward its fellow Baathist regime in Iraq, Washington now depicts Syria as a supporter of the former Iraqi dictatorship and its remnants.
Not only do such policies make it more difficult for the United States to effectively pursue legitimate grievances toward the Asad dictatorship, these exaggerations and double standards further institutionalize the assumption that U.S. policy on such important issues as international law, arms control and international terrorism are dependent not on any objective criteria, but on a given government's relations with the United States.
|
| |
|
