Bashar's Syria: The Regime and its Strategic Worldview Shmuel Bar ...

Bashar's Syria: The Regime and its Strategic Worldview Shmuel Bar ... Bashar's Syria: The Regime and its Strategic Worldview Shmuel Bar ...

herzliyaconference.org
from herzliyaconference.org More from this publisher
10.07.2015 Views

Bashar’s Syria 407moderated by Hafez al-Asad (May 1994) in statements that the Palestinianswere“responsible for their problem” and that once they had reached an agreement withIsrael, the Arabs could follow suit. 126 The bilateral Syrian–Israeli layer: Syria has an interest in keeping channels of communicationwith Israel open in order to preclude miscalculations that would result in amilitary confrontation. This pragmatic layer was activated a number of times throughsending of messages via conduits accepted by bothsides, such as King Hussein ofJordan and U.S. diplomats. The national interest layer: The ideology noted above has a clear instrumental benefitfor Syria. By preventing independent policies on the part of the Palestinians, Syriawishes to preclude a separate Israeli–Palestinian peace which would leave it alonewith the issue of the Golan Heights. The regional layer: Maintaining the conflict with Israel serves Syria’s regional status.The conflict with Israel was also a key element in Hafez al-Asad’s bid for regionalleadership: for the Syrians and many Arabs, he had not “capitulated,” as did Sadat,Hussein, and Arafat. The taunt that seemed most offensive to Asad’s self-imagewas that heard in Lebanon: “Asad fi lubnan—Arnab fil-Joulan (A lion (Asad) inLebanon—a bunny rabbit in the Golan). The domestic layer: The ongoing conflict with Israel is cited by the regime as justificationfor emergency laws and violations of human rights. Nevertheless, the conflictwith Israel is almost imperceptible in the internal Syrian political debate. Whilethere seems to be a consensus in Syria regarding the country’s “national right” tothe Golan Heights, there is little appetite for open conflict with Israel or acceptanceof the regime’s use of the conflict as legitimization for the sorry state of domesticaffairs.In past years, it was conventional wisdom in the Middle East that there could be noIsraeli–Arab war without Egypt and no Israeli–Arab peace without Syria. 127 This assumptioncracked in the wake of the Israeli–Egyptian peace (1979) and was modified. It remainedtrue, though, that Syria alone could not pose a credible military threat to Israel. For sometime, it maintained its ability to prevent a stable and comprehensive peace with additionalArab parties—mainly Jordan, the Palestinians, and Lebanon. Syria’s power to prevent suchprogress was tested and proven after Damascus succeeded in foiling the Israeli–Lebanesepeace treaty of 1983, in modifying the Saudi peace plan which became the Arab Peace plan(Fez, 1983) to conform with its goals, and in restraining various Jordanian peace overturesduring the 1980s.The assumption that there could be no comprehensive Israeli–Arab peace withoutSyria’s acquiescence was sorely challenged again following the Oslo Accords, and bythe subsequent Israeli–Jordanian peace treaty and development of relations between Israeland many Arab countries. The death of Yasser Arafat (2004), the prospects for a renewedIsraeli–Palestinian negotiation process, and the further decline of the Arab collective allreduced Syria’s influence over the peace process. The Syrian presence in Lebanon andtotal control over the foreign policy of the government in Beirut nevertheless guaranteedthat the Syrian–Lebanese track in the peace process would remain combined and thatSyria maintained the capability to escalate tensions and hinder the Israeli–Palestinian track.The loss of Lebanon (2005) reduced Syria’s control over the Lebanese “card.” WithoutSyrian backing, Hezbollah has been compelled to address internal Lebanese demands fordemilitarization of the organization, and in any case will find it more difficult to maintaina policy of controlled tension with Israel.

408 S. BarBashar is well aware that willingness to re-engage in the peace process with Israel ispotentially his most favorable card. According to senior Israeli and American officials whowere involved in previous Israeli–Syrian negotiations, Bashar is indeed willing to work“from the point at which they stopped, according to the Madrid Conference framework andaccording to the Security Council resolutions.” 128 The debate remains over his ability tocompromise on the main bones of contention: the international versus the 1967 borders 129and the extent of “normal” relations between the two countries. 130 All the present signsindicate that Bashar is not willing or able to be flexible on the former issue, on which he istotally committed to the legacy of his father. Asad held a “deposit” that he extracted fromIsraeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin regarding total Israeli withdrawal from the Golan inreturn for comprehensive peace. This position was also the basis for the Syrian negotiationswith Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and later with his successor, Ehud Barak. 131 Itappears that this is Bashar’s true position and not, as is frequently claimed, because the oldguard will not countenance any concessions in this regard. As pointed out above, this oldguard has faded away since Bashar came to power.Lebanon. Lebanon is arguably the most important single strategic issue on the Syrianagenda. Syria’s basic interests in Lebanon include: Ideological factors. Syrian Ba’th doctrine views Lebanon as a part of Syria that wasartificially torn away from it by Western colonialism. Consequently, Syria neverrecognized Lebanon as a legitimate sovereign state and never held an embassy inBeirut. Military interests. These include: (1) preventing Lebanon from being used as a platformfor (Israeli) military intervention in Syria (by avoiding the Golan Heights andinvading Syria via the Baqa’a valley); (2) preventing Lebanon from concluding aseparate peace treaty with Israel, which would leave Syria alone without any reallevers to induce Israel to enter negotiations with it; (3) using Lebanon as a havenfor terrorist organizations that Syria would have found inconvenient to host in herown territory (Japanese Red Army, PKK, and ANO in the past; the Islamic Jihadapparatus of Hezbollah (Imad Moghniyya) and Islamist elements linked to al Qaedatoday); (4) using Hezbollah to threaten and annoy Israel.• Economic interests. Both Syria as a state and various branches of the nomenklaturaprofited from the Syrian control over Lebanon. One estimate is that Syria siphonedoff at least ten billion dollars (US) a year from Lebanon, 132 equivalent to 47 percentof Syria’s gross domestic product. Even more significant is the lucrative drug trade,in which the Syrian army was deeply involved; the Bekaa valley is reputed to be thesource of more than half of all marijuana and hashish seized in Western Europe,and the heroin trade reportedly is worth around US$1.4 billion per annum. Itis estimated that much of this was funneled to “bosses” in the Syrian forces inLebanon. Even assuming that this sum is grossly exaggerated, there is no doubtthat Lebanon has enormous economic importance for Syria. Lebanon is also asource of employment for over a million Syrian manual laborers who send theirremittances home to Syria. The loss of this option would have devastating effectson Syrian employment levels.• Regional interests The Arab world’s acceptance of Syria’s special status inLebanon (the Taif Accord) was one of Syria’s greatest strategic achievements.• Domestic considerations. The Lebanese political arena has served in many waysas a proxy theater for Syrian policy. This was self-evident in the case of Syria’s

408 S. <strong>Bar</strong>Bashar is well aware that willingness to re-engage in the peace process with Israel ispotentially his most favorable card. According to senior Israeli <strong>and</strong> American officials whowere involved in previous Israeli–<strong>Syria</strong>n negotiations, Bashar is indeed willing to work“from the point at which they stopped, according to the Madrid Conference framework <strong>and</strong>according to the Security Council resolutions.” 128 <strong>The</strong> debate remains over his ability tocompromise on the main bones of contention: the international versus the 1967 borders 129<strong>and</strong> the extent of “normal” relations between the two countries. 130 All the present signsindicate that Bashar is not willing or able to be flexible on the former issue, on which he istotally committed to the legacy of his father. Asad held a “deposit” that he extracted fromIsraeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin regarding total Israeli withdrawal from the Golan inreturn for comprehensive peace. This position was also the basis for the <strong>Syria</strong>n negotiationswith Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu <strong>and</strong> later with his successor, Ehud <strong>Bar</strong>ak. 131 Itappears that this is Bashar’s true position <strong>and</strong> not, as is frequently claimed, because the oldguard will not countenance any concessions in this regard. As pointed out above, this oldguard has faded away since Bashar came to power.Lebanon. Lebanon is arguably the most important single strategic issue on the <strong>Syria</strong>nagenda. <strong>Syria</strong>’s basic interests in Lebanon include: Ideological factors. <strong>Syria</strong>n Ba’th doctrine views Lebanon as a part of <strong>Syria</strong> that wasartificially torn away from it by Western colonialism. Consequently, <strong>Syria</strong> neverrecognized Lebanon as a legitimate sovereign state <strong>and</strong> never held an embassy inBeirut. Military interests. <strong>The</strong>se include: (1) preventing Lebanon from being used as a platformfor (Israeli) military intervention in <strong>Syria</strong> (by avoiding the Golan Heights <strong>and</strong>invading <strong>Syria</strong> via the Baqa’a valley); (2) preventing Lebanon from concluding aseparate peace treaty with Israel, which would leave <strong>Syria</strong> alone without any reallevers to induce Israel to enter negotiations with it; (3) using Lebanon as a havenfor terrorist organizations that <strong>Syria</strong> would have found inconvenient to host in herown territory (Japanese Red Army, PKK, <strong>and</strong> ANO in the past; the Islamic Jihadapparatus of Hezbollah (Imad Moghniyya) <strong>and</strong> Islamist elements linked to al Qaedatoday); (4) using Hezbollah to threaten <strong>and</strong> annoy Israel.• Economic interests. Both <strong>Syria</strong> as a state <strong>and</strong> various branches of the nomenklaturaprofited from the <strong>Syria</strong>n control over Lebanon. One estimate is that <strong>Syria</strong> siphonedoff at least ten billion dollars (US) a year from Lebanon, 132 equivalent to 47 percentof <strong>Syria</strong>’s gross domestic product. Even more significant is the lucrative drug trade,in which the <strong>Syria</strong>n army was deeply involved; the Bekaa valley is reputed to be thesource of more than half of all marijuana <strong>and</strong> hashish seized in Western Europe,<strong>and</strong> the heroin trade reportedly is worth around US$1.4 billion per annum. Itis estimated that much of this was funneled to “bosses” in the <strong>Syria</strong>n forces inLebanon. Even assuming that this sum is grossly exaggerated, there is no doubtthat Lebanon has enormous economic importance for <strong>Syria</strong>. Lebanon is also asource of employment for over a million <strong>Syria</strong>n manual laborers who send theirremittances home to <strong>Syria</strong>. <strong>The</strong> loss of this option would have devastating effectson <strong>Syria</strong>n employment levels.• Regional interests <strong>The</strong> Arab world’s acceptance of <strong>Syria</strong>’s special status inLebanon (the Taif Accord) was one of <strong>Syria</strong>’s greatest strategic achievements.• Domestic considerations. <strong>The</strong> Lebanese political arena has served in many waysas a proxy theater for <strong>Syria</strong>n policy. This was self-evident in the case of <strong>Syria</strong>’s

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!