Monday
Jul272009
UPDATED Mitchell in Syria: Obama's Big Push in the Middle East?
Monday, July 27, 2009 at 23:59
Non-Story of the Day: Israel, Iran, and “All Options on the Table”
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
UPDATE (28 July, 0800 GMT): Well, it looks like the Obama Administration is more than serious about getting Syria to the negotiating table. Hours after we posted Josh Landis' caution that Damascus resented continued US sanctions, a White House spokesman said, " "Mitchell explained to President Assad that the U.S. would process all eligible applications for export licenses to Syria as quickly as possible", especially "those requests to export products related to information technology and telecommunication equipment and parts and components related to the safety of civil aviation."
However, there still remains a very big obstacle to resolution of the economic issues. The spokesman added that "there has been no change" to the general sanctions legislation against Syria, imposed in 2003: "Changes to U.S. sanctions would require close coordination and consultation with Congress."
---
The BBC breathlessly proclaimed this morning that, with President Obama's envoy George Mitchell visiting Syria, Egypt, and Israel and with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Tel Aviv today, this was the Obama Administration's "big push" for a Middle Eastern settlement. A moment's reflection before such a dramatic statement might have been in order: Mitchell's two previous tours of the region have been "big pushes", there was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "big push" in the spring, and of course there was the high-profile Obama speech in Cairo. All those big pushes have brought little movement so far.
Josh Landis, evaluating the first leg of Mitchell's tour in Damascus yesterday, gives further food for thought:
George Mitchell did not say what the United States expected from Syria, especially on Hamas, as he left his meeting with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. Mitchell said, after the meeting, that restarting talks between Syria and Israel was a “near-term goal” for Washington. “If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace. We will welcome the full cooperation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in this historic endeavor,” he said to reporters. “I told President Assad that President Obama is determined to facilitate a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace."
Mitchell’s brief is Israeli-Arab peace. The main sticking point in US-Syrian relations at this time,however, is the Iraq intelligence-sharing deal, the details of which seem to be concluded, but which Syria is not implementing. Some analysts suggest that Damascus is dragging its feet out of fear of al-Qaida, which might launch a terror campaign against Syria. I find this argument dubious. Damascus insists on US compliance on concerns it has been raising with Washington for some time. I do not know exactly what these concerns are other than having an ambassador appointed, ending the era of public demonization of Syria, and normalizing relations.
Speaking of normalizing relations, the Airbus export license on which Syria had hung it hopes of reviving Syria Air and launching Pearl Airlines was rejected last month. Because the US refuses to sell new Boeing planes to Syria and has put every impediment in the way of Syria purchasing spare parts to repair its aging fleet, Syria Air is all but grounded. To remedy this embarrassing situation, President Assad has sought to buy European planes, but it turns out that over 10% of these planes are manufactured in the US, permitting the US Treasury Department to refuse permission to the Europeans to sell them to Syria. This means that Obama can effectively close down the Syrian air industry, which he is doing. The embargo on planes and aviation parts is just one aspect of the US-imposed economic sanctions Syria believes Obama should end.
The US clearly has a pack of economic, military, and political cards to play. If, for example, the US demands Syria satisfy US concerns on an entire portfolio, such as intelligence sharing and Iraq, in exchange for normalizing one element of economic relations, such as aviation, Syria will have to hand over much of its foreign policy bag of tricks simply to purchase normal relations with the West. This is undoubtedly not an exchange rate Damascus likes.
Western diplomats are not sympathetic to Syrian complaints that they are being treated unfairly. “Syrians think they are the center of the World,” one non-American Western diplomat complained to me in June. I replied that most Syrian officials I know become indignant when Westerners reminded them that they are bit players on the world stage. They insist that they have “nafis tawiil,” or long breath, meaning that they will refuse deals on terms they consider humiliating or bad even if refusal costs them a heavy price.
To predict how negotiations may turn out is pointless. It is too early to say. We don’t know what sort of deal is shaping up in Damascus or where the stickiest points are. Syrian officials explain that US-Syrian relations have been dormant for eight years and suggest that it is quite natural that only a few months of dialogue cannot break down the great distrust and misunderstanding built up by the Bush years.
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
UPDATE (28 July, 0800 GMT): Well, it looks like the Obama Administration is more than serious about getting Syria to the negotiating table. Hours after we posted Josh Landis' caution that Damascus resented continued US sanctions, a White House spokesman said, " "Mitchell explained to President Assad that the U.S. would process all eligible applications for export licenses to Syria as quickly as possible", especially "those requests to export products related to information technology and telecommunication equipment and parts and components related to the safety of civil aviation."However, there still remains a very big obstacle to resolution of the economic issues. The spokesman added that "there has been no change" to the general sanctions legislation against Syria, imposed in 2003: "Changes to U.S. sanctions would require close coordination and consultation with Congress."
---
The BBC breathlessly proclaimed this morning that, with President Obama's envoy George Mitchell visiting Syria, Egypt, and Israel and with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Tel Aviv today, this was the Obama Administration's "big push" for a Middle Eastern settlement. A moment's reflection before such a dramatic statement might have been in order: Mitchell's two previous tours of the region have been "big pushes", there was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "big push" in the spring, and of course there was the high-profile Obama speech in Cairo. All those big pushes have brought little movement so far.
Josh Landis, evaluating the first leg of Mitchell's tour in Damascus yesterday, gives further food for thought:
First analysis of the Mitchell Meeting
George Mitchell did not say what the United States expected from Syria, especially on Hamas, as he left his meeting with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. Mitchell said, after the meeting, that restarting talks between Syria and Israel was a “near-term goal” for Washington. “If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace. We will welcome the full cooperation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in this historic endeavor,” he said to reporters. “I told President Assad that President Obama is determined to facilitate a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace."
Mitchell’s brief is Israeli-Arab peace. The main sticking point in US-Syrian relations at this time,however, is the Iraq intelligence-sharing deal, the details of which seem to be concluded, but which Syria is not implementing. Some analysts suggest that Damascus is dragging its feet out of fear of al-Qaida, which might launch a terror campaign against Syria. I find this argument dubious. Damascus insists on US compliance on concerns it has been raising with Washington for some time. I do not know exactly what these concerns are other than having an ambassador appointed, ending the era of public demonization of Syria, and normalizing relations.
Speaking of normalizing relations, the Airbus export license on which Syria had hung it hopes of reviving Syria Air and launching Pearl Airlines was rejected last month. Because the US refuses to sell new Boeing planes to Syria and has put every impediment in the way of Syria purchasing spare parts to repair its aging fleet, Syria Air is all but grounded. To remedy this embarrassing situation, President Assad has sought to buy European planes, but it turns out that over 10% of these planes are manufactured in the US, permitting the US Treasury Department to refuse permission to the Europeans to sell them to Syria. This means that Obama can effectively close down the Syrian air industry, which he is doing. The embargo on planes and aviation parts is just one aspect of the US-imposed economic sanctions Syria believes Obama should end.
The US clearly has a pack of economic, military, and political cards to play. If, for example, the US demands Syria satisfy US concerns on an entire portfolio, such as intelligence sharing and Iraq, in exchange for normalizing one element of economic relations, such as aviation, Syria will have to hand over much of its foreign policy bag of tricks simply to purchase normal relations with the West. This is undoubtedly not an exchange rate Damascus likes.
Western diplomats are not sympathetic to Syrian complaints that they are being treated unfairly. “Syrians think they are the center of the World,” one non-American Western diplomat complained to me in June. I replied that most Syrian officials I know become indignant when Westerners reminded them that they are bit players on the world stage. They insist that they have “nafis tawiil,” or long breath, meaning that they will refuse deals on terms they consider humiliating or bad even if refusal costs them a heavy price.
To predict how negotiations may turn out is pointless. It is too early to say. We don’t know what sort of deal is shaping up in Damascus or where the stickiest points are. Syrian officials explain that US-Syrian relations have been dormant for eight years and suggest that it is quite natural that only a few months of dialogue cannot break down the great distrust and misunderstanding built up by the Bush years.
Reader Comments (3)
And then there is AIPAC and AIPAC-driven congressional resolutions on Syria...
Hi Scott
Here's Jillian C York's story about the two sanctions to be lifted:
http://jilliancyork.com/2009/07/27/on-un-sanctioning-syria/
Interesting juggling act going on across the region at the moment - hope the balls all stay in the air :)
Cheers
Jin
Jinjirrie,
Thanks very much for this --- Jillian's perspective is always valuable.
S.