Damascene Conversions: The Engagement of Syria

Joshua Landis has a complementary (and complimentary) perspective on Tisdall's analysis on Syria Comment.

Simon Tisdall, writing in The Guardian of London on Monday, offered a valuable analysis of the recent dynamics surrounding US-Syrian relations and events in the Middle East. Tisdall noted (rightly, in my opinion) the "realist" outlook of Obama and Co. and suggested that "improved US relations with Syria could hold the key" three vital issues: avoidance of military confrontation with Iran, management of the Iraq withdrawal, "and some kind of half-credible peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbours". He supported this reading with the signals of engagement: Syrian President Bashir al-Assad's interviews welcoming a US "re-entry" into the Middle East peace process, Senator John Kerry's visit to Damascus last week, and conciliatory words from Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.

What can and should be added to Tisdall's analysis are the recent events that have not only promoted this engagement but strengthened Syria's position in negotiations. In December 2008, the foundations for direct Israel-Syria talks had been laid but the wider context for the diplomacy was still the call for Damascus to end its support of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas and to limit, if not cut, its ties with Iran.

Then the Olmert Government decided to gamble with the invasion of Gaza. The direct talks with Syria were suspended of course, alienating Turkey in the process, as Tel Aviv effectively hand-in-hand with Egypt and probably Saudi Arabia on the challenge to Hamas.

The significance was not only that this challenge failed but that it spurred a re-alignment which put Syria in the Middle Eastern ascendancy. By giving vocal and visible support to Hamas, Assad set himself up as the defender of Arab resistance to Israeli aggression, a position buttressed by the damage to Egypt's reputation. With Turkey and Iran recognising that position, as they quickly sent representatives to Damascus, and with platforms such as the Qatar Summit, the Syrians could look to a reconfigured diplomatic scene in the aftermath of Gaza.

Few have noted, for example, that there is no more talk of bringing Syrian leaders to account for the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005. It is also notable that no one, especially the US, is making a fuss about the alleged Syrian nuclear facility destroyed by Israel in October 2007, even though an International Atomic Energy Agency report last week pointed to the presence of uranium.

Instead, renewed Israeli-Syrian talks are being pursued so vigorously that Uzi Mahnaimi, who should be considered more a conduit for the Israeli military and intelligence services than a journalist for The Sunday Times, is writing: "Reports compiled by Mossad, the overseas spy agency, and by military intelligence, that strongly advocate opening negotiations with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria."

Which brings us back to the wider of the Damascene conversion of Gaza into a re-aligned position not only on its direct relations with Tel Aviv but on relations with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Tehran. Tisdall sees a trade-off: a new Israeli Government will have to engage in meaningful talks with Syria to maintain its isolation of Hamas: "If, as seems likely, [Benjamin Netanyahu] obstructs the Palestinian track, the Likud leader may have to give ground elsewhere, literally."

That might have been possible up to December, but no longer. Syria now has the cards for its territorial aims vis-a-vis Israel but for an inclusion of Hamas in the discussions on Palestine. The attempt to curb Hezbollah through talks with Damascus, which always was a curious exercise mssing the complexities of Lebanese politics and society, will now be kicked into touch. And the breaking of a supposed Syria-Iran axis is now less likelu than a dynamic in which engagement with both Damascus and Tehran takes place.

In 2003, chatter in Washington was "Baghdad, Then Turn Left". That thought of rolliing regime change can now be consigned to the dustbin of George W. Bush's history. It's envoys, not tanks, that are the talismen of this New Middle East Order.

One to Watch: Secret Talks in Afghanistan with the Taliban

Amidst the attention to the possible US military "surge" in Afghanistan, we've been keeping a close eye on an alternative strategy, namely, talks with "moderate Taliban". High-ranking officials in Pakistan have long favoured such a strategy, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been vocal recently in advocating such discussions.

The twist in the excellent article below by Kim Sengupta of The Independent is the detail of Saudi Arabia, notably the head of Saudi intelligence Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (pictured), in setting up these secret negotiations. Conversely, there is little sign of Pakistani involvement, probably of the great pressure from Washington for Islamabad to show a tough line against the Taliban as well as its own insurgents.

Secret talks with Taliban gather pace as surge looms: Saudis warn Washington that offensive may hinder talks with militant group
By Kim Sengupta

Secret talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, brokered by a Saudi royal who heads the country's intelligence service, are gathering pace before the US-led military surge in Afghanistan.

Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is said to have been greatly encouraged by meetings he had held with both sides on recent visits to Afghanistan and Pakistan, paving the way for a fresh round of negotiations, The Independent has learnt.

The militant groups have appointed a former member of the Taliban regime as their envoy because of his good relations in the past with the Saudi government. He is Aghajan Mutasim, a minister under the ousted Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who is believed to have held detailed discussions with Saudi officials and also to have visited the kingdom during Ramadan.

The Afghan President Hamid Karzai, uncertain of US support in the forthcoming national elections, is said to be prepared for direct dialogue with the insurgent leadership. Officials close to him claim there is also growing concern that the US military offensive, with its prospect of a rising toll of civilian casualties, would hinder prospect of a peace deal.

Abdul Hakim Mujahid, a former Taliban envoy in New York at the time of 9/11, was invited by Mr Karzai to return to Afghanistan and help organise the reconciliation process. In 2001 he conveyed the Bush administration's demands to Mullah Omar, that Osama bin Laden should be handed over. He was among those, including Mr Karzai's older brother Qayum, who took part in a meeting with representatives of the insurgents organised in Mecca last September by the Saudi King Abdullah.

Mr Mujahid said: "Prince Muqrin is an influential man and so his involvement in the negotiation process is very important. The talks he held here in Kabul were at the top level and the armed opposition groups on the other side also respect him. The appointment of Aghajan Mutasim by the resistance is also important because he had very good relations with the Saudis and also because it shows that some of the armed resistance is taking this seriously.

"The Saudi government is doing its best to get peace talks going but there may be big problems if the Americans carry out this big offensive in the wrong way. That kind of action will lead to anger and help those in the Taliban who do not believe in any kind of negotiations. So it is important that we start doing things before this offensive starts and the international community should try to persuade the US that there should be less military action and not more."

Mr Karzai has repeatedly complained that Afghan civilians have been wounded and killed in Nato air strikes. He recently sent a document to Nato outlining new "rules of engagement" which Nato officials say are "totally impractical" as they would directly interfere with the mandate for foreign forces in the country.

Diplomatic sources say Mr Karzai's recent pronouncements on welcoming back insurgents into the fold show his need to show he is a nationalist standing up to the West. He told the Afghan parliament last week: "Once again I call on all oppositions to return home without any fear, save the life of children and help rebuild their country."

Facing each other: The negotiators

Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Given the post of the head of Saudi intelligence service with the task of combating jihadist groups which had declared war on the kingdom. He played a part in establishing a reconciliation process under which a number of Saudis arrested on terrorism charges were rehabilitated. He also knew Osama bin Laden well and encouraged him to join the jihad against the Russians in
Afghanistan where the Yemeni-born Saudi set up al-Qa'ida. Although the Saudi government fell out with Bin Laden it has maintained contacts with militants and Prince Muqrin is said to have used these links to try to broker peace with the Afghan government.

Aghajan Mutasim

Became finance minister under the Taliban and, in that capacity, had extensive dealings with the Saudis who were bankrolling the Islamist regime. After the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and the battle of Tora Bora which saw Osama bin Laden and leading Taliban leaders escape to Pakistan, Mr Mutasim issued a statement saying: "We want to tell the people that the Taliban system is no more. They should not give donations in the name of the Taliban." Since then he had been living in Pakistan keeping a low profile before emerging recently as a key negotiator in the recent talks organised by the Saudis with whom he had maintained contacts through the years.

Mr. Obama's World: Alerts in US Foreign Policy (12 February)

Related Post: Binyam Mohamed - Guantanamo Torture Evidence Hidden from Obama
Related Post: Iran’s Presidential Election - What Difference Does Khatami Make?
Related Post: Obama v. The Military (Part 39): The Latest on the Afghanistan “Surge”



9:30 p.m. A relatively quiet foreign policy day, as domestic politics --- notably Republican Judd Gregg's withdrawal from his nomination as Commerce Secretary because of "irreconcilable policy differences" with President Obama --- occupy Washington.

One emerging story is a lawsuit by three human rights organisations --- Amnesty International USA, New York University's Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, and the Center for Constitutional Rights --- claiming that the Pentagon sought loopholes in the Geneva Conventions to hide "ghost deatinees" and that the Bush Administration delayed the release of Guantanamo Bay detainees to avoid negative publicity. We'll have more on this tomorrow.



4:30 p.m. We're off the clock for awhile on emergency business (dinner and a movie). Back with an Evening Update.

2:20 p.m. Eight Iraqi pilgrims have been killed and 18 wounded by a bomb less than 1/2 mile from the Imam Hussein Mosque in Karbala.

1:40 p.m. A couple of items of note from US envoy Richard Holbrooke's trip to Pakistan. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who met Holbrooke earlier today (see 6:45 a.m.), has issued a co-operative statement: ""There's a change in [US] approach towards Pakistan. They do give importance to the people of Pakistan and their emotions and that's the feeling that I got from today's meeting."

It is now being reported, as we projected in a separate entry, that Holbrooke and Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi will head a joint committee "improving intelligence sharing and strengthen security".

12 noon. Further violence in Iraq today. A car bomb in Mosul has killed four policemen and wounded five. Two senior Sunni politicians have been killed by gunmen in Mosul, and a former army officer has been killed in Khaldiya.

10:15 a.m.Of course, today's statement by Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik, admitting that "some part of the conspiracy" behind December's attacks in Mumbai was planned in Pakistan, has nothing to do whatsoever with the visit of US envoy Richard Holbrooke.

Morning Updates (6:45 a.m. GMT; 1:45 a.m. Washington): Quiet start this morning, after yesterday was dominated by news of bombings and violences in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will name Stephen Bosworth, the Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, as US envoy to North Korea. The move, accompanying yesterday's confirmation that a US delegation will attend the six-party talks in Moscow on North Korea next week, signals the Obama Administration's diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang. It is a far cry from the George W. Bush Administration, which shut down talks with North Korea soon after taking office in 2001.

In Pakistan, US envoy Richard Holbrooke has met former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. No details on the conversation, but it is a signal of a change in American strategy, reaching out to politicians that had not been favoured by the Bush Administration. Sharif was sent into exile by General Pervez Musharraf and only returned to Pakistan with the strong backing of Saudi Arabia. He had been seen by Washington as too sympathetic to "conservative" elements in Pakistan, both religious and political, to be an alternative to President Zardari.

Mr Obama's World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (11 February)

Latest Post: US Engagement with Iran: Transcript of President Ahmadinejad’s Speech
Breaking News: Attacks in Afghanistan

Mr Obama's World Today: Uncertain

Evening Update (8:45 p.m.): The US Government will send a delegation next week to the six-party talks in Moscow on North Korean disarmament.

4:40 p.m. Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy notes the story that almost all media have missed today:  the visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao to Saudi Arabia

4:25 p.m. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry has said that President Obama and Pakistani President Asif Zardari have spoken by phone, ageeing to start addressing problems in the region with a "holistic strategy".

Afternoon Update (3:30 p.m.): A spike in violence from bombings and attacks today. In addition to the deaths in Afghanistan, a provincial minister has been killed by a roadside bomb in northwest Pakistan. Bombs in Iraq have killed at least eight people, while gunmen have slain several others, including a senior engineer and a prominent local football player.

US envoy Richard Holbrooke has visited northwest Pakistan to view a Pakistani military installation. As with his talks with political leaders on Tuesday, Holbrooke would say no more than that he was on a "listening" tour.



11:35 a.m. The Russians really are playing this hand well on Afghanistan. Offering co-operation but also ensuring control and thus oversight of Moscow's interest, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, amidst meetings with a senior US diplomat, that Russian military aircraft could assist with the supply effort.

11:25 a.m. During a trip to Iraq on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, ""We look positively on the slogan that Obama raised in the elections. The world has really changed. If the American administration wants to keep up with the changes, this will be happy news." (cross-posted from US Engagement with Iran thread)

9:30 a.m. A revealing bit of information that did not make it into the morning papers: "A senior American diplomat will hold talks with Russian officials on Tuesday about opening new supply routes across Russian territory to NATO forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. embassy said."

The news indicates how serious the supply situation for Afghanistan has become, with the closure of the Pakistan routes and the threatened shutdown of the US airbase in Kyrgyzstan. And it shows how dependent Washington has become on Moscow's goodwill for a solution, which in turn has shaped the encouragement of President Obama and Vice President Biden for closer co-operation with the Russians.

8:45 a.m. Meanwhile in Pakistan.... In another sign that the Obama Administration is reviewing its options carefully before making any strategic decisions, envoy Richard Holbrooke limited his comments after meetings with Pakistani officials to, "[I was here] to listen and learn the ground realities of this critically important country".

In contrast, the priority of President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani was clear: Give Us Money. Their recogition of "the importance of enhanced cooperation in defense and intelligence sharing" was followed by a request to Washington to "expedite" billions of dollars in aid.

7:55 a.m. The New York Times also has a shrewd reading of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's criticism of Vice President Joe Biden,  which we noted yesterday. Al-Maliki's response to Biden's complaints about the lack of Iraqi political and economic reform were offered during a visit to Baghdad by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The French, as all 2003 critics of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" will recall, have had extensive economic interests in Iraq. Al-Maliki's comments, however, are not just a reach-out for investment for Paris; they signal Iraq's wish to move away from perceived political dependence on, even subservience to, Washington.

7:35 a.m. On the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's trip to Asia, an interesting insight into Administration strategy on China in The New York Times.

"Senior Administration officials", probably from the State Department, tell the Times, "The Obama administration plans to realign the United States’ relationship with China by putting more emphasis on climate change, energy and human rights, widening the focus beyond the economic concerns of the Bush years." By going for environmental issues rather than risking economic confrontation, the US can then seek leverage on political concerns: "A broader relationship with the Chinese could create opportunities for collaboration — not only on a response to the global economic crisis, but also on the environment and on security issues like the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs."

You may have noticed, however, the troublesome phrase in the spin. "Human rights"? Is Washington really going to press issues such as Chinese control of Tibet and jailing of dissidents?

The balancing act was demonstrated on Tuesday when State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told CNN, ""We are disturbed that prominent Chinese human rights activist Huang Qi remains in detention. We call on the Chinese government to release Mr. Huang as soon as possible."

7 a.m. Repeating the latest in the battle within the Obama Administration over Afghanistan strategy. Countering President Obama's attempt to take more time through an inter-agency review, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has declared, ""I think that there is a realization that some decisions have to be made ... before the strategic review is completed. [Obama] has several options in front of him."

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, joined in the pressure on Obama. US military commanders "had this request out for many months and those working through the request recognize that the sooner the better with respect to this. I'm hopeful that we can get them there as soon as absolutely possible, but, again, that's a decision for the president of the United States, not for me."

Meanwhile, the US and Canada kept up the pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Mullen said in Ottawa on Tuesday, "As we look at the challenges that we have in 2009-2010 ... I think the lack of governance tied to the corruption that exists (in Afghanistan), is going to be the number one challenge that we have."

Morning Update (6:45 a.m. GMT; 1:45 a.m. Washington): Another day focused on the economy. President Obama's economic stimulus package moves from the Senate, where it passed yesterday, to the House of Representatives.

"A senior US official" has told CNN that American satellite photography shows possible preparations for a North Korean missile launch. Telemetry equipment is being assembled at the launch site, although there is no sign yet of a missile being moved. The last launch from the location, in 2006, was of a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, which flew for 40 seconds before crashing.

The US Government's reaction has been measured, focusing on diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said on Tuesday:

Well, since the first time that they launched the missile, it flew for a few minutes before crashing, the range of the Taepodong-2 remains to be seen. So far, it's very short. I'm not going to get into intelligence reports, but it would be nice if North Korea would focus on getting positive messages across to the -- to its negotiating partners about verification and moving forward with the denuclearization.

Obama Outsourcing Torture?

"An invaluable tool, (the CIA) said, is the practice in which U.S. agencies transfer individuals arrested in one country to another allied country that is able to extract information from them and relay it to the United States.”

Washington Post, 1 Nov. 2002

In their haste to fall over themselves in praising the Obama administration’s decision to close Guantanamo and CIA secret prisons, much of the media forgot to ask if that also applied to rendition. Rendition, a practice that began not with the now departed Bush administration but with its Democratic predecessor, involved the transferring of terrorism suspects from American control to the custody of American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. And how do these countries “extract information” from suspects. Here’s an account from the Washington Post of some of the methods employed by Jordan’s General Intelligence Department:

Former prisoners have reported that their captors were expert in two practices in particular: falaqa, or beating suspects on the soles of their feet with a truncheon and then, often, forcing them to walk barefoot and bloodied across a salt-covered floor; and farruj, or the "grilled chicken," in which prisoners are handcuffed behind their legs, hung upside down by a rod placed behind their knees, and beaten

We now have the apparent answer about rendition. The LA Times reported yesterday that it will continue as will the CIA’s power to kidnap people off the streets in foreign countries as it has done in widely publicized cases in Europe. The difference, according to one anonymous Obama official, is that “if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."  The Obama administration should be asked as soon as possible whether torture is within these “parameters.” If it is it is further evidence that the main difference between the Obama version of the war on terror and that of his predecessor is in the way that it is sold to the public.