The current U.S. administration's refusal to talk to the Syrian government has always struck me as idiotic. How can you influence what happens in a complex region if you don't talk to a major player and potential spoiler. Talk is not the same as appeasement, but the present absolutist administration does not see it that way. In fact, it is their obstinacy that now makes Bashar look like a winner as dignitaries from various countries come knocking. By winner, mind you, I mean in the modern Arab, very low expectations sense of the word: glorious victory is declared when you lose your international pariah status.
I am not quite sure why the U.S. turned against the Syrian regime in the first place. Didn't they, after 9/11, invite the FBI over and provide them with information about all of their troublesome Islamists? Did they not oblige the U.S. by jailing and torturing Maher Arar for a year? The American administration complains about the porous Syria-Iraq border but where the Syrian regime was not supine enough, was in its refusal to cut off support for Hamas and Hizbullah. The independence of Lebanon from the hegemony of Syria also gets a mention, never mind the U.S. seemed oblivious to the sanctity of Lebanon when it was invaded by Israel last summer.
All of this makes me very skeptical of any American government's intentions towards Syria . Many who looked to the U.S. to force positive change in Syria were disappointed that Pelosi, during her visit, snubbed human rights activists by barely meeting with them. I am not sure why anyone is surprised. If there is one thing that the last six years have taught us is that the U.S. foreign policy is set to serve the myopic, short term, perceived interests of the United States, period. Once the U.S. gets what it needs from the Syrian government, any talk about human rights, freedom and democracy will cease (just look at Egypt).
The U.S.' re engagement of Syria may result in some positive changes such easing of economic sanctions and getting Syria out of Iran's sphere of influence. The bottom line, however, is that real, transformative change in Syria has to come from within: by Syrians for the good of all Syrians.
2 comments:
I agree with you about the strange way in which some people were surprised or shocked that she "snubbed" human rights activists. It is so silly to presume that American foreign policy is based on human rights.
'The bottom line, however, is that real, transformative change in Syria has to come from within: by Syrians for the good of all Syrians'.
How absolutely true... The US has no interest in seeing a democratic sociaty in Syria.. nor has anybody else, other than the Syrian people.. The US has no interest in human rights for the Syrian people.. Those who pin their hopes for change for the better on outside forces are so, so mistaken.. Those who were surprised by Pelosi's oblivious stance towards the plight of the Syrian 'Prisoners of Conscience' are either blind or have a very short and very selective memory..
Post a Comment