New US approach to Syria and Iran to impact all Middle East
The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has announced that American officials will join a meeting sponsored by the government of Baghdad to which its six “neighbouring countries” have been invited, including Iran and Syria, as well as the permanent members of the Security Council. Rice made her announcement during a hearing of the US Senate committee on foreign affairs. “We support the new diplomatic offensive of Iraq,” she said. “We hope that all governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.” The opportunity to involve Syria and Iran in stabilizing the Middle East was supported by the report of the bipartisan commission on Iraq led by the ex-Secretary of State James Baker and by Lee Hamilton. The report was presented in December and rejected by President Bush.
Tel Aviv (AsiaNews) – The announcement, on Tuesday, that the United States will participate in at least two sets of talks - in March and April, respectively - that will include Syria and Iran, represents a radical, and welcome, shift in U.S. policy for the Middle East. These specific meetings are to focus on stabilising the situation in Iraq, but in deciding to have any negotiations at all with Syria and Iran, or even just with Syria, the United States is embarking on an entirely new course of action, with potentially far-reaching beneficial implications for other matters, and other parts of the region - indeed for the region as a whole.
So far U.S. policy-makers appear to have considered talks of this kind as a reward, which should not be given to countries that are hostile to the United States, to its interests, its friends and its policies - rather than as a vehicle, an instrument, an opportunity, for turning back that hostility, and for working out solutions to the conflicts, in which such hostility has found expression.
There is no doubt that both Syria and Iran "have not behaved well," for a number of years, and not only in the matter of Iraq. Yet, proponents of talking to them, and with them - rather than simply denouncing, condemning and warning them - have argued that, in the absence of some magic wand that could be waved to change their attitudes and behaviours, and lacking any credible "military option" for this purpose, engaging in direct talks, in negotiations, is the only potentially useful response to such challenging conduct. These arguments appear now to have been heard - and accepted.
It now seems quite possible that this profound policy change - more than a policy change, a true "paradigm shift" - will extend also to the situation on Syria's south-western borders, to the situation between Syria and Israel, which in turn impacts on the complex relationship between Syria and Lebanon. Until today, Israel's Prime Minister reported that Washington forbade any thought by Israel of peace negotiations with Syria. Those Israeli Ministers and military leaders who were in favour of responding to Syria's repeated invitations to hold peace negotiations, have been repeatedly told by the Prime Minister's office that the United States opposed even discreet preliminary contacts. And that there were reasons of principle for that position, namely Syria's continued interference in Lebanese affairs, the presence in Syria of extremist organisations, Syria's unwillingness to secure its borders with Iraq... Only if Syria considerably changed its behaviiour, and became peaceful and cooperative, it was said, could it be thought of as an acceptable partner in negotiations of any kind.
Now this principle will no longer apply. Instead, a different approach has been adopted, namely that, precisely because there are problems, conflicts, complaints, it is necessary to meet, to talk, to negotiate. Because anything and even everything can be resolved by negotiating, while nothing can be resolved by not negotiating.
This does not mean that the United States or Israel should plan to give up their justified positions, or even lower their expectations for peace, security and stability. It does mean that the best way (perhaps the only way) to achieve what needs to be achieved, for the security of Israel, for the stability of Lebanon - no less than for the stability of Iraq - is the way of negotiations. After all, as is often repeated in pro-negotiations circles in Israel, it is with enemies that peace needs to be negotiated (!) and precisely because they now behave as enemies - otherwise there would be no need to do anything at all.
It is far too early to know how the talks about Iraq will go, exactly what and who will be involved, etc. And it is certainly impossible to foresee exactly how, or when, this policy shift will be applied in pursuit of peace between Syria and Israel, or to the ongoing difficulties between Syria and Lebanon. It is undeniable though that something very meaningful has already happened, and that negotiations that only yesterday morning still seemed impossible, can now happen. And if they can, it is allowed to hope realistically that they will.
.png)
