In Washington’s Good Books?

An unexpected U-turn in United States-Syrian relations in recent weeks has left observers puzzled. Shortly after the US- led efforts at the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution expressing opposition to ongoing Syrian presence in Lebanon and threatening sanctions, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, William Burns, visited Damascus for talks with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and senior officials.

Burns' visit has apparently led to a breakthrough in the political impasse that has poisoned US-Syrian relations. According to US sources, the most noticeable change occurred in regards to the much pressed US demand that Syria must control its border with Iraq and prevent the infiltration of suspected fighters opposed to the US occupation of the war-torn Arab country. A US security delegation headed for Damascus to sign an agreement on the joint US-Syrian patrolling of the Iraq-Syria border. The Syrian government also reportedly agreed to restrict the activities of radical Damascus-based Palestinian groups, namely Hamas and Jihad.

A few days later, US Secretary of State Colin Powell held an unexpected meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Farouk Al-Sharaa, as both attended the annual UN General Assembly meetings in New York. The meeting reportedly angered France, which co-sponsored the resolution calling upon Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, as it seemed to send the wrong message to Damascus on the seriousness of the resolution. But making France angry has been a great pleasure for the Bush administration, as they would never forget the strong opposition Paris expressed to Iraq's invasion and occupation. The meetings held between American and Syrian officials have apparently fuelled speculations among Washington-based diplomats that the Bush administration was simply using the Lebanon issue to press Damascus for more important concessions on Iraq and the presence of radical Palestinian groups.

And when Israel carried out a daring attack in the heart of Damascus last week, killing a leading Hamas activist, the Syrian response was rather timid and limited to the usual rhetoric of condemnation and promise of a "proper response at the right time". Syrian officials, traditionally more than willing to blame Israel for all of the world's ills, delayed issuing a statement on the attack for hours, and even tried to point the blame at neighbouring Jordan. Only after Israeli officials implicitly acknowledged they were behind the attack, Syrian officials issued a short statement blaming the obvious suspect: Israel.

A senior US administration official who spoke to Al-Ahram Weekly acknowledged there has been a shift in relations with Syria, but stressed that this was only a start and that Damascus was still expected to prove several pledges it made in recent meetings with US officials.

"Certainly the dialogue between the US and Syria is a more serious dialogue than we've had in quite a while," said the official who could not be identified according to White House customary rules. "Yet, so far, it's just a dialogue. What we need to see is whether the Syrians will actually do some of the things they said they will do."

The US official, while noting that Israel has not officially claimed responsibility for the recent assassination of the Hamas activist in Damascus, agreed with his counterparts in Tel Aviv that it was, in a sense, justified. "The [US] president has spoken about the general problem of people harbouring terrorists, and he said back in the days after September 11, that if you harbour a terrorist, you are supporting terrorism," the official said. "Syria is not even just harbouring terrorists, it is helping and facilitating the movement of guns and money through Syria and through Lebanon to commit acts of terrorism. We hear sometimes that the Palestinian groups in Damascus are just for press conferences. It's not true. They're operationally involved in acts of terror. It's very hard to see how anybody can support terrorism this way, and believe that he would be immune from being struck by the victims of terrorism," he added.

US officials who recently met with Syrian counterparts "have made this argument to the Syrians. We said many times, you are asking for trouble here. You are harbouring and helping people engaged in acts of terrorism. Don't do it, it's not in Syria's interest," the senior administration official said.

Asked directly whether the Bush administration was optimistic on the future of relations with Syria, the senior official provided a candid answer, and acknowledged that the real test would come up after the 2 November presidential elections. "I wouldn't say I'm optimistic. I would say that we have had a serious discussion with Syria. They have laid out their position; we've laid out our position. There's work to do here between the US and Syria. Secretary Powell said he had a good meeting with Foreign Minister Sharaa. I would say the next couple of months, though, would tell. One theory frankly is the Syrians are waiting to see the results of presidential elections, and then they'll implement the pledges that they've made to Secretary Powell and to Assistant Secretary Burns. I think we'll know over the next few months, whether it is just talk or whether there will be a change in Syria."

However, the buzz in Washington is that Syria was not the only Arab country that has recently been sending positive signals to the Bush administration in case it got re-elected on 2 November.

Syria has always topped the list of countries liable to suffer a punitive US strike in the calculations of the so-called "neo- conservatives" whose influence on President Bush has greatly increased following the 11 September attacks. Iran is also seen a major target. But in light of the ongoing quagmire in Iraq and the obvious lack of a sufficient number of US troops for any new military adventures, the neo-cons seem to have put Tehran on a back burner, counting more on fuelling internal opposition to its hardline rulers.

"It is obvious that Syria has taken seriously the latest resolution on Lebanon, and is preparing itself for a possible second term of George W Bush" said one Washington-based Arab diplomat. "And it is not alone in this respect." The diplomat pointed out that several key Arab governments, namely Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, have recently opted to offer help to the Bush administration in case he got re- elected.

At a time his Democratic opponent, Senator John Kerry, has been building part of his campaign on the fact that Bush's policy led to America's isolation on the world level, any assistance to the present administration to negate that charge would be highly valued. Egypt has agreed to host an international conference on Iraq sometime in late November, while Morocco declared that it would convene a forum on spreading democracy in the Arab world as part of a wider Bush initiative, and Saudi Arabia called for an anti-terrorism meeting in Riyadh. US officials, including Secretary Powell, had originally pressed Cairo and Amman to hold the meeting on Iraq in mid-October, clearly seeking a photo-opportunity with world leaders or senior officials surrounding US officials and backing its future plans for Iraq. But the deadline was too tight, particularly in light of the fact that another meeting on cancelling Iraq's debts was already scheduled to take place in Japan in mid-October. US officials also did not push hard for the conference after France stated that any such gathering should discuss a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from the occupied Arab country. In case President Bush won a second term, a late November meeting on Iraq would indeed offer a chance for Washington to dictate its terms to other countries.

The senior administration official who spoke to the Weekly said one thing he was certain of was that "there will be a conference in Sharm El-Sheikh. It is something that the Iraqi government wants."