U S - Syria, A Conflictive Relation By: Jo-ana D'Balcazar

Something is not clicking among Syria, U.S. Foreign Policy, and the State Department's Annual report to Congress. The current U.S.-Syria relations present a series of controversies that could lead to an explosive result. The State Department's annual report to Congress includes Syria among the seven states sponsor of terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan). Syria, not only has one of the world's worst human- rights records but also has been on the list sponsoring terrorism since 1979. The controversy is that according to the U.S. State Department, Syria backs Hizbollah with financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid while the U.S. considers Hizbollah a terrorist group.

Ironically, the U.S. maintains only diplomatic ties with Syria. The question is how can the U.S. trust or make a deal with Syria. In the efforts of fighting terrorism, the U.S. set the standard of countries that either you are with the United States, or with the terrorists. The question is whether the U.S. by trying to negotiate with Syria would cause further inconsistency with its own foreign policy of "not dealing with terrorists." Certainly, Syria backed UN Resolution 1441 to disarm Iraq, but later supported Iraqis and considered the U.S.-led efforts as illegal. The U.S. traditional policy response regarding terrorist organizations vary from military force to counter-intelligence to security improvement, while applying diplomacy, international cooperation and economic sanctions in the case of their sponsors. The challenge is for U.S. policy makers to find effective policies and strategies that deal with states which sponsor terrorism, thus keeping a consistent policy.

The lack of understanding or agreeing between the U.S. and Syria about what a terrorist is, could only lead to further problems. Both Israel's policy? Disagreements lead to chaos. For instance during the Cold War, Russia, while being a communist state itself, joined the U.S. to fight communism, by agreeing that China's communism was wrong, but opposing a US's war against Cuba's communism. From the Syrian perspective, Hizbollah is considered as freedom fighters or a national liberation movement, while Israel is seen as a state continue to support terrorists in Israel specifically in Judea and Samaria, known as the West Bank and Gaza. The report indicates that Iran, Iraq, and Syria back terrorist groups.

In other words, the interpretation of working for peace in the Middle East, is also wrong. How can Syria sustain that Hezbollah is working for peace while pursuing a homicide bombing policy? Therefore,
Israel's response to the attacks is a legitimate one to defend itself precisely of these attacks. Therefore, the equation of homicide bombing does not equal to peace, but to more violence. The U.S. must set a clear definition and a framework for effective U.S.-Syria relations. Otherwise, it will be like dealing with the enemy.

Furthermore, the U.S. State Department indicates that Syria provides safe haven and support to several terrorist groups, some of which maintained training camps or other facilities on Syrian territory. The list includes Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC); the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), an organization that openly promotes the total destruction of the State of Israel; Abu Musa's Fatah-the-Intifada; and George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) which maintained their headquarters in Damascus. Furthermore, Syria allowed HAMAS to open a main office headquarters in Damascus. Moreover, Syria granted terrorist groups including HAMAS, the PFLP-GC, and the PIJ basing or refuge privileges in areas of the Lebanon's Bekaa Valley under Syrian control.

Additionally, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which sought an independent Kurdish state, used Syria as a headquarters and base of operations against Turkey from 1980 until 1998. Contrary to Iraq, where the minority Sunni led the country, while oppressing the Shiites, the majority of the population in Syria, is ruled mostly by Alawites, a Shiite sect. The reason is that Syria is concerned that the majority Sunni group could lead a revolt against its regime.

The U.S. by not opposing Syria's election as president of the UN Security Council for the month of June 2002 is now paying the price. The inconsistency here is, how the U.S. can name Syria as one of the state sponsors of terrorism, yet acquiescing to its presidency in the UN Security Council, whose one purpose is to maintain peace between nations and fight terrorism to keep global security.

An answer could be that the U.S. considers Syria's of vital importance for information about al-Qaeda. How serious can Syria's commitment to promote peace be taken, while still backing Hezbollah in Israel? Ironically, Israel a democratic state has never held a seat on the UN Security Council. Also, ironically, Mihail Wehbe, Syrian ambassador to the UN, was influential for the passing of some Security Council resolutions that condemned Israelis actions, as "war crimes, massacres or atrocities." This is interesting because the homicide bombings are the leading cause for Israeli reactions. Yet, at the UN, the bombings are not labeled as "war crimes, massacres or atrocities." The simple fact should be to label the players correctly, not with an agenda. The truth is that Syria continues to harbor terrorists and supports anti-Israel and anti-American terrorist organizations operating within Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.
The fact is that Syria, since its invasion of Lebanon in 1975, has committed or sponsored terrorist acts targeting Americans. In 1983 and 1984, more than 300 Americans were killed in suicide bombing attacks on U.S. Marine barracks, the U.S. embassy and the U.S. embassy annex in Lebanon. Moreover, a US Navy diver was shot during the 1985 terrorist hijacking of TWA , flight 847 in Beirut. On Monday, Oct. 29, 2001, Syrian-protected Muslim Palestinian militiamen of the Asbat al-Ansar group, allegedly related to Bin Laden, burned the American flag at the Ein el-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp on the outskirts of the southern port city of Sidon, Lebanon. The list goes on and on, and it may grow without a consistent U.S. foreign policy against terrorism.

Syria's attitude toward terrorism is better understood in Hafez al-Assad' speech given at the opening of the 21st conference of Syrian labor unions, in November 1986: "We have always opposed terrorism, but terrorism is one thing and national struggle against occupation is another. We are against terrorism. We do not exercise it nor do we allow anyone to exercise it from our territory. We do, however, support the struggle against occupation, carried out by the national liberation movement. This is our fundamental and uncompromising position." Despite Syria joined the U.S.-led coalition to oust Iraq out of Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War, it signed a free trade agreement with Iraq in 2001.

Hence, Syria ironically, now a member of UN Security Council became the primary conduit for Iraqi oil pumped and sold in defiance of UN sanctions. The US, on that occasion, failed to stop Syria, while in the meantime Hussein received a large source of illegal income with the Syrian free trade agreement. In other words, Syria just like Iraq, mocks the UN. In the case of Syria is even worse, because it is a member of the UN Security Council, yet it escapes sanctions while promoting terrorism. The UN has become a center fighting against democracy while promoting state sponsoring of terrorism and human rights abusers. It is no wonder why these leaders want to have UN involvement in every conflict and not a U.S. involvement.
The bottom line is that in the U.S. led war against terrorism, there is no space for current U.S.-Syria relations. It is just contradictory and sends a wrong message: U.S. double standards. It is true that Syria and the U.S. have shared intelligence about al-Qaeda, including learning about Muhamad Atta activities during his research thesis in Syria. Yet, Syria resists cooperation with other terrorist groups pursuing the destruction of Israel because it considers them as a legitimate resistance.

One can argue that Syria's support of terrorism summarizes in the destruction of Israel to obtain one of its goals of becoming the Greater Syria, which will include Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. Undoubtedly, policy makers must work hard to present effectiverecommendations to both governments. The international war against terrorism must be conducted persistently without double standards. As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says, "a terrorist is a terrorist."

The U.S. cannot ignore the growing terrorist activities of Hizbollah and Hamas backed by Syria. The lesson for not opposing Syria as a member of the UN Security Council, despite the U.S. declared Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, now bears the consequences. Syria is a country supporting terrorism, pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and influencing the UNthe "supposedly" international body seeking to eradicate terrorism, while Israel experiences continuous terrorism attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas.
The UN, instead of scrutinizing Syria's role, overlooks Syria's direct involvement in many terrorist activities and its support for various terrorist organizations. A fact to remember is that Syria has fought Israel in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1982. Syria lost the Golan Heights during the 1967 War. Hence, the lands lost during these wars are not occupied but militarily attained or disputed lands. The last lesson of a U.S. inconsistent foreign policy could result in terrorist attacks within the U.S. by Hizbollah and Hamas, besides al-Qaeda and other groups. Now, it is time for Pres. George W. Bush to remember his words in April 2002, "Syria has spoken out against al-Qaeda. We expect it to act against Hamas and Hezbollah as well."
The international community must speak with one voice and demand that Syria end its support for terrorists to achieve peace in the Middle East. It is either black or white, there are no gray zones.

(Jo-ana D'Balcazar, M.A., Political Analyst in International Relations, specializes on the Middle East Crisis and the European Union. Send comments to politics2see@hotmail.com)