Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Felix Guattari the Seconde <verlainelefou-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: syria


--0-1649498854-1050692010=:818

Syria'a options before the U.S. warnings are very limited. A deep-seated change within the Syrian leadership is inevitable, and will introduce fundamental changes in the state’s domestic and regional policies, that is, if Damascus wishes to avoid reprisals or sanctions. By understanding the American message, the Syrian government will be forced to consider choices it never took into account previously. The message is that Damascus should change its mentality, method and political rhetoric, as well as certain ‘issues’ such as ‘supporting terrorism,’ as Washington says, or it will have to face the same suicidal destiny that the Baath party and former President Saddam Hussein faced in Iraq, even though through different means. </p><p>This message is also addressed to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the incoming prime minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), with two underlying ideas: first, the need to immediately submit, and second, to face the challenge of making peace with Israel, after having totally crushed the “resistance.” For these days, Washington won’t tolerate any hesitation, and it is ready to take decisive steps if the Arab parties hesitate.</p><p>This Arab hesitation reached its height during and after the war on Iraq. Most Arabs are hesitant about their personality, identity, leaders and regimes. They are also hesitant about the U.S., for they hate its greatness, arrogance and biasness towards Israel, but they appreciate the fact that it scuttled despotic regimes and initiated a wave of change in the Arab situation.</p><p>The Arab people behaved just as the Americans had expected; they were mildly agitated in the beginning of the war, then they became secluded as a result of Baghdad’s fall without any resistance.</p><p>What Saddam Hussein along with his regime did to Iraq during the war, they did it to it before the war. For he gave the priority to the regime instead of the country and was stubborn and obstinate without understanding the new Ameri

can environment that emerged after September 11, nor did he understand the Iraqi environment, stemming from over 20 years of continued despotism and oppression. </p><p>If there is any ‘advantage’ to what happened in Iraq, it is at the level of the Arab people, which was awakened from the illusion it was kept in by the Iraqi regime. Some Arabs disliked the Iraqi people, welcoming American troops and rejoicing the regime’s fall. But all Arabs were surprised by the rapidity with which the war ended, partially because the Iraqi army did not participate in it. Regardless of the justification, another illusion was removed from the Arab mentality in Iraq, and that is the illusion of obstinacy. Another illusion, that of a joint Arab defense, also vanished a decade ago, also in Iraq, when Arab forces joined the international coalition against Iraq in the Arab Gulf War П. This war has killed the illusion of an Arab system.</p><p>It also killed the dream of an Arab people ready to hail their freedom in a civilized manner; for the looting of museums, the destruction of artifacts, setting documents on fire and tearing up books in the National Library is a sad story that says a lot about the terrifying low-level of Arab societies. It is true that in every society there are thieves and criminals who go out to loot, taking advantage of the chaos and security void. But what Baghdad’s thieves did is unforgivable, because they tore away humanity’ history, through their hatred, cupidity and stupidity. </p><p>The U.S. Defense Department is to a large extent responsible for this. The American forces wasted no time to protect the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, but they did not take equal measures to protect museums, libraries and all sites of historical heritage, even though the U.S. Defense Department had promised American researchers to protect artifacts several months ago. The way U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld justified the looting and destruction was even more humiliating, for he said: “a f

ree people is free to commit mistakes and crimes.” </p><p>Naturally, Rumsfeld did not apologize for what happened, for he is not the kind of man who apologizes. Moreover, he probably doesn’t think about the need to five indemnities to the Iraqi people, who paid the price of war from their souls and resources; he must believe deep down that the Iraqis should thank the U.S. for liberating them militarily. In any case, Rumsfeld is busy with more important issues right now. He is distributing roles in Iraq among people he knows and companies relevant to the American administration, to earn himself a few billion dollars… and to get ready to push Syria into the corner, even if this means resorting to the military option or closing his eyes to an Israeli attack.</p><p>Damascus could be relying on a popular intifada, by the Arab people against the U.S., if the latter or Israel dared attack Syria militarily. But this is a losing bet. The Arab people will be of no help to Syria, just as they were of no help to Iraq. These people are tired of their Arab leaders, who are afraid, lazy, and only seeking ‘protection’ or maintaining their privileges. These people are frustrated, and excel at blaming, complaining and surrendering to their fate. It would be useless for Syria and the Syrian leadership to mobilize them at this critical stage of its relations with the U.S. </p><p>Practically, what Washington is telling Damascus is that it cannot kindle anti-U.S. feelings, nor reiterate its traditional political rhetoric, even its rhetoric of linking the U.S. to Israel and Israel to an occupying enemy we should resist.</p><p>It cannot harbor ‘resistance’ organizations as defined by the Syrians, and ‘terrorist’ as defined by the Americans. It cannot open its frontiers to suicide operations in Iraq and attack American forces. It cannot go on playing with the U.S. </p><p>Accusing Syria of sheltering or giving freedom of movement to members of the Iraqi Baath, in addition to the accu

sations of hiding chemical weapons, is a way of preparing the American public opinion. Moreover, it is always underlining the notion that the Syrian regime is similar to the Iraqi one. The U.S. is agitated and powerful, and it is not ready to show any tolerance towards Damascus, especially since there are 200,000 soldiers in Iraq and along the Syrian frontiers. </p><p>Syria is coming under an American and Israeli threat, and its choices are limited. For the era of the ‘axis’ is gone, and Iran will not take any risks and establish an axis with Syria at this point, for it understands very well the current situation, and knows how to adopt a strategy that is different from the Arab attitude of submission or aggressiveness. </p><p>Today, Syria seems to stand apart from most Arab governments, whether in its policy toward the U.S., Israel or in its domestic reform measures. Syria stands today like a dinosaur that is unable to break away from the traditional mode. So far, President Bashar Al-Assad failed to free himself from his father’s grip or that of the old guard. </p><p>With this confrontation that the Bush administration is placing him in, the Syrian president has to make decisive choices. It is the most important test he ever faced, and could be an opportunity to escape both traditional grasps, that is, if he wants to.</p><p>If he does, the Syrian President will have to take new, vanguard and qualitative measures, and adopt a settlement. Syria will have to turn from a regime of security services, of silencing voices of the opposition and journalists, of pretending that the economy is healthy… to a state founded on a democratic process, elections, the opposition’s right to participate in the government, freedom of media, communicating with the media and taking advantage of the available opportunities and launching intellectual and structural civil institutions. Such measures, on the domestic front, could lead to the reelection of Bashar Al-Assad to the Syrian presidency. If not, thi

s would help toppling the regime in Syria, one way or another.</p><p>The expected regional measures should include sanitizing bilateral relations with Lebanon, to the effect of ending the Syrian ‘protectorate’ and establishing a relation of real partnership in the post-neutralization of Iraq period, and a strategic compromise with Israel. </p><p>Practically, Syria is the last ring in the Israeli ‘border neutralization operation.’ At this point, it has to take new, sweeping decisions. It won’t be enough for Syria to repeat its rhetoric that ‘peace is a strategic choice,’ because practical evidence is needed to prove it.</p><p>Moreover, Syria won’t be allowed to an inch of the occupied Golan, nor insist regaining any meters of the Tiberias River. The U.S. and the invasion partisans’ victory in the war on Iraq translated itself into a victory of those who call for provoking Syria, before attacking it. They want the Syrian leadership to stop insisting on regaining the Golan; and because they don’t expect it to, they are seeking to attack it. </p><p>If Damascus decides to anticipate on the conflict with Israel, it should think of changing the habitual mode, and take an initiative with the UK itself, in order to initiate a new strategy. The U.S. administration stopped talking about a comprehensive peace that would include Syria, and is talking exclusively about the ‘roadmap’ for the establishment of Palestinian state. The Arab context is totally torn up and shred to pieces. France and Russia have lost their great importance. If Syria wants change, the only recourse it has is the UK. </p><p>If the Syrian leadership decides to change, it should first stop playing the Palestinian card, through Palestinian organizations based in Damascus. This means closing all offices and coordinating with Abu Mazen. This involves taking the most difficult decision: canceling the ‘resistance’ from the compromise with Israel, and telling the Hizbullah in L

ebanon to turn into a political party exclusively, and that it has to prove its shift by dissolving it as a resistance party.</p><p>Any measures Syria takes in an attempt to be clever won’t help it. The U.S. administration even considered Syria’s suggestion at the Security Council to issue a resolution of turning the Middle East into a zone free of mass destruction weapons as a fad.   </p><p>If the Syrian leadership finds that these claims are impossible, it should then have a real option to face the American attack. It could have choices. But it should be aware of the same old compromise undermined by the American victory in Iraq. For this is a new and terrible era.</p><p>Israel is very favored in this era, and its partisans in Washington are powerful. As far as the Arab people will stay as they are, it is not wise to fight Washington while other Arab governments are locked in their submissiveness. Peace with Israel should not and will not take place tomorrow. Hence, it is necessary to take other measures to frustrate the invasion of Iraq, than Syria’s sending in soldiers, and to establish a sound relation between the Arab governments and people, in order to make it clear for the U.S. and Israel that there will not be a peace unless it is really just and comprehensive.</p><p>The new era requires amazing measures from old leaders to protect their causes from the trend. At the top of those stands the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat who served the Palestinian cause for decades and it is time now to retreat a little in order not to be carried away by the American bulldozer that is marching to change the Arab regimes and people.</p><p>Now is the time to place the interests of countries and causes before positions and individuals.
 




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-1649498854-1050692010=:818

HTML VERSION: