Both the European Union and the United States have reached out to Syria in recent months. In December, the EU encouraged Syria's continued steps toward a membership in the Euromed partnership, which seeks a free trade zone in the Mediterranean region. Meanwhile, George Mitchell, the US special envoy to the Middle East, has openly declared US intentions to pursue a Syrian-Israeli peace track, and in January the United States began moving to reinstate an ambassador in Damascus.
For years, the EU's Syrian focus has been on creating a harmonious economic sphere for continued trade relations. The EU prefers small diplomatic steps that do not threaten this harmony, even after dramatic events. For example, following the assassination of Lebanese Rafik Hariri in 2005, which was widely suspected to be Syria's doing, the United States immediately withdrew its ambassador to Syria while the EU response was more subdued. The large-scale coordination required by the EU acted to restrain the body's most prominent Syria hawk, then-French President Jacques Chirac. Too many EU nations did not want to jeopardize long-term trade relations with Syria as it began to slowly open its economy after decades of central management.
Whereas the EU's diplomatic focus has been on economic relations with Syria in recent years, the US-Syria relationship has been framed mostly by security, and has proven far more contentious than its EU counterpart. Syria joined the 1991 Gulf War against its rival Ba'athist regime in Iraq but strongly objected to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Since this invasion, the United States has repeatedly accused Bashar al-Asad's regime of giving aid and encouragement to militant fighters who seek to cross the Syrian border into Iraq to fight coalition forces. The United States is also bothered by Syria's 30-year-old alliance with Iran, which has grown stronger in recent years. But now the Obama administration is seeking a success story in the Middle East to back up the rhetoric deployed in 2009's Cairo speech, and a Syria-Israel peace accord could be just that. Right now, the administration sees a Syria-Israel peace accord as much more likely than a Palestinian peace deal, and it has kept George Mitchell busy with three trips to Syria since President Obama took office.
The EU and the United States can succeed in their respective diplomatic spheres if they work together to stress the same incentives for Syria. A peace deal with Israel would grant Syria greater strategic depth, allowing the regime to cut down on defense spending and free up some needed money to improve infrastructure and deal with Syria's Iraqi refugee problem. The EU's offer of greater economic integration would also help ease these problems as foreign investment begins to trickle in. This is why the US negotiating team should encourage Syria to finally sign and ratify the Euromed agreement. Toward the same end, the EU should make some of its trade benefits contingent on a Syrian peace deal with Israel, rather than offering economic incentives from Europe without any definitive steps toward a lasting peace.
Negotiating a peace deal between Syria and Israel will not be easy, and questions of water rights, international borders, and demilitarization of the Golan will certainly prove to be contentious points. But the EU can help ease the process by offering continued economic cooperation with a peaceful Syria, allowing the United States to point to its European allies as supporters of the peace process. Done right, this is a diplomatic situation where every party can benefit, and the Middle East can be made a bit more peaceful and prosperous.
Michael Mc Carthy is currently an Editorial Associate at Devry University Online. He has worked as an intern for Joseph S. Nye, Jr. National Security at the Center for a New American Security.
Related Material from the Atlantic Community:
- Memo 15: Middle East Peace: Back to Oslo - with Egypt
- Tobias P. Fella: Obama's Foreign Policy: The Right Grand Strategy
- Vilborg Ása Guðjónsdóttir: The Future of Transatlantic Relations
- 5
February 28, 2010
Member deleted
The EU is Syria's largest single trading partner with Italy, France, Spain and Germany for the first and foremost. Therefore you are right to search to instrument this high Syrian stake suitably, in order to push for a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement.
Your peace focuses on the main players US, EU, Israel and Syria respectively, however, failed to incorporate Syria's calculus and respective backers, such Russia, China and Iran (including regional proxies) thereof.
Regional commentators witnessed moves by Syria to search for a China-model economic management and whilst the dragon tried to loot Taiwan by protecting Iran, hence, would most likely lead to a situation where China could deludingly brutally (as so often recently) increase its stakes to gain additional leverage. Russia announced to deliver advanced air defense (S-300) to Iran recently, that increases the Theocracies strategic debt significantly against the background of an Israeli air raid against its, yet, civilian nuclear installations. Syria provides Russia, beside Libya, naval access to the Mediterranean, a worthy asset for the Kremlin if considered that the Bosporus is under NATO control through Turkey. Russia witnesses Syria as a loyal customer of its military technology and supplies.
With as well China as Russia (that lost its Gas supply asset as well because of lower demands as the NABBUCO construction) increasingly provoking Washington, every change in the Middle East/Levant set is to be elaborated most carefully.
Given this strategic background Syria’s calculus is to be challenged. Syria witnessed a row of wars and skirmishes with all its neighbours given its post-colonial pan-Arab ideals and search for regional dominance once (see Greater Syria). Given the pan-Arab concept of the enemy these times, such Israel, Syria’s determination to support the Palestinians was central to its profile as “would be” pan-Arab power broker. Hence, Syrian’s military apparatus is a central part of its self-understanding. To lower its military spending in order to free resources would pit Syria against difficult domestic decisions given its fairly arcane domestic political structure.
A characteristic that is also valid for Israel that also witnessed a row of wars since its declaration of statehood. The Israeli military complex serves an important social institution, too. More precisely it is a least common social denominator for an ethnic highly diverse Jewish population. A peace agreement with Syria, and Lebanon thereof would pit Israel against difficult domestic decisions given it’s highly security focused political agenda.
In summary, to rally both sides’ elites for a peace agreement is only possible if both economies are able to compensate an enormous labor demand. The fact that Europe tries to prepare this precondition for any Syrian-Israeli peace agreement arguably unconditional should be welcomed by Washington today under the light of its general strategic quagmire (see Lyndon B. Johnson, economy in peril and war in Asia).
The US’s strategic quagmire threatens to escalate now: Israel subjected two central Abrahamic religious sites in the West Bank to its sphere of national heritage and Iran presents a “Sunnite Insurgent leader” with US contacts alleged to have perpetrate terrorist attacks on Iranian soil. For Iran this could be interpreted as provoking a Sunnite-Shiite rift prior to any domestic developments and the Israeli move is likely to lead into a pan-Islamic- Israeli rift. In my opinion pressure on both players lead to a situation that makes them threatening to smash stability among the moderate Arab axis to bits. Both moves play into the hands of local Al-Q propaganda and affiliated groups respectively, at the absolute minimum.
Furthermore subjecting EU foreign policy to an Israeli position in proceedings, such water-right, international borders and demilitarization (and so on) will be perceived by Syria as hostile, as originally its alliance with Iran and respective proxies Hamas and Hezbollah were on the table. A realistic outcome! Everything else would jeopardizes NATO interests in the region by a) uncontrolled fueling of Jiihadist currents as an externalities of Iran-Israeli cold war and b) stability among allied countries in the region thereof. As well Egypt as Jordan stated the peace deal with Israel would not have the effect that was promised that time, recently.
You and I witnessed that under the light of difficult analytical work and proceedings one frequently tries to separate a Palestinian-Israeli agreement from a Syrian-Israeli agreement. Given a close look into Damascus and the Palestinians threatening a one-state solution in addition to civil resistance, this separation is impractical in my opinion.
In my opinion Syrian hosting of the Palestinian resistance movements of all kind has one good thing, such a NATO that may solve the conflict under its roof, and given the a “God-Cop, bad Cop” strategy as performed today, this is more likely than subjecting the outcome to Washington only, that is perceived as way too biased in the Middle East in general. Coop is the future, and a central aspect, of the Transatlantic Alliance and keeping each other the door open, isn't it?
Kind regards
Samir