Late in the day though it is, the George W. Bush administration is discovering diplomacy. Iraq has taught it the limits of military power as an instrument of policy. It has also learned that democracy, like Rome, is not built in a day, or even a couple of years, although that is something that a little reading of history would have taught at a much lower cost in lives and dollars.
Looking toward the end of President Bush's term and concerned for his legacy, Washington has launched major diplomatic initiatives with North Korea and now in the Middle East. Vocal promoters of the Iraq War, like former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton do not like it. They speak of American weakness and warn of dire consequences. But they no longer call the shots.
The earlier Bush approach - not speaking to problem regimes such as North Korea or Syria as it would "reward bad behavior" - was the diplomacy of the schoolyard. "You are not part of our gang, so we are not speaking to you. Often lacking a strategy to support it, this approach seemed more like pique than policy.
It certainly motivated regimes it was aimed at - but not to adopt "good behavior." North Korea responded by developing its nuclear weapons program. Syria may have done the same and, isolated on other fronts, was driven into a pragmatic alliance with Iran.
Iran and Syria are the region's odd couple, cooperating to make trouble in Lebanon and Israel by supporting Hezbollah. Yet, ideologically, they are poles apart. There are signs that Syria, the region's last Baathist regime, a type of national socialism for the Islamic world, is uncomfortable at being pushed into bed with the Islamic Republic of Iran's theocratic Shiite mullahs who are expecting the return of the Mehdi. Intelligent diplomacy would exploit that discomfort.
However, the return of diplomacy is no guarantee of success either. Because Syria has the capacity to sabotage any Middle East settlement it cannot be excluded from the peace process. But we have to be clear about the nature of this regime. Having pulled their forces out of Lebanon under international pressure in the wake of the assassination of prime minister Rafiq Hariri, the Syrians have been trying to reassert their position ever since.
They support Hezbollah, channeling Iranian arms to them and backing them to replace Lebanon's current ruling coalition of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora. They are widely believed to be behind the assassinations of parliamentary candidates running for the Siniora coalition. Murdering political opponents certainly eliminates the messy unpredictability of a vote.
The price of Syrian cooperation may prove too high. If it includes the restoration of Syrian control in Lebanon, killing the painful struggle for democracy there, it certainly will be. It is better for the Syrians to be the unsavory guest inside the tent than the bomb-thrower outside. But there should be no illusions about who we are dealing with.
Editorial: US diplomacy without illusions
TOOLBAR
To add a comment,
Please log in:
Don't have an account?
Register now to comment on stories and stay up to date on important events and issues in the Middle East with our newsletter.