US officials say they ran out of patience with Syria, and that the time has come for Damascus to bow to pressure, Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington In a briefing to Washington-based foreign correspondents, a US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said President George Bush's administration felt "we had no option" but to give the green light to the congress to pass the "Syria Accountability Act", seeking to impose sanctions on Damascus for failing to meet US demands on so-called terrorism, the infiltration of Arab fighters from Syria to Iraq, and its alleged development of programmes to produce weapons of mass destruction. The US move came shortly after Israel carried out an unprecedented attack on a suspected training camp near Damascus, alleging it was used by the Islamic Jihad of Palestine which claimed responsibility for the major bombing in Haifa nearly two weeks ago. Bush's reaction to the attack, in which he said Israel "had no constraint" in seeking to defend itself, and Washington's threat to veto a Syrian proposal at the UN Security Council seeking to condemn the attack, were all clear signs that a new stage has been reached in troubled Syrian-American relations. "We ran out of arguments in order to convince the congress not to pass the legislation," the official said in reference to the Act, which was first introduced two years ago by two pro-Israel Congressmen, Representatives Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (Republican-Texas) and Eliot L Engel (Democrat-New York). The US administration, under pressure from the State Department, did not favour sanctions against Syria when the legislation was first introduced, mainly because Damascus was helpful to the United States in providing information on Al-Qa'eda, the organisation charged by the US with responsibility for the 11 September attacks in New York and Washington, DC. Some of this information helped in foiling a major attack against a US target in the Gulf region, an informed official acknowledged. At the same time, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that he preferred "active engagement" with Syria, seeking to change its government's behaviour through dialogue, rather than sanctions. In seeking to justify the latest US move, which angered the Arab world and was interpreted as a permission to Israel to carry out further attacks against Syria, the US official reiterated that Washington backed Israel's allegations that the camp was not deserted as the Syrians claimed. "The camp was operated by terrorist groups," the official said. But he would not verify Israeli allegations that Islamic Jihad in particular had used the camp. "It was not a deserted camp, that's for sure," he added. According to US officials, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, once described by Bush as a "man of peace", had even informed Washington that the camp was used by Arab fighters who later snuck out from Syria to Iraq to carry out attacks against American soldiers. In an interview with local news agencies on Sunday, Powell emphasised that he did warn Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in their last meeting in May that there were going to be consequences for Syria's failure to change its behaviour. This was the third meeting between Powell and the novice Syrian leader, but it was also the most important as it came after the fall of the Iraqi capital to US troops. At that time, Powell said the Syrian leader had to consider the "new strategic situation" that existed in the region after Iraq's occupation. Apparently Syria did not. Its continued sharp criticism of the US occupation of Iraq and refusal to expel leaders of militant groups based in Damascus, led even Powell to harden his line. "Our policy has been one of trying to encourage better Syrian behaviour," Powell told reporters. "But there are continuing aspects of Syrian behaviour that we disapprove of," he added. Powell said that in his meeting with Bashar in May, "I made it very clear to him that unless there's action on these disturbing aspects [of their behaviour] it would be hard for us not to respond in some way, and it would affect [our] relationship." He added, "I told President Bashar Al-Assad that if we didn't see action, he would see a response from the Executive Branch, and he would also start to see a response from the Legislative Branch." Finally, Powell added, "we haven't seen the kind of action that we had hoped for, and we continue to see these horrible terrorist activities taking place ... And they're being led from Syria and Damascus." Despite the increasing frequency of such statements, and the approval given for passing the Accountability Act in congress, observers noted that the new legislation left room for the US administration to continue its policy of "active engagement" with Syria. The legislation bans the export of weapons and items that can be used in weapons programmes. President Bush would also have to choose two of the following six sanctions: a ban on all US exports to Syria except food and medicine; a ban on US business investment in Syria; restriction of Syrian diplomats in Washington and at the United Nations in New York City; a ban on all Syrian-owned or controlled aircraft from taking-off, landing or flying over the United States; reduction of diplomatic contact with Syria; or freezing Syrian assets in the United States. These sanctions, however, can be waived by the president for "national security" reasons, which may include linking executive benevolence to Syrian cooperation with US requests. Powell, in his interview with local news agencies, also aired that he preferred to have a "time span" on the life of the new legislation, due to be approved at its next stage in the House of Representatives possibly this week, and in the Senate by the end of the month. This was another signal to Damascus that sanctions need not be infinite, and that they could be lifted if Syrian government bowed to US pressure. However, Flynt Leverett, visiting fellow at the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy and former senior director for the Middle East Initiative at the National Security Council, said the White House has not yet achieved a viable balance between the use of rewards and the threat of force. Referring to the age-old game of "carrots and sticks", persuasion and force, Leverett argues: "The Bush administration has not developed a credible package of 'sticks', short of invasion. Meanwhile, Pentagon officials and their allies have blocked any offer of 'carrots', which would be seen as rewarding bad behaviour. The result is a non-policy." He added "to be effective, Washington must contrast the prospective costs of non- cooperation, such as economic sanctions, with the prospective gains from cooperation. These could include Syria's removal from the list of state-sponsors of terrorism, provided it expels terrorists from its territory, renews its anti-terrorist cooperation with the US against Al-Qa'eda and broadens that to include Syria's own terrorist links. Another 'carrot' could be accommodation of Syrian interests in Iraq, if Damascus helped tackle the security problems there." The question now is whether the Bush administration can be patient enough to use a policy of encouragement with Damascus at a time when it seems so intent on exacting punishment. Besides, Bush has repeatedly emphasised that his move in Iraq was not only to oust the former Ba'athist regime, but also to introduce major changes in the entire Middle East region to end once and for all the threat of terrorism. Syria and Iran are certainly foremost among countries where the US president is pushing for change.
