The Syria Accountability Act under debate in Washington is a model of American bullying tactics, writes Imad Fawzi Shuebi from Damascus The complexity of relations between Damascus and Washington has climbed another notch as Congress debates the notion and substance of the Syria Accountability Act. If enacted, the bill would impose strict sanctions on Syria until it ends its troop presence in Lebanon. The Americans perceive their relations with Syria as a "clash of wills" on several levels. At the regional level, Syria rejects the notion of a great power meddling in the affairs of the region. Syria subscribes to the principle that the advancement of mutual interests should be pursued through peaceful interaction and the respect for national sovereignty, which is a defining aspect of a country's past and future. Syria has endured numerous sacrifices on behalf of these principles and it is not prepared under any circumstances to betray this legacy. At the international level, the Americans seek a unipolar order in which they have the exclusive right to veto. Towards this end, they are busily undermining the structure of international law built since the end of World War II. Accordingly, Washington seeks to establish a worldwide monopoly on violence as the global policeman, judge and executioner. A cardinal rule of American foreign policy is to promote agreements on the basis of realpolitik, rather than established rights, while reordering the universe to follow the laws of market forces. Under globalisation, the world is shaped by the will of the American people who themselves have no mystical attachment or historical ties to their land, a people whose very history is rootless, modern and extemporaneous. Syria has demonstrated itself more than willing to move its relations with Washington from a "clash of wills" footing to a "meeting of wills", and a sharing of the fruits of this convergence. This, however, is not how a series of contracts with US oil firms was portrayed in Washington, where the letters from 486 US companies to Congress urging it not to put the Syria Accountability Act to a vote are considered evidence of a policy of "tying the hands of the current administration". On the other hand, Syria is keen to "tie the hands" of the Zionist lobby in the US. Syrian Petroleum Minister Ibrahim Haddad announced recently that his ministry has neared the completion of a study to build a new oil pipeline between Iraq and Syria, with a capacity of 1.4 million barrels a day, which "we will propose at the first opportunity to the national government in Baghdad". The announcement conveys a message with a punch to the Zionist lobby which will once again be locking horns over Middle Eastern foreign policy with the formidable oil lobby in Congress. Damascus is expected to announce the results of its negotiations with ABR over a possible oil exploration contract in central Syria. This could make ABR the fourth US firm to win a contract for operations inside Syria in the last two months. In addition, negotiations are soon to begin with Veritas over surveying Syria's territorial waters in the Mediterranean for potential oil and natural gas production. Current Syrian contracts with the American companies Veritas, Devon Energy, and Gulf Sanders Petroleum in the energy field are valued at around $18 million, while the largest investment project in Syrian natural gas was award jointly to the US-based Conoco and French-based ILF. Worth roughly $420 million, the project raised Syria's production of natural gas to more than 22 million cubic metres per day. Whether from the pro-Israel lobby or the oil lobby, money talks, and these contracts will have an important political impact, since "any accountability for Syria will mean accountability for US firms". Nonetheless, aware of the precariousness of ties with American firms, Syria has diversified its international ties, recently luring in Chinese and Swedish-Canadian multinationals. If Congress and the US administration are attempting to play the WMD card against Syria, their attempts must be seen against a different background than that which faced Iraq in the last year. After almost four months of American-British control of Iraq, no evidence of WMD has been unearthed. Resentful at having their understandable fears callously exploited for political gain, the British and American publics are increasingly critical of their respective administrations. Aware of the weakness of Bush and Blair's WMD argument, and their plummeting credibility domestically and abroad, Damascus has moved from the defensive to the offensive. Syria formally appealed to the UN Security Council to issue a resolution banning WMD throughout the Middle East, putting the US in an awkward position. If the Bush administration rejects the proposal outright, its claim against Syria loses all credibility and is exposed as a superficial excuse rather than a genuine cause. On the other hand, if the US considers accepting the proposal, this would jeopardise Israeli interests and arouse the wrath of the fearsome pro-Israeli lobby. Taking President Bush's recent statements on Syria, we can read between the lines to infer the implicit American vision of a global order. "Today, Syria and Iran are continuing to provide shelter and support to terrorists. This behaviour is totally unacceptable. The countries that support terrorism will be brought to account," he moves to the punch line: "The time has come for the governments of the Middle East to support the efforts of these two men [apparently Sharon and Arafat] by fighting terrorism in all forms." He then adds, "Supporting and sheltering terrorism impedes the prospects of peace in the Middle East and conflicts with the true interests of the Palestinian people. Terrorism is the major obstacle before the establishment of a Palestinian state. All leaders who are striving to realise this goal must match their words with effective action against terrorism." The issue, thus, is not Syria per se, but rather the continuation of political behaviour on the part of Bush and Blair that is immune to accountability. While Bush clearly alluded to the roadmap, what he left unmentioned was the dual predicament in Iraq: the resistance which General Abu Zeid has described as having evolved into an organised form, despite Rumsfeld's assertions to the contrary, combined with the revelations that the American and British government deliberately lied about the justification to invade Iraq. The scandals of the continuously non- existent WMD and the attempt at forging an Iraqi uranium purchase from Niger are threatening to topple Blair and may bring Bush down soon afterwards. Perhaps Bush's statement, "Leaders concerned for a peaceful solution in the Middle East must support the efforts of Prime Minister Abbas to build a democratic Palestine and alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people," brings us to the crux of the issue with regard to Syria. With his customary naiveté Bush has placed all his chips on the roadmap, paying little heed to an accumulated store of expertise in dealing with virtually intractable problems. Having done so, he wants Syria not only to stay on the sidelines in peace talks, but also to crack down on Palestinian opposition forces, hopelessly skewing negotiations in favour of Israel. The Palestinian resistance's crime was throwing a monkey wrench in Bush and Sharon's designs by agreeing to the principle of a truce, in the full knowledge that Sharon will do his utmost to jettison the roadmap. Bush's position has been underscored by State Department spokesman Phillip Riker, who said that the steps Damascus has taken to close down the offices of Palestinian organisations in Syria were also "not enough" and that Damascus had to "end once and for all the activities of the terrorist organisations and groups in Syria". In other words, Syria is expected to toe the line with Washington's characterisation of Palestinian resistance organisations as terrorist, and act accordingly. Then, for a bit of extra arm twisting, the spokesman said, "If Syria is truly committed to a comprehensive peace, supports what the Palestinian people want and hopes for better relations with the US and other nations, it must take definite steps to put an end to these activities and not merely settle for window dressing." The message was obvious: the peace process on the Syrian track will not go forward, nor will Damascus's relations with Washington unless Damascus utterly yields to US will under the threat of the army looming in Iraq. Unfortunately, most Arabs, who favour a policy of appeasement towards the US threat, have contributed to feeding the megalomania of the current US administration and the sense in Washington that Syria's policies are unsatisfactory because the Syrians have not yet resigned themselves to being US foreign policy operatives. It is the inherent irony of American foreign policy that the democratic, multicultural, pluralistic United States demands a uniformly obedient world, and a command-based international political system. Washington refuses to accept the Syrian spirit of dogged independence. Syrian diplomacy rests upon the concept of sovereignty and national dignity, which may mean either a "clashing of wills" or pragmatism if the opportunity presents itself to reach a meeting of wills on equal footing with another power. Furthermore, Syria cannot lend itself to altering definitions of concepts simply to suit the Americans. Foreign occupation is not territorial liberation and resistance is different from terrorism. Occupation inherently breeds resistance and no one has the right to denounce the pursuit of liberty by resistance forces. The US president should realise that he is asking from Syria the impossible. Even if Damascus wanted to comply with American requests to dismantle the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance to Israeli hegemony, it does not have the right to make decisions on behalf of those who live under occupation. In any case, Syria has no influence upon the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, one of the most important Palestinian factions, nor does anyone else including Yasser Arafat. This is because the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is decentralised and accountable only to the Palestinian people. More importantly, no one can prevent another person from seeking martyrdom out of oppressed desperation and the need to level the playing field between occupiers and occupied. If Bush cannot bring himself to recognise these realities, further talk is futile. All the arrogant arm-twisting being brought against Damascus cannot stop Syria from standing apart from the herd that flocks to serve others and from symbolising the necessity of diverse options. Nor can anyone deny that Syria has upheld the principle of a "meeting of wills", not only with regard to mutual petroleum interests but also with regard to the fight against terrorism. As Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker, "At the outset of 2002, Syria has emerged as one of the most active intelligence allies of the CIA in the war against Al-Qa'eda, the flow of its information only coming to a stop with the invasion of Iraq." If factions within the US administration want to send the message that the Syria Accountability Act will only be aborted if Damascus accepts American global dominance, then it must reckon with Syria's treasured values of sovereignty and non-alignment. Syria is willing to work towards a lasting peace in the Middle East, but only one that is negotiated fairly by all parties involved, not imposed based on raw military strength.
