By Aggressive US/Israeli nods towards Syria should be an added impetus to rebuilding an Arab order based on collective security, says Abdallah El-Ashaal* The period following the US-led assault on Iraq, which the Arabs along with the rest of the world had failed to avert, may hold opportunities for reconfiguring the Arab order. The system of inter-Arab relations had been severely weakened by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the repercussions of which were aggravated in subsequent years by the perpetuation of the diverse and tragic aspects of the sanctions against Iraq and by the failure of attempts to effect a reconciliation between Baghdad and its Gulf neighbours. To a great extent, the Arabs' inability to counter Washington's determination to attack Iraq stems from that confusion, which the US helped to perpetuate, between Iraq as a regime epitomised by the figure of Saddam Hussein and Iraq as a nation and people with a unique place in the history of the ancient world and Arab and Islamic civilisation. A significant section of the Arab world sympathised with the need to rid Iraq and the region of a regime that had a record of self-serving policies, that had sided with the US when it was opportune and was instrumental in propelling the Arab world to its current state of helplessness against the US and Israel. Nevertheless, whatever consensus there may have been over the fate of the Iraqi president and his regime, which had antagonised everyone with the damage it rained down on its own people and upon the Arab and Islamic world, profound differences remained over the means of changing that government while preserving the country's unity and integrity. It is, thus, obvious that the Iraqi regime had long posed one of the major obstacles to the reshaping of the Arab order. In particular, the regime had drastically undermined the concept of collective security, having propped itself up with the aid of outside powers and then turning against the Arab order. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait rendered the concept of collective security meaningless, both in the Gulf and in Palestine, against Israel. It is poignantly ironic that the Iraqi regime, after having dealt in Arab solidarity for so many years and then buried it, appealed to this very notion in order to defend itself against the impending US invasion once it had to face the fact that the game with Washington was up. Gulf states hosted US and British forces and Kuwait and allowed them to launch their assault from its territory because the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had reordered Arab security priorities. By destroying the concept of collective security, Iraq pushed the Gulf states to elevate their individual concerns above the whole. Iraq, then, had come to pose a greater threat to those countries than Israel. Nevertheless, if at one juncture a US-British military presence in the Gulf was acceptable, because of an actual or imagined threat posed by Iraq, now that these forces have served their purpose, Gulf nations no longer have any justification for maintaining a military presence that could jeopardise the rest of the region. The threat of this continued presence is palpable. Statements originating from Washington and Tel Aviv converge on a single goal, which is to take advantage of the current situation in Iraq to revive the notion of a Baghdad Pact. Comprising Iraq, Israel, Jordan and perhaps Turkey, such a US-sponsored arrangement would inevitably hamper attempts to revive the Arab order, gravely jeopardise Arab interests and hasten Israeli schemes to dominate the Middle East. Indeed, the prospect of such a pact should constitute one of the major incentives for reviving the Arab system on the basis of a minimum level of commitment. The urgency of action towards this end cannot be underestimated in light of US-Israeli intimations with respect to Syria. Indeed, Israel, in coordination with Turkey, appears to be setting the scene for the region's next victim. In keeping with what seems now to be its modus operandi, Washington has already accused Damascus of possessing weapons of mass destruction smuggled out of Iraq, while Israel has alleged that Syria is manufacturing chemical weapons and failed to cooperate fully with US plans for Iraq. Washington has added several other charges to the list. Syria is harbouring members of Palestinian organisations, and Hizbullah, it says, it is giving haven to former leaders of the Iraqi regime. It also alleges that Damascus had supplied Iraq with Russian-made weapon components during the war, it had helped Arab freedom fighters infiltrate Iraq, it had openly condemned the US-British invasion, exhorted the people of Iraq to resist the subsequent occupation and campaigned for the departure of US forces and the creation of a national government. To forestall a further degeneration of the climate, Russia and the EU intervened with an appeal to both sides to exercise restraint. Syria, meanwhile, denied all the allegations, which, even if they had been true, would have been a source of pride rather than an embarrassment. In any case, in the absence of a strong Arab stance, the now familiar scenario could repeat itself. Washington levels charges, its victim denies them. The accuser then insists that weapons inspectors be called in, and during this process it readies for assault. The intensive psychological campaign is set in motion, precipitating the fall of a regime and further destabilising the region, which is, in fact, the ultimate goal of the campaign. The Arab world must be on guard. It must stand as one with Syria, and the world must support the Arab stance. The US must understand that there are substantial differences between Iraq and Syria. While Iraq was the rallying point for all opponents to a regime that had antagonised everyone at home and abroad, particularly its neighbours, Syria is engaged in an extensive process of social and political reform and the government in Damascus is sincere in its dedication to common Arab principles and fundamental Arab causes. Unlike the former Iraqi regime, the Syrian leadership had never sought to challenge or undermine the Arab order. If, indeed, Syria had supported Iraq during the war, such backing stemmed from its sympathy for the Iraqi people -- certainly not from any affinity for a regime with which it shared a long history of mutual acrimony. Moreover, Syria had opposed Iraq following the latter's invasion of Kuwait and had participated in the war to liberate the Gulf country in accordance with the resolutions issued by the UN and the Arab League. In addition, Syria still has land occupied by Israel, which had occupied the Golan Heights in 1967 and subsequently annexed that territory in 1981. In this respect, the accusation that Syria supports Hizbullah and Palestinian liberation organisations, if true, only increases its standing in the Arab world, where Hizbullah's success in driving the Israelis out of Lebanon is taken as a shining example in the Arab struggle. Finally, with respect to the weapons of mass destruction matter that Washington gave as its primary pretext for invading Iraq and towards which end it pushed Resolution 687 through the Security Council, Washington has made it clear that the ban in the region on such weapons should apply exclusively to the Arabs. Israel, meanwhile, may continue to augment its arsenal as it pleases. In any event, even if an Arab country violated the treaties prohibiting the possession of such weapons, there is nothing in these documents stipulating that the US is entitled to enforce their provisions. Nor, for that matter, is there anything to prevent a signatory party from withdrawing from the agreements in the event that it perceives that this action best serves the interests of its national security. There are two ways of handling the new crisis between Syria and the US, which has thrust itself upon the region, without any legal authority, as its policeman. The first way is to promote dialogue between Washington and Damascus. Dialogue will be extremely useful in bringing to light the causes behind the dispute the US has fabricated with Syria and force US intentions into the open. As such, it will support the Syrian position, despite the generally held impression to the contrary. Many observers have suggested that the allegations the US has levelled against Syria are only pretexts for an invasion that will occur regardless of the extent to which Damascus cooperates. In support of this contention, observers cite official US statements which fit entirely with Israeli designs. Other observers maintain that dialogue will only help Washington accomplish all or most of its aims without recourse to additional military adventures and the costs they would entail. Nevertheless, I believe that dialogue can be productive. It would, for example, offer Syria an avenue to demonstrate its willingness to cooperate without, in the final analysis, forfeiting the bases of its position. The second way to handle the current US- Syrian crisis is confrontational and would entail rallying a broad front to counter accusations levelled by parties that have no right to accuse. Unfortunately, such a course of action would be counterproductive. It makes little sense for Syria to take up the gauntlet of allegations that are in effect threats, and even if some prove true should not be cause for apology. To the contrary, it seems wiser for Damascus to pursue rational diplomacy leading to compromise, a course it seems to have already adopted. For example, in response to Washington's charge that Syria possesses weapons of mass destruction, Damascus objected to a weapons inspection process that would likely launch a cycle akin to that which had played out in Iraq. However, at the same time it offered to sign an international accord banning WMDs, to be signed by all countries in the region including Israel. This response was both responsible and realistic, and should be that of the entire Arab world. Any weapons inspection process should be comprehensive and applicable to all nations in the region and a UN Security Council resolution affirming this principle would help ensure a universal commitment to the equitable enforcement of all international provisions banning WMDs. Ultimately, Washington's flagrant harassment of Syria as a prerequisite to implementing plans drawn up by the White House long ago must be met with staunch Arab resistance. Washington's obvious determination to attack other Arab nations, beginning with Syria, in fulfillment of Israeli designs should stimulate a resurgence of Arab solidarity, at which point the US will realise that the Arab world does not suffer from a power vacuum and that it does not need a guardian since it is fully eligible and qualified to take charge of its own destiny. At the same time, Washington should guard against taking for granted the Israeli spin on what happened in Iraq and rushing headlong into actions that will ultimately be inimical to its own interests. Israel has no concern for US interests, regardless of the extent to which the White House sympathises with Israeli aspirations. Ultimately, if the only reason behind US- Israeli designs to attack Syria is that Syria is a bastion of Arab resistance, then this alone should constitute our primary impetus for reviving an Arab system capable of defending the fundamental values and rights of the Arab peoples. Syria must not become the next phase in designs to clip Arab wings. * The writer is assistant to the Egyptian minister of foreign affairs.
