Damascus is ready and waiting, but will the guests show up, asks Sami Moubayed The Syrians continue to uphold their innocence with regard to the presidential crisis in Lebanon, and stress that, "the upcoming Arab Summit in Damascus scheduled for 29 March will be held on schedule." For a variety of reasons, the summit is very important for Syria. It is the first to be held on Syrian soil since Arab leaders assembled in Daraa during the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. What's more, it means that the US-led embargo on Damascus is coming to an end, since at the top of the VIP list are America's allies in the Arab world, including King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. That was one of the reasons why the Saudis pushed for holding the summit in Damascus, back in March 2007. At the time, King Abdullah treated President Bashar Al-Assad with full honours, and kept a distance from rival Lebanese politicians so as to send positive gestures towards Syria. The message was: come back to the so-called "Arab moderate community" (away from Iran) under the patronage of Saudi Arabia. However, unlike what many people believe, the Saudis did not want to disrupt the Syrian-Iranian alliance. They wanted to invest in it and use it in Saudi Arabia's favour, since the argument goes that Syria is more reasonable than Iran, and does not have such a long history of anti-Americanism. The Saudis wanted Syria to moderate Iranian behaviour in pan-Arab affairs, mainly in Lebanon and Iraq. While this cuddling up to Syria was taking place, Javier Solana, the EU chief negotiator, came to Syria a year ago and offered the Syrians a partnership agreement with Europe in exchange for Syrian support in bringing calm to Lebanon. Then came Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, to Damascus last April, followed by a May meeting between Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mouallem and Condoleezza Rice. Everybody was offering the Syrians carrots in exchange for their cooperation on Lebanon. The Syrians responded promptly, via Nabih Berri, and supported the Arab League initiative to Lebanon, backing Army Commander Michel Suleiman for president. This explains why even France started sending signals to Syria through two phone calls between President Nicolas Sarkozy and President Bashar Al-Assad. But then the elections failed, over and over again, and the finger was pointed at the Syrians yet again. Lebanon today has been without a president since November, and the regional and international community believe that this is the doing of the Hizbullah-led opposition, which is close to the Syrians. The Arab leaders, through official and semi-official media outlets, began leaking news that they might not attend the Damascus summit if a new president is not elected in Lebanon. The Syrians insist they have nothing to do with the crisis in Beirut, stressing that they have supported Suleiman for president from day one and support the Arab League initiative of Amr Moussa. However, allies of the 14 March Coalition, mainly Saudi Arabia, do not buy the Syrian tale. The media war began in late 2007, spearheaded mainly by Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and Al-Arabiya, along with a very harsh declaration by the Saudi government against Syrian Vice-President Farouk Al-Shara. This then led to the withdrawal of the Saudi ambassador to Damascus and his appointment to Qatar. The Syrian press lashed back, though in a rather humble manner, since state-run dailies were ordered not to criticise a neighbouring Arab country. On the contrary, the state-run daily Tishreen headlined an appeal to Arab leaders, "Come to Damascus before it is too late" and added, "Come to Damascus with open hearts, an enlightened mind, and a will for dialogue." There are two theories floating around Syria at present. One is to hold the summit anyway, regardless of whether the Saudis show up, and be satisfied with the presence of Arab heavyweights like Mahmoud Abbas, Abdul- Aziz Bouteflika, King Abdullah II, and Sheikh Hamad of Qatar, all of whom are believed to be attending. This option advocates investing in Syria's newfound friendship with Turkey and strengthening the Syrian-Iranian alliance. This option becomes difficult however, if the Saudi monarch gets Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to boycott the summit. The Syrians have been getting mixed signals from Cairo. On one front, the London-based Al-Hayat said that according to Jordanian sources, it was decided to hold a pre-emptive summit of eight "moderate" Arab leaders in Cairo or Sharm El-Sheikh, before the Damascus summit. Hisham Youssef, the bureau chief for Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, denied knowledge of a mini-summit of these so-called moderates saying, "we refuse this terminology for Arab states and there is no talk about any Arab summit, except the one scheduled for Damascus." Ahmed Abul-Gheit, the Egyptian foreign minister, noted that negotiations were underway "between Egypt and Saudi Arabia to make the Arab summit in Damascus a success." Syrian websites, however, ran a story saying that according to a senior unnamed Saudi diplomat, "What we know is that if there is no president in Lebanon, King Abdullah and President Mubarak will not attend the Summit." Mubarak himself was quoted in the Saudi channel Al-Arabiya as saying: "We should not be [in Damascus] resolving a problem that Syria is party to." Also speaking from Bahrain, he added that a president must be elected in Lebanon before the Damascus summit, claiming that "not solving this issue will mean failure for the summit." His spokesman, Suleiman Awad, said that an Arab summit was unimaginable without a Lebanese president. The Syrians tried to downplay Mubarak's fears, and a source at the Foreign Ministry said, "we hope that a solution is found to the Lebanese crisis before the Arab summit." That brings the Syrians to another crisis: who to invite from Lebanon? Since there is no president the only logic would be to invite Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora, with whom the Syrians have a lot of bad blood since 2005. Many in Syria accuse him of inviting the US destroyer USS Cole into Lebanese waters to add pressure on Syria. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mouallem snapped back at the US threat saying, "We have been saying that the United States was obstructing the political solution in Lebanon and the existence of this ship affirms this!" "Those Lebanese who are betting on the United States flexing its muscles will be disappointed. Washington cannot impose the solution it wants. The way out has to be based on a Lebanese consensus," added the Syrian minister. This was resolved last week by Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, who said that the Lebanese opposition (presumably meaning Syria as well) does not mind Siniora going to Damascus, noting, however, that "he will not go!" If he were to take this radical step, it would effectively prove that the Syrians are not to blame for any seeming lack of cooperation with Lebanon. The Syrians are stressing, however, that this summit is about a variety of Arab issues, not only Lebanon. Al-Mouallem told Al-Jazeera, "the summit agenda is not dedicated to only one issue -- finding a solution for Lebanon." He also downplayed the possible no-show of Arab leaders, saying "Arabs were absent from earlier summits. There has never been full attendance at any summit." Echoing his words was Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad, who said, "it is a duty to come to the Arab Summit in Damascus. This is your summit after all, not a Syrian one."
