Breaking it off
On Sunday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood shoulder to shoulder with his Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak and, at long last, pointed the finger at Syria for obstructing Lebanon’s presidential elections. After months of misguided outreach to Damascus, Sarkozy laid out a new policy: diplomatic contact with Syria would be suspended until the Damascus demonstrated that it is no longer blocking the election of a Lebanese president.
The announcement came in a Q&A session following a joint press conference for the two presidents in Cairo. A reporter put Sarkozy on the spot, asking if it was not time for the French president to make good on his oft-repeated threat to name the obstructionist parties in Lebanon. Sarkozy responded by musing over whether it had been right for him to engage Bashar al-Assad in the first place: Unsurprisingly, he judged that it was the best course of action, as it had given Syria a chance to behave. “However,” he concluded, “it is necessary to acknowledge today that we cannot wait any longer. Syria has to stop speaking and start demonstrating. This is only the start, as I will not have any more contact with the Syrians – I and all my partners – as long as we have no evidence of their will to let Lebanon elect a consensus president.”
This move – severing ties until Syria stops interfering in Lebanon – is very welcome, albeit several months late. One could even argue the delay was worth it, if this is what it took for the new president to learn what is like to deal with the Syrians.
Or so one would have thought if one left the press conference before hearing Sarkozy reply to a later question on his policy towards Syria and Iran. Because, while he, once again, affirmed he will not give up on Lebanon, he also reasserted France’s foreign policy line of “firmness and dialogue” in dealing with rogue states, arguing that “refusing to talk to each other and understand one another may lead the world to the brink of a catastrophic crisis.”
And while Sarkozy was talking tough in Cairo, two Americans were meeting with Bashar al-Assad and his foreign minister, Walid al-Mouallem, in Damascus. Republican Senator Arlen Specter and Democratic Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s visit was the fourth by US representatives in December alone (and Specter’s 16th since coming to office in 1984). So, what’s in it for the US taxpayer who is footing the bill for these junkets?
Not much is the short answer. The winner is Syria, which, through its well-drilled media, is quick to fillet US statements and spin the visits as a propaganda coup for the Syrian regime. Sunday’s edition of the ruling party’s al-Baath newspaper ironically hit the nail on the head, running an editorial that asked, “What problem can the US Administration have with Syria so long as US delegations, Republicans and Democrats, have not stopped visiting Damascus and confirming the importance of its role in solving the region”s problems?”
Still, from little acorns grow giant oak trees and it is nonetheless encouraging that Sarkozy finally seems to have woken up to reality: The Syrians will say what foreign diplomats want to hear on the Lebanon file – commitment to non-interference, democracy, stability and so forth – but they simply will not fulfill these promises as long as they sense there is more to gain by keeping the red carpet to hand. What is even more encouraging was that Sarkozy’s announcement was made in Cairo with Mubarak standing at his side. But if there is any hope for pressuring Syria to leave Lebanon alone, it will have to be made from a unified front. If a commitment to international coordination and protecting Lebanon means that some politicians will have to postpone their next shopping trip in the Souk al-Hamidiyeh or forego an opportunity to thumb their noses at George W. Bush, is that really so much to ask?
Happy New Year.