What the Syrians Got From Annapolis By Sami Moubayed

“The Syrians were the biggest winners at Annapolis” is what everybody seems to be saying these days in . Commoners are thrilled that, after what seemed to be difficult times since 2005, is back on track and is rapidly rejoining the international community. Better yet – ordinary Syrians believe – Syria is getting its way in . After all, ever since the conference, which was attended by Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad, took place on November 27 nothing but good things have been happening to Syria. And it would be wrong to believe, as the Syrian opposition claims, that local Syrians are frustrated at the newfound ‘honeymoon’ (if the word applies) between Syria and the United States. Anti-Americanism remains high, yet local Syrians prefer being in the US’s favour to open conflict. The situation in resonates with ordinary Syrians, and the more relations with Washington deteriorated, the more Syrians began to worry about their future. Syrians were eager for a rapprochement with the international community, and, against this background, Annapolis came as a blessing in disguise.

For ordinary Syrians, as well as for the upper echelons of power, one of the first indicators that the international embargo has come to an end, were two telephone conversations between President Bashar al-Assad and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy. This was followed by an invitation from the French Foreign Ministry to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moulem to visit on December 17, to attend a donors' conference on Palestine. The invitation in itself is very symbolic, and so are headlines in the Syrian media about Sarkozy meeting Assad in order to advance stability in Lebanon. The French are – finally – willing to engage with Syria in Lebanon. And clearly, they are pleased about how co-operative Syria has been in recent months by proxy through its Lebanese ally, Parliament Speaker . This is very important to Syria, since Syrians fear, just like their government does, that an anti-Syrian president in , along with an anti-Syrian prime minister from the Hariri Bloc, means trouble for Syria. It would imply a return to the complicated situation of February to December 2005.

Syrians would like to be able, once again, to visit Beirut – a traditional haven for ordinary Syrians – without feeling insecure. For decades, Syrians had gone to Lebanon for education, banking, hospitals, and entertainment – a luxury they have missed out on since 2005. It was always believed, though never said in public, that of all the presidential candidates, the Syrians prefer Army Commander . He is, after all, independent from the Hariri Bloc, and close to Hizbullah, which, at a grassroots level, is very popular in Syria. Earlier in 2007, he refused to blame Syria for the terrorism that rocked the northern Nahr al-Bared Camp, claiming that the fundamentalist group Fateh al-Islam was a creation of al-Qaeda, not Damascus. Syria gave the impression (again without saying so) that it favoured former Army Commander . That, in effect, damaged Aoun’s credibility among some Lebanese Christians. The truth is that the Syrians would have been very uncomfortable with Aoun as president. His ‘war of liberation’ against the Syrians in the 1980s, along with the vehement campaign he led from Paris in the 1990s, has not been forgotten by decision-makers in Damascus. Nor has his role in the United States in lobbying for the Syrian Accountability Act of 2003. His alliance with Hizbullah means little to the Syrians – it is a political tactic aimed at securing the backing of the Shiite majority in Lebanon for his presidential ambitions. There is no telling how Aoun, should he become president, will react vis-à-vis anti-Syrian legislation like UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701, in addition to the Accountability Act itself. Other candidates, like , Robert Ghanem, and Nasib Lahhoud, were equally taboo for the Syrians, since they represented a group working relentlessly to discredit Syria and blaming it for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005. Out of all the candidates, Syria preferred Michel Suleiman. The fact that suddenly, on March 14, it was willing to accept him as president – as were the United States – was very telling for Syrians. It meant that the US – and – had pressured Hariri to accept Suleiman; a carrot for the Syrians.

After Annapolis, Syria is expected to show more co-operation on Lebanon and Iraq. The Syrians believe that the road to Washington runs through Baghdad, not Beirut. They are convinced that Lebanon is not a priority on the US agenda and that if the Americans get what they want in Iraq, they are willing to make concessions to the Syrians on Lebanon. This, by no means, indicates a return to Syrian control in Lebanon, yet Syria’s allies will play a bigger part, while its opponents’ ambitions in Beirut will be curbed. The positive role of Syria in Iraq is already obvious, with state visits since early 2007 by President Jalal Talbani, Prime Minister Nuri al-Malki, Interior Minister Jawad al-Bulani, and Sunni leader Harith al-Dari. All of them came to Damascus, and all were encouraged to co- operate to end the chaos in Iraq. By opening an embassy in Baghdad, in the eyes of ordinary Iraqi Sunnis, Syria gave credibility to the US-backed Malki. By maintaining ties to former Baathists and Iraqi tribal leaders, and housing up to 1.5 million Iraqi refugees (mostly Sunnis), the Syrians continue to be an influential player in Iraqi politics, particularly within the Sunni community. It was one thing to have pro-American countries like and entering into diplomatic relations with Malki, and a totally different thing when this was done by Baathist Syria – a country still committed to Arab nationalism. Syria, the only country that has refused to bend to US pressure and sign a flawed peace deal with , has credibility among ordinary Arabs, and the Americans know it. The Syrians even put a greater effort into monitoring their 605 km border with Iraq, in order to prevent foreign fighters from entering the country. This prompted William Crowe, commander of the US unit in charge of the border area between Syria and Iraq, to say: "There is no large influx of foreign fighters across the border." That might explain why, in Nuri al-Malki’ s own words, violence in Iraq has dropped by 77%. After Annapolis the Syrians are expected to maintain this positive attitude,.

One of the ‘signals’ to the Syrians, indicating that Annapolis has paid off, is that there is no longer any talk about lack of Syrian co-operation on the Iraqi border. The Saudi daily al-Hayat reported that soon a Syrian official will be visiting Saudi Arabia to mend relations with Riyadh. The report of the head of the International Investigation Commission into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, Serge Brammertz, came out in late November 2007. Not only did it fail to name any Syrian suspects (contrary to original reports in 2005), but also praised Syria ’s co-operation in the investigation. Simultaneously, the US Department of State did not veto a technological grant for customs surveillance equiment to the Syrians by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and that in spite of the fact that the technology used will come from the US company Cisco Systems. Quite on the contrary, the company was granted a special export license from the Department of Commerce to ship routers, switches, and other high-tech equipment to Syria. And as if that was not enough, the US gave in to a Syrian demand, to place the issue of the Golan Heights on the Annapolis conference agenda – a Syrian pre-condition for attending. Thus, the question of the Golan Heights, dormant since 2000, is once more part of the peace process.

Back in December 2003, US President George W. Bush had said that Syria was a “very weak country,” and that it would have to wait until all other issues in the Middle East had been resolved, before the question of the occupied Golan Heights could be discussed. Such a provocative statement, the Syrians believe, is now history – if, in Iraq and Lebanon, they continue to co-operate in good faith. Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst. He is Associate Professor at the Department of International Relations at al-Kalamoun University in Syria and author of numerous books on contemporary Syrian history, e.g. “Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900-2000” (Cune Press, 2005).