During a recent meeting in Damascus with a senior Syrian official, an American diplomat relayed a request from Washington concerning a human rights issue in Syria. The Syrian official paused a moment and then replied that if the appeal had been raised in say, six months, it would not be received well, but it would still be considered. Now, however, while the official would pass on the request, it would stand no chance of being fulfilled because Syria and the United States have not yet established the “basis of a relationship.”
That anecdote illustrates the achingly slow progress made since the Obama administration began its cautious re-engagement with Syria, and how much farther both sides have to go before the fruits of their labor can be harvested.
Recent signals emanating from Washington suggest that the Obama administration may be losing hope that a breakthrough can be achieved with the Damascus. Both sides acknowledge that they are still groping for the seemingly elusive basis of a relationship upon which outstanding grievances can be aired and resolved.
As far as the US is concerned, Iraq’s security is the testing ground for improved relations with Syria, while other areas of mutual interest, such as resuming peace talks with Israel and stabilizing Lebanon, can wait their turn.
For now, George Mitchell is focused on the Israeli-Palestinian track, though the Israelis themselves are showing little inclination to resume even the indirect talks with Syria brokered by Turkey. Lebanon, in which the Bush administration invested so much diplomatic energy, is even further down Obama’s list of priorities.
In June, General Ray Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq, acknowledged that there had been a significant decrease in the number of militants entering Iraq from Syria. But US officials remain concerned that Syria is not doing all it can to stem the flow.
In August, a delegation from US Central Command visited Damascus and hammered out a tripartite agreement in which security along the joint frontier would be coordinated on the ground by US, Syrian and Iraqi forces. The agreement was seen in Washington as the first concrete positive move from Syria since the engagement process began earlier in the year. That soon went sour.
Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, was piqued at being left out of the talks between the US and Syria and traveled to Damascus for his own discussions on border security issues. Negotiations were promising according to respective spokesmen in Baghdad and Damascus.
The next day, Baghdad was struck by simultaneous truck bombs and mortar barrages killing almost 100 people in the worst bout of violence in Iraq for months. A furious Maliki blamed Syria for harboring Baathist militants, and Iraqi television aired alleged confessions from an arrested Baathist and an Al Qaeda militant.
The bombs that struck Baghdad also blew up the tentative border security arrangement and the Americans found themselves back at square one with the Syrians. Even if the border agreement had proceeded, US officials still maintain that Damascus must clamp down on its homegrown militants and deny entry to other Arab militants. Securing the border should be the last resort, not the sole means of blocking militants from entering Iraq, they say.
So far the outreach between Washington and Damascus appears distinctly one-sided. Obama has dispatched more than half a dozen high profile visitors to Syria, lifted the ban on spare parts for Syrian Air’s fleet of ageing Boeing airliners, and announced that an ambassador will return to Damascus after a near five-year absence.
Although the announcement was made in late May, a new US ambassador has yet to be appointed, let alone returned to the embassy in Damascus. The delay has prompted speculation that the Obama administration may have decided to hold off on naming a new ambassador until further progress is made with Damascus. However, a US official told me recently that the delay is only administrative and due to nothing more than the logistical difficulties of finding a diplomat willing to take up the job.
According to the official, the Bush administration made a mistake in recalling the ambassador in February 2005, describing it as a “unilateral diplomatic freeze” that only prolonged the hostile climate between the two countries.
The collapse of the tripartite border security agreement has dampened hopes of an imminent breakthrough with the Syrians and US State Department officials appear to possess a dogged realism about the chances of successful rapprochement with Damascus.
Given the snail-like pace of progress so far, perhaps the Syrian official was being overly optimistic in suggesting that it would take only six months for Damascus to grow more receptive to US demarches on human rights issues.
Nicholas Blanford is the Beirut-based correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor and The Times of London
