It’s Time to Talk to Syria
It's Time to Talk to Syria
By JOHN KERRY and CHUCK HAGEL
After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, President George H.W. Bush did the
improbable and convinced Syrian President Hafez Assad to join an
American-led coalition against a fellow Baathist regime.
Today, these leaders’ sons have another chance for a diplomatic
breakthrough that could redefine the strategic landscape in the Middle
East.
The recent announcement of peace negotiations between Israel and
Syria through Turkey, and the agreement between the Lebanese factions
in Qatar – both apparently without meaningful U.S. involvement – should
serve as a wake-up call that our policy of nonengagement has isolated
us more than the Syrians. These developments also help create new
opportunities and increased leverage that we can only exploit through
substantive dialogue with Syria.
Syria’s leaders have always made cold calculations in the name of
self-preservation, and history shows that intensive diplomacy can pay
off. Secretary of State James Baker made more than a dozen trips to
Syria before Operation Desert Storm, and remember President Assad’s
price: U.S. support for Syrian dialogue with Israel. The ultimate
challenge – moving Syria away from its marriage of convenience with
Iran – will certainly not happen overnight. But it’s telling that Iran
lobbied Syria not to negotiate with Israel and that Syria decided to
proceed regardless.
To support Israel and isolate Iran, President George W. Bush should
offer direct support for the Israeli-Syrian initiative. Promoting peace
between our ally and its neighbors has always been a bipartisan
cornerstone of our foreign policy. Syria views peace talks with Israel
as part of a broader rapprochement with America, and its strong desire
for U.S. involvement can work to our advantage. We know that high
level, direct talks will require a sustained and credible American
role, just as they did in 2000, when President Bill Clinton met
repeatedly with Mr. Assad in bringing Syria and Israel to the brink of
a deal. With so much at stake, it’s in our interests to come to the
table again.
The agreement by the Lebanese parties provides another opening.
Syria must respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and end its deadly meddling.
But the fact that Syria’s ally, Hezbollah, secured much of the
political power it sought should remove Syria’s excuse for failing to
open an embassy, normalize relations, and finally demarcate the border
with Lebanon. Hezbollah must eventually be disarmed, as United Nations
Resolutions 1559 and 1701 require, but its agreement not to use force
internally could be used to push Syria to shut off the supply of
weapons.
Dialogue can open the door for greater cooperation on Iraq. Top
Syrian officials have argued that Syria shares America’s interest in a
stable, secular Iraq and does not want a strongly pro-Iranian regime in
Baghdad. Our partnership with Sunni tribes against al Qaeda may have
further aligned our interests. As U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker
has noted, Islamic extremists also threaten Syria.
While Syria must crack down on the flow of foreign fighters into
Iraq, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claims positive steps have not
been rewarded. We should test whether offering tangible benefits brings
better results, starting with providing more humanitarian assistance
for the nearly 1.5 million Iraqi refugees Syria has absorbed.
The U.N. tribunal investigating the murder of former Lebanese Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri, which may soon issue indictments, is also
creating pressure on the regime. If government officials are
implicated, Syria could face increased international sanctions. The
tribunal’s pursuit of justice must never be a bargaining chip, but it
adds an incentive to improve relations that we should capitalize on.
Tough economic times in Syria also create leverage. Although
domestic oil production accounts for 60%-70% of the country’s exports,
Syria became a net oil importer in 2007. With a growing population,
greater integration into the global economy and an easing of sanctions
could be powerful incentives.
Make no mistake: Cooperation with Syria rests not on shared values,
but on shared interests. Syria’s pursuit of a suspected nuclear program
underscores why any agreement must be verified. While many doubt
Syria’s intentions, we have real leverage and some inducements that
have more value to Syria than cost to us. There is no guarantee of an
agreement, but the potential payoff is huge, and our current policy is
failing.
Israel’s government has concluded that, rather than rewarding bad
behavior, dialogue with Syria is the best hope for changing it. As
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, “the chance overrides the
risk, and with this hope I am going for a new path.” We should do the
same before the opportunity slips away.
Mr. Kerry, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Massachusetts. Mr. Hagel, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Nebraska.
###

1 Comments
New comments for this entry are closed.
John Kerry is absolutely correct on this as always.
Oh, how I wish he would have become President in 2004 as he should have. We would be out of Iraq anand we would have the respect of the world again. John Kerry proves every day that he is an expert in foreign policy.