Though the AP story was good quality reporting, the title was rather funny: “Moderate Arabs look to curb militants.� “Moderate Arabs�? AP’s standards for political “moderation� seem to lie in how close the regime is to DC. One regime may sodomize dissidents, the other beheads them, but still according to AP they are “moderates.�
Moderate Arabs look to curb militants
By Steven R. Hurst and Salah Nasrawi
CAIRO, Egypt — Egypt and Saudi Arabia – both with strained U.S. ties – are working to entice Syria to end support for Hezbollah, a move that is central to resolving the conflict in Lebanon and unhitching Damascus from its alliance-of-convenience with Iran, the Shiite Muslim guerrillas’ other main backer, Arab diplomats and analysts said Sunday.
The two Arab heavyweights were prepared to spend heavily from Egypt’s political capital in the region and Saudi Arabia’s vast financial reserves to rein in Hezbollah as well as the Hamas militants now running the Palestinian government. In return, Washington would ease pressure on its moderate Arab allies for broad democratic reform, the diplomats and analysts said.
The deal offers hope of stopping the violence on both sides of Israel – the fight with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. It is believed that taking Syria out of the Hezbollah-Iran orbit would blunt Iran’s bid to establish itself as a regional power-broker. Iran’s attempts to expand its influence sends shudders through the moderate Arab world.
“The U.S. administration has already realized that its Middle East policies are not paying dividends. They have yielded no real reforms. Now the (Arab) regimes find it easy to tell them (in the administration) that the status quo is better and Washington should not insist on reforms,” said Khalil el-Annany, a political analyst at the Cairo-based International Politics Center.
Arab diplomats in Cairo said the United States had signaled a willingness to re-engage Syria through Washington’s encouragement of the Egyptians and Saudis to lean on Damascus to stop backing Hezbollah. For their part, the Syrians sounded ready to begin repairing ties with Washington.
“If the United States wants to involve in Syria’s diplomacy, of course Damascus is more than willing to engage,” Syria’s ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha, said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
MAY PEACE BE UPON YOUR SOUL, HEART, MIND, AND BODY…AMEN.
Well, may the Lord Alimghty grant us tranquility while living this life…amen.
Can anyone comment on how “Egypt’s political capital” might help it play the broker? What could it pressure Syria with? Or would the “heavyweights” just allow both the US and Syria to save face after having sworn never to negotiate with each other (well, at least the Americans were scorning Syrian offers to negotiate a couple of days ago).
I find this article pretty unconvincing. Is part of it missing? What’s posted offers no facts or credible quotes to support the claim of a “deal.”
“Moderate” refers solely to (Western journalists’ perceptions of) Arab regimes’ stance toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. Indeed, it is high time to update the terminology!
Amy – here is the full article. They quote “analysts” a lot without specifics, true, but I’ve come across several other reports that there is a deal in the making with Syria, notably one in today’s FT. Am still confused about how it’s supposed to work.
I think we all agree that the use of “moderate” to mean “US-friendly” is extremely problematic…since when does the Saudi regime with its vice and virtue brigade count as liberal or moderate?
Moderate Arabs look to curb militants
By STEVEN R. HURST AND SALAH NASRAWI
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITERS
CAIRO, Egypt — Egypt and Saudi Arabia – both with strained U.S. ties – are working to entice Syria to end support for Hezbollah, a move that is central to resolving the conflict in Lebanon and unhitching Damascus from its alliance-of-convenience with Iran, the Shiite Muslim guerrillas’ other main backer, Arab diplomats and analysts said Sunday.
The two Arab heavyweights were prepared to spend heavily from Egypt’s political capital in the region and Saudi Arabia’s vast financial reserves to rein in Hezbollah as well as the Hamas militants now running the Palestinian government. In return, Washington would ease pressure on its moderate Arab allies for broad democratic reform, the diplomats and analysts said.
The deal offers hope of stopping the violence on both sides of Israel – the fight with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. It is believed that taking Syria out of the Hezbollah-Iran orbit would blunt Iran’s bid to establish itself as a regional power-broker. Iran’s attempts to expand its influence sends shudders through the moderate Arab world.
“The U.S. administration has already realized that its Middle East policies are not paying dividends. They have yielded no real reforms. Now the (Arab) regimes find it easy to tell them (in the administration) that the status quo is better and Washington should not insist on reforms,” said Khalil el-Annany, a political analyst at the Cairo-based International Politics Center.
Arab diplomats in Cairo said the United States had signaled a willingness to re-engage Syria through Washington’s encouragement of the Egyptians and Saudis to lean on Damascus to stop backing Hezbollah. For their part, the Syrians sounded ready to begin repairing ties with Washington.
“If the United States wants to involve in Syria’s diplomacy, of course Damascus is more than willing to engage,” Syria’s ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha, said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal was quoted in a Spanish newspaper Sunday as threatening to join the Hezbollah fight against Israel while also calling for a cease-fire.
Given that Syria poses no military threat to Israel, it appeared obvious that the cease-fire call was directed at Hezbollah and the threat of military action was diplomatic posturing.
The Egyptian diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks, said the American readiness to engage Syria grew in part out of a visit last week by Egypt’s powerful chief of intelligence Omar Suleiman and Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit. They met in Washington with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
“The two officials told the administration that the best way to solve this problem is through isolating Syria from Iran, the two main backers of Hezbollah and Hamas,” said one diplomat. “The interests of those countries are not always compatible, and if Syria is given a carrot it could help solve the crisis, leaving Iran in the shadows.”
It was not clear what Syria might be offered in exchange. But incentives might include one or more of a range of measures, including improved U.S. ties, an easing of U.S. sanctions, restoration of its standing in the Arab world and Saudi financial assistance.
Aboul Gheit was in Damascus, the Syrian capital, the day before he went to Washington.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal and Secretary of the Saudi National Security Council Prince Bandar bin Sultan, also the former ambassador to Washington, carried the same message to meetings Sunday with Rice and President Bush, the diplomats said.
First public evidence of any such deal should appear in Rome this week when Rice meets officials of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in a bid to end the Lebanon fighting. They will be joined by officials from Jordan, Lebanon, Britain, France, Russia, Italy, the United Nations and the World Bank. Syria and Iran are not participating.
The workings of a deal come as U.S. policy-makers have their hands full in the Middle East. Iraq is consumed by bloodshed. U.S. pressure for democracy has caused ties with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab governments to chill significantly. And Arabs, as always, see the United States tilted clearly in favor of Israel.
Washington has nearly 130,000 troops bogged down in relentless violence in Iraq, which the U.S. had hoped would become a democratic beacon in the region after Saddam Hussein was ousted in April 2003. Iranian influence among Iraq’s newly dominant Shiite majority grows daily.
In Lebanon, the Shiite Hezbollah militants have virtual control over the south and have thumbed their noses at international demands that they disarm, making it impossible for the weak U.S.-backed anti-Syrian government in Beirut to assert control over the whole country.
That, in turn, allowed Hezbollah, perhaps on orders from but certainly with the support of both Syria and Iran, to cross the border to attack an Israeli army patrol, killing eight soldiers, capturing two and igniting the conflict that was in its 12th day Sunday.
Weakening Syria’s and Iran’s heavy influence with Hezbollah and with Hamas, the Sunni Muslim militants who control the Palestinian government, thus are key tools in resolving the conflicts both in Lebanon and Gaza. The carrot that brought Egypt and Saudi Arabia into the diplomatic fray was U.S. willingness to ease its pressure for democratic reform.
“But they (the Egyptians and Saudis) have to be very careful, because the movements are still popular among the Arab people. And even though they (Hezbollah and Hamas) could easily be defeated by the Saudis and Egyptians, those governments want to avoid being seen in the Arab street as traitors or as having surrendered to Israel and the Americans,” el-Annany said.
And the U.S. Arab allies are moving carefully but with determination. The Egyptian diplomats said Cairo had made significant headway in mediation with Hamas leaders to release the Israeli soldier its fighters abducted last month. If Cairo can secure the soldier’s release, that could signal Syria is ready to cooperate because many Hamas leaders are based in Damascus and are heavily influenced by their hosts.
I think that what the US has in mind for “Egypt’s political capital” is that he can go see Bashar behind closed doors and talk to him more-or-less frankly (which the US would not do, or rather Bashar would be unlikely to put himself in a position where he has to hear frank US comments and have to react to them), using the fact that he’s been around, knew his father well, etc.
It’s probably a failing policy, but perhaps Mubarak can act as negotiator when the two parties could not afford to negotiate directly. Mubarak can also, more importantly, put some degree of pressure/use his influence on the Saudis, who are much more important to the Syrian regime (but tend not to want to get their hands dirty.)
Just about the “moderates” label, these labels are always concocted from a USG perspective. After all, reverse the perspective and we’d be talking about the “moderate” Europeans (i.e. sell-outs) versus “rogue state” America.
“Mubarak can also, more importantly, put some degree of pressure/use his influence on the Saudis, who are much more important to the Syrian regime (but tend not to want to get their hands dirty.) “
Sorry for the dumb Q, but how are the Saudis important to the Syrian regime?
I sat and read this article and pulled it to pieces as I went. Right at the start it reveals its agenda by saying that “to entice Syria to end support for Hezbollah …is central to resolving the conflict in Lebanon”. Who says? Maybe the key is to expose Israeli violations of humanitarian law and persuade the Israelis that their porject is just not going to work. This ‘analysis’ is just so full of misconceptions, non sequiturs and idiotic cliches that it’s hard to respect the authors. I’ve seen their other work and I had already come to that conclusion to some extent. Just ignore it — there’s nothing in it of any significance. By the way, in the great Hizbollah debate, I don’t think the Israeli response was predictable. Otherwise Nasrallah wouldn’t have looked so chuffed after the raid. In retrospect, the Israeli reaction was tailored to be way beyond predictions. But if I pricked you with a pin and you turned around and put a bullet through my brain, the average observer wouldn’t say “Serves him right”! On attacks which hit civilians, of course both are reprehensible but there really IS a moral difference between violence to maintain unjustly acquired power, property and privilege and violence to restore legimitate rights. International law may not recognise the distinction but we all know it when we see it.