Monday, November 17, 2008

The Real Rulers of Damascus

In the first high-level visit by a British official for seven years, David Milliband will meet Syrian president Bashar al-Assad tomorrow with the hope of bringing the pariah state back into the fold of the Middle East peace process. The foreign secretary will be hoping for an easier time than Tony Blair encountered in 2001, when the Syrian (and Arab) view of the region was stated in blunt terms. For many analysts Syria is the potential linchpin of stability and security: the patrons of Hamas and Hizbollah; the key to easing tensions over Iran's nuclear programme. But Syria is not simply Assad. Behind this young and confident leader is a complex hierarchy that few outside Damascus understand.

'If we do not talk with Assad, there will not be peace in the Middle East.' President Nicolas Sarkozy said recently. His importance to the country's fortunes is beyond doubt, but his control over internal security in Syria and Lebanon is unclear. What role did Assad have over the Hariri assassination, what control does he have over insurgent camps on the Iraq border, would he have the authority to break from Iran and suspend support for radical groups?

Bashar al-Assad assumed power in July 2000 after his father's death, having held no interest in politics to that point. Trained in London as an ophthalmologist, his rule has reflected this worldly and progressive background. But being thrust into the intensity of Middle Eastern politics at thirty-four years, a naivety has often been shown. Whilst this inexperience was shown in his reaction to the UN's Hariri investigation, there has been shrewdness in maintaining Syria's influence and combativeness against the West's pressure. Assad has been no pushover - whether against Blair in 2001 or after the barrage of warnings from America in mid 2003.

One of the West's prime accusations against Syria is its support for radical Islamist groups through its Iranian alliance. But this stands in stark contrast to Assad's own secular progressive background and also his wife's. Born and educated in Britain and having pursued a career in investment banking, Asma al-Assad has championed women's rights as Syria's first lady. The relationship between Iran and Syria can thus be explained as one of convenience rather than shared values. When interviewed by news channels Bashar Assad appears mild mannered, intelligent and fluent in English, but to many he is seen as one of the main obstacles to peace in the region and a supporter of violent radicalism. The two don't match up - an explanation may be that he represents a front and real power lies elsewhere.

Assad's sister Bushra is regarded as the intellectual force in the Syrian inner circle and has promoted her husband - Assef Shawkat - up the ranks of Damascus power, against the family's wishes. He now is head of military intelligence and is seen as the strongman of the regime. Shawkat had his assets frozen after being implicated in the Hariri assassination. He has also been accused of supporting Sunni Islamist terrorist groups in north Lebanon, whilst duplicitiously also conducting a public campaign to contain terrorism. Bushra - known as the "iron lady" - has the steel to drive her husband's ambitions but also to ensure her brother's position is secure. They are both considered to have held ambitions for Syria's top job. Finally the fourth member of this inner circle is the fourth Assad brother Maher, who has violent reputation and fell out with Shawkat in the late 1990s. Also implicated by the UN's Mehri report, he controls Syria's Republican Guard.

The latest rapprochement between Syria and the West is a positive development. But like Iran, domestic politics will play as much an influence on the course of negotiations as any shared interests between the Damascus leader and Western diplomats. Bashar al-Assad sent a congratulatory message to new president Barack Obama and Britain and Syria have agreed to closer intelligence co-operation. Shortly after the publication of the UN's report on the Hariri assassination, Bashar's days appeared numbered. He could have easily capitulated to Western demands and handed over his brother or brother-in-law, but he successfully weathered that storm. Faced with extreme external pressure, the Assad family has united around Bashar's leadership.

The rumour mill of the Middle East loves characters like the Assads, as their secrecy means that any host of interpretations of their intentions can be devised. Bushra a-Assad was this year rumoured to be seeking political asylum in France; Shawkat was reported to be under house arrest for his role in the assassination of Hezbollah number two Imad Mughnieh. The "suicide" of interior minister Ghazi Kanaan in 2005 was a classic addition to the Syrian rumour mongers armoury. Western politicians may have some greater insight than the public, but they may also be as confused as everyone else about where the true power in Damascus lies.



Wednesday, November 5, 2008

As America celebrates...

Whilst well over half of America celebrates the election of the first black president and the end of a disastrous Republican administration, two world events could prove prescient for the four years ahead. Six militants were killed in the first serious incident between Israel and Hamas since the ceasefire was agreed and in Mexico a plane crash has killed some of the government's top anti-cartel figures. These represent just two current flash points and who knows where other dangers lie in the next four years. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Russian Caucasus and Pakistan are obvious locations. Barack Obama has other more urgent issues like the economy to deal with, but at some point foreign policy will rise to the top of his in-tray with a vengeance. For all his charisma and international appeal, Obama does not hold the silver bullet to world order and America will hold enemies regardless of who is in the White house.

The escalating narco-wars in Mexico represent a new potential threat on America's southern flank, whilst the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the oldest foreign policy issue around but still the most important. Northern Mexico has resembled Iraq of late with a wave of brutal inter-cartel murders often accompanied by gruesome torture. Corrupt police forces and politicians have left the Mexican government impotent and powerless to act. The cartels have even infiltrated the US embassy. American policy in Colombia under four previous Presidents made no difference to the narcotic flow despite the billions being pumped south, so success in Mexico is a tough task. Mexico has not been listed on many analyses of Obama's foreign policy priorities, but it could be a running sore for the next few years. The intensity of the violence could spark something more serious.

A resolution of the Palestine question would not end the turbulence in the Middle East, but it would neutralise some of the poison that has afflicted America's relationship with the region. Syria would offer less antagonism towards the US, and so may Iran. The Palestinians plight has never been central to Al-Qaeda's agenda, although it has been used all the same, so a settlement would not ease this front. But the resentment in the wider region that provides a pool of recruits would be relieved by any agreement. The need to prioritise the peace process is obvious, but achieving this is another matter. This has been beyond almost all previous Presidents, even Clinton failed and that was with two fairly moderate leaders and a positive mood in the wake of the Oslo accords. Now Hamas and Israel could launch full scale hostilities any day. With the possibility of an intransigent right wing government being elected in Israel early next year, the two sides could become even more entrenched.

Afghanistan and Iraq will most likely take precedence in the early part of the Obama presidency. If there is an advantage for Obama over previous Clinton and Bush administrations, it is that the seriousness of crises on his in-tray, forces quick and decisive formulation of foreign policy strategy. Clinton spent his first year in foreign policy anonymity, Bush only showed an interest once he had to - after September 11. The Obama doctrine has been clearly set out over the course of the campaign, but events and new conflicts can alter or ruin any pre-planned ideas very easily. Both his predecessors doctrines were widely discredited by the end of their presidencies.

Many foreign policy experts believe the Obama presidency will represent continuity. But the relationship between America and its allies will certainly see improvements. The total break down of relations between Europe and the Bush administration that began with the build up to the Iraq war has remained for the last five years. The rapturous reception Obama received on his late summer tour of Europe is pretty much mirrored by European politicians. The EU was humiliated by Russia in its conflict with Georgia, so it is crying out for new encouragement on the world stage. The role of the EU had been undermined in international issues - like the Iran nuclear issue. Carrot and stick diplomacy usually meant the EU provided weak carrots; the American administration wildly brandished the stick. A more multilateral approach is surely more likely now.

With the middle name of Hussein, you would think that Barack Obama will be able to reach out to moderates across the Middle East. This will happen and America's soft power will be restored, but the region has become riven with cynicism after the last eight years. Radical groups like Al-Qaida are a different matter. Engaged in a long war, the individual characteristics of presidents is not that relevant. Obama has placed Afghanistan as a priority as well as stabilising Pakistan. General Petraeus is looking to divide nationalist insurgents from jihadists in Afghanistan as was successful in Iraq. The approach to Iran will require real patience and tact -Obama traits - but it might be a Syria first strategy.

So Obama has four years to clear up the mess left by the Bush administration. No recent president has had such a daunting foreign policy agenda to deal with. Clinton had Somalia but this hadn't escalated; Bush snr had the Cold war but perestroika was in full flow by 1988. Obama will hope that Bush leaves no more unwanted legacies in the transition period. A possibility but unlikely given today's gracious congratulations. But then as Mexico's upward violent spiral shows, other fronts and crises are able to arise at any moment.