Interview with Ambassador Imad Moustapha
Aug 08, 2007
Sami Moubayed
Imad Moustapha has challenged a long-standing principle which says that career-diplomats are better at diplomacy than people who are parachuted into the job from other fields. His tenure in Washington DC has been one of the richest and most prolific since Syria sent its first ambassador to the United States in 1945. The current Syrian Ambassador was previously the Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science at Damascus University. Prior to his diplomatic appointment in 2004, the Syrians knew him as an academic, a writer, and a patron of the arts. A common face at art exhibitions, operas, and theatrical plays, Moustapha was always a highly accessible man who endeared himself to all those who knew him, from students at university who looked up to him as a friend and role model, to ambitious young musicians wanting to make a break-through in the artistic community. In many ways, his surrounding has changed since 2004. He now has to deal with the hostile hawks at the Bush administration—the Neocones—constantly having to tell them that unlike what is said in the United States, Syria is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Syria is a country with a just cause, an occupied land, a rational foreign policy, and a great civilization. He does this in a variety of ways—his ways—that vary from administering an online blog, to speaking at universities, and appearing on talks shows on US television. The doors to the Middle East run through Damascus, he always says. His job—for obvious reasons—has not been easy given the US attitude towards Syria since the war on Iraq in 2003. This summer, Ambassador Moustapha comes to Damascus for a much needed and well-deserved vacation. Having regularly contributed to our magazine since its launch in January 2007, both as a friend and an ambassador, he took the time to speak to Forward about the nature and future of Syrian-US relations.
What were you thinking when you first arrived in Washington DC back in 2004? What were your expectations? Which of them were met and which were shattered along the way?
As much as people evolve, so do professional expectations. When I went there I had very different expectations and a very different set of objectives that I was considering. At that time, during the first Bush administration, the team that was at the State Department believed in diplomatic engagement and finding creative solutions to problems that actually exist. In my trip—on the airplane—I was sketching a set of challenges I might face, along with opportunities and threats. I thought that my job as an ambassador was to engage with my counterparts at the State Department to find common ground (taking into account that there were major differences between us) and then working with them at expanding the common ground and finding creative solutions. My approach was to compartmentalize. The issues were too many, and were all interrelated. We needed to compartmentalize and achieve small successes here and there, hoping that the cumulative sum might make a difference. But that was in a different context. This approach doesn’t apply anymore. After the first Bush administration, there has been a remarkable shift and change in the US administration attitude towards Syria. Relations have dramatically deteriorated. My approach is no longer finding common ground. It now rests on while understanding that its almost impossible to deal with this administration, I still have a very large space to work (not necessarily with the administration). In a nutshell, what I want to say is that the whole concept of my work as a Syrian diplomat in the has drastically changed.
You are one of the most active diplomats in contemporary Syrian history, and probably, one who is going through the most difficult of times. There is a lot of talk about ‘hardships’ in your job in Washington DC. Can you tell us about that? What should the world, and the average Syrian, know about US attitude towards the Syrian Embassy in Washington DC?
If we take everything into a relative context I would say ‘yes’ there are very difficult moments. Sometimes I feel that it is not easy being the Syrian representative in Washington DC. There are good things as well, however, and I don’t want to sound very pessimistic. There are political difficulties and that is understandable and I am willing to face them. I have no problem in facing the hostile media, engaging in extremely difficult discussions with Congressmen, Senators, and officials from the State Department. This is normal. What disappoints me, because of my personal character, is that the US administration acts in a very petty—almost scandalous way—towards the Embassy. They engage in acts that nobody would expect from the government of the world superpower; a great nation that has achieved milestones in science, technology, entertainment, economy, and industry. You cannot believe that the government of this great nation is acting in such a petty manner towards the Embassy of Syria. If we would reciprocate and treat the US Embassy in Damascus in similar manner, I think the Syrians would be scandalized and say: Syria cannot go to this low degree of treating the US Embassy. One example is that I cannot send faxes, neither from my home, nor the Embassy, to Syria. Another is that during one demonstration in front of the Syrian Embassy authorities refused to send police to guard the premises, although that it what is customarily done. I contacted Damascus and they contacted the US Embassy saying that unless protection is provided for the Syrian Embassy in Washington (as customarily done with any foreign embassy in the US), then Syria would have to lift all security placed in Damascus around the US Embassy and the home of the Ambassador. Within less than 30-minutes, two police cars drove up to guard the Embassy.
There was an ‘optimistic phase’ in Syrian-US relations, back in November 2006. The rhetoric against Syria at the time seemed to be softening. It did not last. Why is that?
I contest this. What I would say is that after November 2006 the ‘rational center’ in the United States shifted its attitude towards Syria. What I mean by the ‘rational center’ is the political think-tanks, academics, and mainstream media, along with the political analysts. This was after the war on Lebanon in 2006, after the US congressional elections, after Baker-Hamilton, and after the continuously evident grand fiasco of US policies in Iraq. All these elements combined to reach a tipping point and the political scene (not the administration) changed its attitude towards Syria. The administration was forced (because of these changes) to mute its criticism of Syria and to pretend it was trying diplomatic initiatives. Deep at heart, however, I never believed they were serious about this or that they can even understand the meaning of engagement and trying to find solutions.
How does the US administration react to a ‘blogging’ Syrian Ambassador who speaks their language fluently, knows their history, and defends his country so eloquently in their own media?
The average number of people who access my blog is not that large. I have 7,000 visitors per week. But it has a solid loyalty base; people who have accessed it once continue to do so. The administration has never officially commented on my blog but I always get indirect feedback from many officials in the administration who comment very positively about my blog. Many others have said nasty things about it. I am sure of one thing, however, they do read it. Of course I can understand that certain officials in the administration don’t feel happy about my approach to direct public engagement and sometimes feel irritated. Whenever they can interfere to prevent me from engaging in such activity, they do. One time was when I was invited by the National Defense University to give a speech. One day before the scheduled appointment the University Provost called me. He was very polite and very embarrassed, saying: “Please understand our position Mr. Ambassador. We work under directives from the Pentagon and the National Security Council. We are afraid to say that we have to cancel your presentation tomorrow.” This was despite the fact that they had already announced it publicly. On the other hand, universities enjoy academic freedom and are very keen on having me as a speaker. I have very busy—overloaded—engagements with academia across the United States. I think this is something we should appreciate because universities never abstained from inviting the ambassador of a so-called ‘rogue’ state. They always gave me a platform and I think this is one of the most cherished experiences I have had since going to the US. I also appear a lot on CSPAN in a program called The Washington Journal in which I take live phone calls from the American public and respond directly. I have done that six times already. They ask all sorts of questions: hostile, friendly, learned, stupid, etc… Students are usually more well-informed and do their homework prior to meeting with me.
Tell us about the Syrian community in Washington DC. Are they ‘forgotten diplomats?’ Or is there so much more they can do, along with other Arab-Americans, to influence US policy towards the Middle East?
There is a dichotomy concerning the Syrian community in the US, and the Arab one in general. One the one hand, they are the jewel of the crown of the Syrian expatriate community across the world. I am so proud of them. They are very successful, highly respected, affluent, nice, and loyal to their homeland. Wherever I go in the US they surround me with warmth and friendship. They are the one factor that has made my life easy and possible in the US. They could have been potentially exploited by the negative propaganda against the Syrian government. They were not. Despite all the money invested and the efforts of the US administration to try to instigate the Syrian-American community against Syria, they have totally and absolutely failed. That is something I am very proud of. On the other hand, they are totally apolitical in a place where communities, special interest groups, and lobbies can be very influential on the political machine in the US. They don’t interfere in politics and are not active on the local scene. This has been the case all throughout but became stronger after 9-11 because the FBI and CIA wire-tap them, shadow them, monitor them and who they meet with, what they do, what kind of money they earn, and what kind of money they transfer within the US and abroad. They are making life difficult for them. It is not easy for an Arab-American living in the so-called ‘leader of the free world.’
In his inauguration speech on July 17, President Bashar al-Assad spoke of US pressure on a foreign firm to prevent it from offering administrative advise on reform in Syria. Has the US been an obstacle to reform in Syria?
Definitely. Wherever I look I see how the US has put spokes in the wheels of reform and progress in Syria. This applies to financial affairs, as well as economic, banking, exports, and imports. They obstruct Syria joining the World Trade Organization (WTO). They did everything possible to prevent the European Union from signing a partnership agreement with Syria. They prevent the sale of spare parts even to civilian airplanes, thus endangering the lives of Syrian civilians. It has been announced, nearly two months ago, that the State Department was disbanding a Syrian Destabilization Unit. Nobody commented on this. They said that it will be replaced with a unit that will work with more conformity under American law. I immediately sent a letter to the State Department (knowing that I was being sarcastic) regarding some official government visas they had sent me to process. I asked whether these people ‘were involved in the Syrian Destabilization Unit?’ They answered: ‘No. They are not.’ I never resist being sarcastic when I can. Yesterday, they called me officially from Washington to plead with me; please help us obtain more visas to Syria; the process is becoming very slow. And I told them: what do you expect? It is a tit-for-tat. During our phone call they asked me to interfere with on the behalf of teachers at the American school here in Damascus who were requesting visas. Once again I couldn’t resist the temptation of being sarcastic. I told them that I promise to do everything that I can with my government, saying: “Come on. For God’s sake, this administration will not last forever. Why ruin our cultural relations with the United States?” I don’t spare them and they don’t spare me. It is a fair game.
Does Syria still have friends in Washington DC? If so, who are they? And who are the ones that need to be tapped for the future?
Yes we do. They are usually well informed Americans, mostly academics and thoughtful people who have a perpetual yearning to know, be fair, understand, and to take positions based on their moral dignity. The problem is that they are a silent minority that is not organized. But if you look at Washington DC, the most politicized city in the entire world, you will barely find any friends of Syria. The people in the ‘rational center’ are becoming more understanding that regardless if they like Syria or not, it is vital for US interests to engage with Syria to find common ground in order to bypass the current crisis in Syrian-US relations. But not in the administration. I would say it would be very difficult to imagine that we have friends in the US administration. What do you benefit from someone who likes you but has to pretend that he doesn’t, and prove his loyalty (to the administration) by aggressively showing that he dislikes you. All the moderates were slaughtered by this administration. They have been pushed aside and marginalized. Young diplomats at the State Department realize that if they want to promote themselves, then they have to stick to the official line. This has happened with young diplomats, or otherwise, they will get marginalized and lose their promotion.
After meeting with US President George W. Bush in 2006, veteran American journalist David Ignatius said that he came across with an impression that Bush was well aware of his shortcomings about Iran and wanted to know more about the Iranian people. Did you reach a similar conclusion after meeting with President Bush?
At one meeting, my wife was with me. He asked her what she did in life and was genuinely surprised when said that she had a PhD in computer science. “Wow, an Arab woman with a PhD in computer science!” Those were his words. I took the opportunity to remind him that for the past 50-years we have had enlightened Syrian women as cabinet ministers, judges, university professors, all playing public roles. He was totally—totally—surprised to hear that. It gave me a profound understanding of his lack of knowledge of Syria. I met him three more times and after every meeting I came across with an impression that he was totally misinformed about Syria. Let me use the word ‘dis-informed’ which is, misinformation on purpose. Now I don’t believe President Bush realizes his ignorance and shortcomings towards Syria. I think he believes he knows a lot about Syria. Some of my sources, who are close to him, told me that once, after meeting with President Jacques Chirac he told the French leader, “I have been reading a lot about Lebanon and Syria on my trip to Paris and I am knowledgeable about both countries as much as you are, Mr. Chirac.” The reports he was reading, apparently, were prepared by Elliot Abrams. I presume the readers of Forward know what it means when Elliot Abrams is informing the President of the United States about Syria.
You have direct access to President Bashar al-Assad. He is certainly not anti-American as some in the US media like to portray him. Can you tell us about the Syrian President’s approach towards Syrian-US relations?
I was fortunate to attend his meetings with official and unofficial American delegations and I can say that he has a very reasonable and serious understanding of the political situation in the United States. He is not hostile—not at all—towards the US. He is keen to improve relations with Washington DC for a basic reason being the understanding that it is very difficult for any country in the world not to have good relations with the world superpower. He has come to a realization, however, that it is almost impossible to do business with this US administration. He’s concluded that with this administration, contacts would be either minimal, or non-existent.
When political relations are so low a lot of effort is usually done to promote other kinds, like academic, cultural, and people-to-people relations. The US administration claim that Syria is not interested in that, citing the closure of Amideast in Damascus. Do you agree?
That is not fair. Personally I brought a number of academics from the US and they met with their Syrian counterparts, and Vice-President Najah al-Attar. I like and respect Amideast and its president (Theodore Kattouf) is my personal friend. But facts are facts. Amideast is financed by the State Department, which in turn is doing everything possible to impose sanctions on Syria. Are we supposed to allow them to work freely in Syria? Are we supposed to say: “well cultural relations are different. If the State Department wants to send its cultural emissary to Syria, then they are welcome?” You might tell yourself, wouldn’t this contradict with what a person like me—an academic—believes, who is committed to cultural relations, bridges, and outreaches? Yes apparently it would, but realistically America would ban any activity sponsored by the Syrian Foreign Ministry in the United States. It is not what I desire, not what believe, but I think it is fair.
If you were to relive your tenure since 2004, what would you have done differently? Do you have any professional regrets?
If I had a crystal ball and knew in advance that the team of the first Bush administration would leave and be replaced by the present one, I wouldn’t have advocated any cooperation or compromises. But at the time the team I used to work with was composed of really impressive people who always realized that I represent a country that had difficult relations with theirs. They were nice, gentlemanly, and gave me more access than the ambassadors of their closest allies. They told me this: ‘because of the difficulties in our bilateral relations we need to meet more often (with you) than (with) other ambassadors. They were genuinely trying to find a common ground and I personally perceived their sincerity. We were sincere from our side. We understood our major differences and disagreements with the United States but we believed that we needed to work together in certain areas. This is what I described as compartmentalizing. All this however, came to nowhere and today, I regret the time and the effort I personally spent trying to find this common ground when the hawks and hardliners were doing everything possible to undermine relations with Syria.
If we were to write about Imad Moustapha’s tenure in Washington 10-years from now, how would you want history to label you?
That’s a very difficult question but at least out of fairness I would like history to say ‘that guy worked so hard!”
Do you regret having abandoned the academic life in favor of the diplomatic one? Do you miss academia and long to return to it?
I miss the academic life and feel nostalgic about it. I also deeply miss my relation with my students. Having said this I have to admit that the last four years of my life were very rich and they allowed me to get to know extra-ordinary, magnificent people of the highest caliber—people who I respect a lot. And I was able to broaden my horizons as a human being. It has been a very rich experience on the personal level.
Unlike other officials you seem to be very proud of your predecessors and have set up a hall of fame at the Embassy, to remind the world of former ambassadors in Washington like Nazem al-Qudsi, Sabah Qabbani, and Walid al-Mouallem.
How couldn’t I be very proud of them? Yes I am very proud of all of them. I look at them, starting with the very first ambassador of Syria to the United States, Nazem al-Qudsi, and ending with the last two ambassadors, I can say that Syria has sent some of its most brilliant men to Washington. Each one of them was a school in diplomacy and I am very different from all of them. At least personally I have known the last three, Walid al-Moualim, who is now my boss at the Foreign Ministry, and Sabah Qabbani, who I am always very keen on visiting when in Damascus. I know very well Ambassador Rustom Zoubi. They had different styles and approaches to diplomacy. All of them have one that is different to mine. Having said this, I admire them a lot and have studied carefully their careers as diplomats and learned tremendously from them, from great things and certain mistakes. I commit mistakes and the only way to commit any less is to learn from others. And I look at the series of men—Omar Abu Risheh, Fayez al-Khury, Nazem al-Qudsi, Farid Zayn al-Din, and Rafiq Juwayjati. Those men have done things, even if you disagree with them; you can learn from them. Even in academia I was a keen student of the other. I am always keen to learn from and curious to learn about them. I always try to communicate to my superiors, whenever they decide to replace me as ambassador and bring me back to Syria, that they should give my successor the opportunity to come with me (to the US) for one month. I have managed to build a network of relations that I want him to benefit from. I want to introduce him to my network—that’s very important—I believe in continuity. I have learned a lot from my predecessors and can give something—even if it is a little—to my successor.
What are the major components that created Imad Moustapha? What are the important junctures in your life, and who have been your inspiration figures?
That’s a tough question that I have never thought of before. I was blessed and fortunate by meeting a lot of good role models throughout my life. My father is a very good role model because of his keen interest in culture and art. He brought me up with this passion for art and music. He was my first role model while my mother was my second. She was inspirational because of her keen interest in languages. She pushed me to being a person who respects languages, particularly the Arabic language. She made me feel the importance of mastering your own language. Then during my student years my professors inspired me. Most importantly, after graduation, I worked at the Scientific Studies and Research Center. There I met a large number of inspiring people who pushed me and gave me a lot, not on the professional aspect but as a human being. I am so indebted to those people because they helped me widen my horizon. There are other role models in my life that I have never met but I was always keen on following their lives. People like my great-grandfather Abdul-Rahman Kawakbi. Its not because of the family relations it is because of what he wrote. He is a great person who has been a source of inspiration for me. When I was invited to become a co-author of the Human Development Report on the Arab World, sponsored by the UN, I was among those who advocated using Kawakbi as one of the major sources for the report. Another great person who is not known much in Syria is Dr Abdul-Rahman Badawi. I have never met him and he has passed away recently. I have read almost all of his books and he has influenced and shaped my thinking and my attitude in life. A third person who has greatly affected me is Edward Said, not by his famous books, but by one that is widely unknown here in the Arab World, Representations of the Intellectual. This is the only book in my whole life that I re-started reading the moment I ended it. I was so blessed of meeting Edward Said in Washington DC and befriending him for a short period of time before he passed away. He asked me to help him on something related to music. You know that he was also a professional musician. I did and he was kind enough to send me a copy of a book he wrote, with his inscription, entitled Parallels and Paradoxes. This is a very cherished gift from a person I respect a lot. Finally Sulhi al-Wadi, one of my greatest friends who has done a lot of good things to me in my life. When I was very young he almost adopted me. He introduced me to the world of Western classical music and English literature. My English was not very good when I first met him. He was director of the Conservatory of Music. He would bring me to his home and read me selected poems by major English poets like E.E. Cummings, and T.S Elliot. He opened great opportunities for me in the world of literature and arts. I am so indebted to him.
------
This interview featured in the August 2007 issue of Forward Magazine (Damascus).
Print this article