Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde?
 

In December 2002, Syrian President Bashar al-Asad visited London and met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. As Syrians, I wrote at the time, our relationship with Great Britain is long, complex, and bittersweet dating back to the pre-World War I era. It is a distorted past, however, which carries more agony than pleasure to the people of Syria. Britain once promised us that in return for our support in World War I, she would help grant the Arabs liberty from the Ottoman Empire. When that was achieved in 1918, the British reneged on their promises and allowed the French to occupy Syria in 1920, without lifting a finger to stop them. This is not a passing event in Syrian history but a monumental one that cannot be forgotten. Syria was amputated with British endorsement, where a country was set up in Jordan for Britain’s Hashemite allies, and another in Lebanon for France’s Maronite allies. Yet, the Syrians, a simple people at the time, continued to believe that in Great Britain lay the salvation for the Middle East. During World War II, the Syrians supported the British war effort, and in return, the British supported an evacuation of French troops in 1946. One year later, however, the British proposed the partition of Palestine, showing that the honeymoon was too good to last, and in 1948, they went on to evacuate Palestine and make the way for the creation of Israel. The story from here is well known to all. With such a past, many wondered whether the British had really changed face in 80-years of Middle East turmoil. Could they live up to their promises? Where they willing to serve as honest brokers in the Arab World or would they remain hard-line allies of the USA and Israel? Would Asad succeed in convincing the British to change course? This was a question echoed throughout Damascus in the weeks preceding the Syrian President’s visit to the UK.

When Asad went to London, it was generally believed the reasons of his visit were dual: to extend a friendly hand to the Western world, in a public relations campaign aimed at polishing Syria’s image following 9-11. In London, Asad portrayed a very civilized, classy, and well-groomed image. He met with Syrians living in the UK, visited businessmen, politicians, and held a meeting with both Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles, who promised to visit Damascus very soon. Asad found time to visit his former classmates and professors who taught him while he underwent his medical residency in Britain in the early 1990s. The Syrian leader was showing the international community that Syria was a modern nation and that he was with the civilized world and not with the terrorists. To make his point clearly heard, and show that Syria was as far as possible from fundamentalism, he brought along a large business delegation, composed of Syrian women entrepreneurs. According to one observer who is close to both Syria and Great Britain, “They (Asad and his wife) were charming, modest and warm with just the right touch of informality that the British appreciate.” The Syrian President’s second objective was to explain the Arab perspective vis-à-vis the upcoming US war on Iraq. Some in the West, however, speculated that British Prime Minister Tony Blair would use the visit as an opportunity to recruit Asad into a war on Iraq. After all, Syria had taken part in the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, why wouldn’t it side with the Allies again? This was justified by the historical fact that Syria and Iraq had been bitter enemies for years, due to ideological differences within the Ba’ath Party that rules both countries since 1963.

The media has had its own views on the Asad visit to London. Patrick Seale, the British expert on Syria and the Middle East, believed that Bashar came to the UK to help Great Britain end its involvement in the upcoming war on Iraq. Great Britain had humored the USA (because it has been the cornerstone of British foreign policy to ally with America since World War II), he wrote in the London based daily al-Hayyat, but wanted to pull out of Bush’s war because it contradicted with Britain’s regional interests. A war on Iraq, he added, would damage Britain’s commercial and political relations with the Arab World, and run a high risk of terrorist attacks on British citizens in British territory or abroad—something that the Blair government cannot afford, neither financially, politically, or morally. Meanwhile, Syrian and Arab journalists praised Asad’s visit, claiming that rather than convincing him of the need to bomb Iraq, the British were convinced by his argument to save the Middle East from an upcoming war. This was echoed on Syrian TV by Buthaina Shaaban, the Director of Press and Public Relations at the Syrian Foreign Ministry, who is reportedly, very close to Bashar al-Asad.

At the end of the day, however, although Seale’s argument is hard to believe, since there are no indicators in London that the British don’t want war. But, it can be assumed that Asad was able to convince Tony Blair into changing course vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict, if not Iraq. After all, the British (and Americans) had promised the Arabs a Middle East Peace Conference, but their promises had been silenced by the war drums on Saddam Husayn. Then, US Secretary of State Collin Powell had promised a “road map” for the Palestinians in his speech on democratization in the Arab World. This too was muddled by the refusal of the Palestinians to hold elections under occupation and the upcoming elections in Tel Aviv which could tip the tide by ejecting Ariel Sharon from office. The British need something tangible to re-gain credibility in the Arab World, otherwise, they cannot pose as honest brokers in the Arab-Israeli Conflict and would lose much face in Arab eyes. Thus, to change this image, Blair has began a public relations program of his own to polish his country’s reputation in the Arab World. This began by receiving Bashar al-Asad in London. By courting Syria, Blair was also listening to the Arab world’s staunchest and leading opponent of Israel. He was reflecting his willingness to hear out the Arab mainstream and take it into consideration (unlike the case with the Gulf War of 1991). In a high-profile article published by him in The Financial Times, Tony Blair described Syria as “a power in the Middle East, a leader of Arab opinion, central to any comprehensive peace deal with Israel, and a member of the United Nations Security Council.” According to British observers, Blair was not trying to convince President Bush that contrary to the radical image Syria has given itself, its young President is a moderate who has a reasonable argument that should be beard out from A-Z. Perhaps, Blair was saying, Syria is right in its explanation of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. And, Syria wants to make peace with Israel, represents Arab opinion, and is totally opposed to war with Iraq. Then, once having that said indirectly by giving Asad a pulpit to speak from in London, Blair began to put his “modified” image into practice. This began by his proposal to host a Palestinian Reform Conference in London (scheduled for January 12-13, 2003). Then, to Arab delight, Blair came to blows with the Israeli Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who came to London one week after Asad and was snubbed by Blair, who was “un-available for an audience,” claiming that he was visiting his parliamentary constituency in Sedgefield. Netanyahu knew better that if the Prime Minister wanted, he could have arranged for a meeting with his Israeli guest. Blair, however, was upset with the Foreign Minster’s remarks on the upcoming Palestinian Conference in London and his remark which said that Asad should not have been received in the UK since this was, in Netanyahu’s words, “a message that terror pays.” Clearly annoyed, Blair’s office suggested instead that that he meet with Foreign Minister Jack Straw. When he did, the two men differed so strongly that they canceled a news conference to avert a public argument on Middle East policy. Then, to make things worse, Blair announced that he would be meeting Amram Mitzna, leader of the Labor Party in Israel, who will be running against both Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon in the upcoming elections, scheduled for January 28, 2003 (and who the Arab leaders are betting on)

Clearly, Blair did not change course only under the influence of Bashar al-Asad. However, the Syrian leader’s visit to the UK has its symbolic meanings. Whether Blair had orchestrated the visit to coincide with his new stance, or whether he had used it to make his new views heard, the visit was a success for both Blair, Asad, and Arab public opinion. As of the present, the Arabs have received an assurance that Great Britain is not, as they commonly believe, blindly attached to Israel and the USA. It is an ally of both, but also, is very keen on maintaining its alliances with the Arab World. The presidential visit to the UK is good and needed for Syria and the Arab World. No other country has nationalist creditential to serve as a bridge between East and West. It has raised the questions: if the British are changing in their foreign policy, and if are the Syrians changing as well towards a more lenient attitude vis-à-vis the Western World. After all, Asad’s visit is the first by a Syrian President in history. The last Syrian leader to visit London while in office was King Faysal I (1918-1920) who was received in 1919 by Prime Minister Lloyd George and told that France wanted to occupy Syria but Great Britain could do little to prevent that. The British Prime Minister said that with a completely straight-face and since then, no other president from Damascus has visited 10 Downing Street. But now Asad, who embodies hard-line Arab nationalism, is in London. Some see it as a bloodless coup against the anti-Western views of the Ba’ath Party while others, see it as a Syrian gesture of goodwill towards Great Britain. Asad is extending a friendly hand, but this does not mean an abandonment of policies. In fact, the rift between Syria and the West, which lasted for long, is what led to many of our international problems. The West does not understand Syria and Syria shows little effort towards expressing itself and portraying its correct image. For years, the Syrians have believed that they have a mission and a cause, and those who understand it are welcome to do so, while those who don’t can live in their ignorance. For long, public relations in Syria was lacking. But today, Asad is trying to change that. Syria is trying to work with all sides of the international community towards achieving what it sees as needed for advancement of its cause. Asad’s current visit means dialogue, it does not mean rapprochement, honeymoon, or an alliance with the Western World. To Great Britain it means that Tony Blair is trying to balance out between his alliance with the USA and his alliance with the Arabs. Tony Blair is currently playing the tight-rope, putting on the image of Dr Jekyl before his Arab allies and then turning into Mr Hyde before the Americans. Time is yet to prove which personality will live out the other.

Beirut

Perihelion (European Rim Policy and Investment Center (ERPIC)

January 15, 2003.