A Reality Check for Blair
I happened to be in
London when Tony
Blair was "rebuffed" by Syria. Nothing could have been more pleasing
than the sign saying: 'Syria Scorns Blair' in newsstands scattered
all over Oxford Street that afternoon. The previous day, Blair had
reminded his supporters that whenever in doubt, or once they start
having second thoughts about the British campaign in Afghanistan,
all they should do is "remember those who died in America on
September 11." A few days earlier, a man had approached me in
downtown London, seeing that I was Arab, and started shouting: "Are
you here to kill? Do you want to kill some more?" Such an attitude
would definitely provoke a bitter counter-attitude on the Arab side,
and President Bashar al-Assad expressed it with style.
Blair's clash with
Asad reminded me of a similar incident that took place nearly 60
years ago. Upon his return from a meeting with U.S. President
Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta, the late British Prime Minister Sir
Winston Churchill made a stop in Egypt to meet with Arab leaderships
and rally their support "against a war of terror," launched,
however, not by Osama bin Laden, but rather, by Adolph Hitler.
Coming at the height of Churchill's glory and as the war in Europe
was turning in the Allied favor, Churchill met with Syrian President
Shukri al-Quwatli. Great Britain back then was gaining the upper
hand in the Middle East, and taking over military responsibility in
regions previously controlled by France. London demanded that Syria
sign a political and economic friendship treaty with Paris, and
grant her concessions and privileges on Syrian soil. Churchill's
words ran as follows: "I am warning Syria specifically that her
negative and radical policies during these difficult times will not
be tolerated."
He shouted adding: "The entire world is
threatened with destruction and we must do all that is possible to
attain victory. That is why we will not have mercy on any person or
groups, whomever they may be, who will not side with us." Quwatli
refused an agreement with
France and
responded: "Mr Churchill, what does France want from us? Why doesn't
she turn her attention to liberating her own lands before she
occupies a freedom seeking country? Hasn't she experienced the
humiliation of occupation and defeat." Quwatli added in a raised
voice that Syria's principles were clear - and he would not change
them "even if the waters of the ocean turn red." Churchill snapped
back: "Are you challenging me? Don't you challenge me! Do you know
who I am? I am Commander in Chief of the Allied Forces. I will not
let anyone in this world, threaten or challenge me."
The parallel between what took place in 1945
and what is taking place today is striking. Tony Blair came to
Damascus with the
aim of widening the anti-terrorism campaign and working to re-start
the Arab peace process with Israel.
Like Churchill, Blair today is at the height
of his glory. Like Churchill, who met with
Roosevelt to lay
out the "new world order" at Yalta, Blair had recently been in
Washington to lay out the new world order with George W. Bush. They
coined this new order, "a new community of nations" able to defend
the institutions of freedom.
While Churchill wanted Quwatli to abandon
Syria's on-going
demands for independence from the French, Blair wanted Asad to
abandon his on-going demands for resistance against Israel. While
Churchill had to stand and listen as Quwatli described the French as
terrorists, Blair had to stand and listen as Asad referred to the
Israelis as terrorists. Asad shattered the prime minister's
imagination when he said, "We cannot accept what we see every day on
our television screens, the killing of innocent civilians. There are
hundreds dying every day." Assad added, "We should differentiate
between combating terrorism and war. We did not say we support an
international coalition for war. We are always against war." The
Syrian leader went on saying: "We, and I personally, differentiate
between resistance and terrorism. Resistance is a social, religious
and legal right that is safeguarded by UN resolutions."
He linked the Palestinian groups, both those
residing in
Syria and the
occupied territories, to European resistance fighters in World War
II seeking to liberate their lands from Nazi occupation. Asad argued
that in Europe the great symbol of resistance had been Charles de
Gaulle. "Can anyone accuse de Gaulle of being a terrorist? No way."
The de Gaulle parallel is also striking.
While the great French leader is currently being hailed today as a
symbol of resistance, 56-years earlier, de Gaulle had ordered a
massive air raid on
Damascus, killing
616 civilians and earning the nickname "terrorist" throughout the
Arab press. After all, the term is very flexible. Asad described the
term saying: "Terrorism works as a network. It does not have a
certain head, either as a person or in terms of an organization."
Clearly - he was trying to shake off the
image that Osama bin Laden is solely responsible for all of the
world's strife and terror. The British media harangued Asad's
treatment of the Prime Minister while some observers dismissed it as
an attempt at addressing and pleasing his domestic audience. They
claimed that in private, Asad had shown a more flexible attitude.
London's The
Guardian said that following the conference, Blair confined to
friends "I was saying to him (Asad), you have to help to renew the
Middle East peace process. He was saying to me, if you want moderate
Islam to defeat Islamic fundamentalists, I also need your help."
According to
Downing Street
officials, Asad was willing to show solidarity with the United
Kingdom, if London was willing to back some of Syria's demands.
Whether the talks were peaceful behind closed doors or not, the
outcome is clear.
Syria reserves the
right to support resistance movements like Hizbullah in South
Lebanon, and radical Palestinian groups like the Popular Front for
the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF) so long as Israel continues in
its policies of target assassination and town siege.
As the two leaders spoke in
Damascus, Israel
had pushed ahead with its offensive against accused Palestinian
terrorists, killing one in Hebron and another in Tulkarem. Four
other Palestinians were shot dead last week and eight were arrested
by Israeli soldiers in two incidents in parts of the West Bank that
were reoccupied by the Israel army two weeks ago. The Times,
ever loyal to Blair, snapped back saying that Syria was
"disreputable country" and that its leader was "of junior standing
to the prime minister." It added that Syria's importance in the
Middle Eastern equation derives solely "from its capacity to
destabilize." The Guardian claimed that Blair had been
"dressed down" in Damascus, yet added that it was better for him to
"get his hands dirty" than do nothing. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former
Tory foreign secretary, criticized Blair's trip as "very unwise" and
said his decision to hold a joint press conference with Syria's
President was "extremely ill-advised." Alastair Campbell, however,
the Downing Street director of communications and strategy, insisted
that Blair was convinced the meeting with Asad was worthwhile. He
told journalists: "He has no regrets whatever over engaging with
someone Britain hasn't engaged with before."
The question that remains today: what did
the prime minister's visit to
Syria achieve. The
answer: nothing. Blair was given a blunt message from each of
President Asad of Syria, King Abdullah, King Fahd, and President
Yasser Arafat. None of them were willing to support the
Anglo-American campaign in Afghanistan, and likewise, none of them
believed in the sincerity to re-start peace talks in the Middle
East. Even if they had wanted to help, their domestic political
pressures would have made such a statement impossible. Even Ariel
Sharon rebuffed the prime minister, although for different reasons.
Sharon turned down Blair's calls for a cease-fire and end to the
"cycle of violence," saying that Israel would never compromise its
security.
Blair came to
Syria with all the
arrogance that Churchill once had, yet seemed to forget that he is
not Churchill, and this was not the Great Britain that had been 50
years ago. For one thing, England had long lost its place in the
region to the United States.
During the first half of the century, the
United Kingdom
managed to portray itself as an ally of the Arabs. During Ottoman
times and their immediate aftermath, the Arabs were convinced that
the road to prosperity and success ran through London.
Even following several consecutive setbacks;
the Balfour Declaration, the French Mandate in Syria, the British
Mandate in Palestine, and ultimately, the creation of the Jewish
state of Israel in 1948 - the Arabs were still, surprisingly,
willing to remain in Great Britain's orbit. Winston Churchill
perhaps single-handedly created this paramount status for the
British. A master manipulator and cunning statesman, Churchill laid
the groundwork for the modern
Middle East, and
knew how and when to speak to the Arabs. He spoke their language and
knew exactly in what direction to lead them. Matters began falling
apart when Churchill left Downing Street, and been in a plunge ever
since. It takes more than shuttle diplomacy for Tony Blair to
restore Britain's credibility in Arab eyes. Following his ordeal
with Asad, Blair's spokesman said: "I think it is important to have
a reality check here. We were never going to solve the problems of
the Middle East in 48 hours."
How right he is. It takes more than 48 hours
- more than words and gestures to deal with the region. By appearing
in their midst, Tony Blair hoped to rally support for his cause and
lure them back to the peace talks. Perhaps, this is the prime
minister's first true lesson in the complex and distorted world of
the
Middle East.
Damascus
Gulf
News
November 7, 2001