Syria is offering a very mild response to heated American invectives-suffice it to quote a reassurance by Imad Moustapha, Syrian Ambassador to the USA: "We do not want to form a front against anybody, particularly not against the United States. Syria is trying to engage constructively with the United States <...>. We are not the enemies of the United States, and we do not want to be drawn into such an enmity."
A statement in a similar mood came from Numeir al-Ganem, international relations committee head on Syria's parliament. He hopes consultations with the US Ambassador will help Washington to see Syria's point better.
Syria is eager for partnership with the USA. Much has been done of late for a constructive dialogue between them. Even despite anti-Syrian sanctions, their bilateral trade turnover spectacularly exceeds the Russian-Syrian, though Damascus is on much closer terms with Moscow than with Washington.
The Middle East is full of rumors about Syrian-Israeli talks shortly to resume-if not under US patronage then, at least, with the United States taking part. All these are, however, voices behind the stage. Coming into the foreground are President George W. Bush's harsh words in Syria's address. The State Secretary has now joined him for verbal attacks on Damascus.
No use to force Syria into reforms by threats. More than that, intimidation is an absurd thing to do, what with reforms already underway. President Bashar al-Asad is gradually introducing changes in all fields of Syrian life from politics to defense-that despite considerable resistance within the country. Pressure from without would bring just the opposite result to doom politics the young president is pursuing with such difficulty. Is an end to Syrian reforms what America wants?
The issue pertains not so much to US-Syrian relations as to the United States' entire policies in the Middle East. Americans are, to an extent, hostage to their own ideas of proliferating democracy and opposing "rogue" regimes.
There is no way to get Mideastern peace efforts out of a deadlock and, at the same time, rock the Middle East's boat with threats to Syria and Iran. The USA was lucky with Palestine-Yasser Arafat, with whom it had been flatly refusing to have any contacts, is dead. Mahmoud Abbas the pragmatist has come in his stead. As for Iraq, the United States chose to settle the matter by the force of arms. The fruit is there for all to see.
Things are quite different in Syria. President Bashar al-Asad is young enough, and will not leave the political arena unless something unexpected turns up. He is more of a pragmatist than revolutionary, and Americans have every chance to come to terms with him. They are in no hurry to do so, however. Possibly, the US Administration is too dedicated to its idea of making the Middle East happy-the way happiness is understood on the Potomac banks-even despite the Middle East's will.
