Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=04/18/2003

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-01314

TITLE=SYRIA'S CHOICE

INTERNET=Yes

EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY 619-0038

CONTENT=

THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Host: The U-S confronts Syria. Next, On the Line.

[music]

Host: As the war for Iraq came to a close, the United States accused neighboring Syria of harboring former Iraqi officials who were implicated in the cruelty of Saddam Hussein's regime. President George W. Bush called on Syria to stop giving shelter to Iraqis sought by coalition forces. But that's only one of the concerns the United States expressed about Syria. U-S Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that Syria, which harbors terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Hamas, has been testing chemical weapons. One of the main reasons the U-S gave for toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq was the need to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists and states that harbor terrorists. U-S Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Syria to change its behavior, but he also tried to reassure allies that the U-S was not threatening military action against Syria.

[SOT]

Colin Powell: We have concerns about Syria. We have let Syria know of our concerns. But there is no list. There is no war plan right now to go attack someone else, either for the purpose of overthrowing their leadership or for the purpose of imposing democratic values.

[End SOT]

Host: How will the U-S encourage Syria to change its behavior? I'll ask my guests: Marc Ginsberg, former U-S ambassador to Morocco; Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy; and Jonathan Schanzer, analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Welcome and thanks for joining us today. Mark Ginsberg, with the war for Iraq over, there are a lot of people and allies of the U-S asking: is Syria next?

Ginsberg: I don't believe Syria, necessarily should be a military target of the United States at this point. There's plenty of things that we can do to pressure Syria and I can lay out a few for you if you wish. Obviously Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and yet it's the country with which the United States maintains diplomatic relations. The incongruity of that needs to be addressed. I think it's time to yank our ambassador, or at least downgrade our diplomatic relations with Syria to send a strong signal. Secondly, I'm glad the administration is doing this, they have cut off the supply of Iraqi oil through the Kirkuk pipeline that passes through to the port of Latakia. Third, I think most Americans failed to realize that Syria is an occupying power in Lebanon. It's time for us to end the "Hobson's choice" that we made letting Syria have a free ride in Lebanon and get them out of Lebanon and decolonize and free Lebanon up. And fourth, it's time for us to strangle them a bit on economic, financial support they may be getting from international financial institutions. Perhaps then, they'll get the message.

Host: Well, Frank Gaffney, while the war was going on, the U-S complained that Syria was helping the Iraqis. How big a concern is that in what's going on right now?

Gaffney: Well, I think it's a very considerable concern and it gives immediacy to some of the longer-term larger concerns that, I think, Marc was alluding to and were described in your set up piece. You have evidence of active support for the Iraqi regime, certainly before the war began and then apparently with the safe haven provided to some of the Iraqi leadership. You have, in addition, night vision goggles and perhaps other military equipment being made available to the Iraqi regime's fighters. And, particularly worrisome, you had so-called death squads being sent from Syria into Iraq not only armed, but apparently equipped with hundreds of thousands of dollars, Secretary Rumsfeld says, and leaflets saying there's a bounty on the heads of American personnel, if you kill them you'll get some of this money. These are extremely unfriendly acts which, taken together with the longer-term problem: support for terror and weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that that nexus could be made in Syria as we worried it could be made in Iraq. I think there's ample grounds for the kinds of strategy that Marc's offered. I would just add one other thing. It's related. Syria's the one nation on the state sponsors of terror list that is not subjected to Office of Foreign Asset Control strictures. And this means that American companies can do business with Syria. You want to get their attention, stop that and I think, together with some of these other techniques, you will really get some progress made, I hope.

Host: Jonathan Schanzer, what is Syria thinking? If the U-S made good on its warning to Iraq, why in the midst of the very action following out of that does Syria then throw its lot in with Iraq?

Schanzer: I think it was a grave miscalculation. I think that it was an extremely unfortunate event and I think it kind of shows the kind of inexperience I think that [President] Bashar Al-Asad has. He's only been in power for a couple of years now, really has not learned a lot of the lessons that his father had learned, which was to sort of walk a sort of a tightrope -- be able to do the sorts of things that Syria has done over the years but also maintain its relationship with the United States. There was no way that Iraq was going to come out of this alive and I think he should have recognized that. It seemed as though Syria did recognize that right off the bat when it voted in favor of resolution 1441. Since then, you saw sort of this nose dive among the Syrian leadership. And I think it was just simply a grave miscalculation and I think they're regretting every step that they've made thus far.

Host: Mark Ginsberg, does the relationship that Syria has with terrorist organizations affect the calculations that it makes when deciding how to deal with the U-S, especially in the context of the war in Iraq?

Ginsberg: Well, I would brand Syria the safe-house of evil. It has essentially been the hospitality suite for terrorist organizations that have not only killed Israelis and other foreigners but also Americans. I mean, maybe not necessarily directly on U-S soil, but just a few months ago we indicted the head of the Palestine Islamic Jihad in Florida. The main office is in Damascus. Let's get real about what the Bekaa Valley is all about, that territory that exists between Lebanon and Syria. It has been the proverbial "predators ball" haven for terrorist groups. The Syrians with the connivance of the Iranians have let that area become in effect a reservation for terrorists to operate freely. We should begin taking out the Bekaa Valley installations. We should make it abundantly clear that we will use military force if necessary if the Syrians don't get the message. And the idea that somehow they can avoid being penalized by letting these terrorist organizations exist merely because some people in this administration believe that they've been helpful to us, and maybe perhaps they have, in providing intelligence against al-Qaida, means -- I'm sorry, they don't get the get out of jail pass merely because they provided that information to us.

Host: Well, Frank Gaffney, this issue of there having been reports of help on al-Qaida, why does Syria help the U-S with information about al-Qaida and yet, continue to support other terrorist organizations?

Gaffney: This is one of the main challenges that the administration faces, it seems to me. The President said months ago that you're either with us or against us in the war on terror. A number of countries, including, notably Syria, have tried to have it both ways, be with us in some respects, providing information, debriefing or interrogating terrorists that are captured and turned over to them and that sort of thing and yet, continuing to engage in activities that provide safe haven, training, intelligence, infrastructure, logistical support, probably some financial support to these terrorist organizations certainly in conjunction with Iran. They're providing that help to Hezbollah. And Hezbollah is among the organizations that clearly has American blood on its hands. Their line is: "Well those aren't terrorist organizations" -- Hamas and Hezbollah and for that matter I guess some of the others that are headquartered or have at least branch offices in Damascus, are not terrorist organizations "they're freedom fighters." Nonsense. They're people who use murder of innocent civilians, most especially women and children, for political purposes. And that is really the definition of terror and it is unacceptable and the Syrians have to, I think, be put on notice that it is unacceptable.

Host: Well, Jonathan Schanzer, these groups that have been targeted specifically against Israel were also then, especially in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, saying that there should be terrorist acts against American coalition partners. Has that changed the debate in the U-S administration at all about how big a threat Hezbollah and Hamas are to the U-S?

Schanzer: Well, that's a great question. I think leading up to the war, actually you saw Hezbollah and Hamas sort of put themselves in check a good bit. There were statements coming out of there that they were saying, "Well, we're not going to attack Americans unless we're attacked first." Hamas in particular said we're going to keep the fight at home. What you saw though, over the course of the war, particularly on Hezbollah's television station, you saw a great deal of just really vitriolic rhetoric being spouted: pictures juxtaposing Adolf Hitler and President Bush, things along these lines. And then, after a while you really saw them really begin to exhort people and carry out suicide attacks. So, again, I think this was another grave miscalculation, sort of on just a real political level. I'm having a very hard time understanding how they decided to go about doing this. So, for the most part these groups were off of our radar, saying okay, we're going to keep the focus on Iraq. And to some extent these groups were not seen as existential threats to the United States. All of a sudden they put themselves on the map in that way. So I think now we're scrutinizing them a bit closer and I think the administration is now very much aware of what they've said over the last couple of weeks.

Gaffney: Can I just add that it does seem that one thing we haven't actually seen much of is any sense on the part of the Syrian government that they've made a mistake or that the groups that they are harboring have made mistakes. And this is why, I guess, the issue is before us and why the administration is turning up the gain and we're focusing on it here today is, if there were some sign that the Syrian government was taking corrective action, I think you'd find a lot of people saying, well, thank goodness we don't have to take any of the sorts of steps Marc's talking about, let alone military action. But there isn't and in a way, if they do believe they've made a mistake, they're compounding that mistake considerably by if not showing contrition, at least showing a course correction.

Schanzer: I agree. I would also just add that there are some that actually think that Syria is making some sort of a power play, that there is a vacuum that's been left open inside the Middle East right now. After the fall of Saddam, Osama bin Laden's no where to be found. Who's going to sort of speak out in a vociferous way in the Arab world? Bashar Al-Asad may think that he's got that opening. I think he'll find pretty soon that he's very wrong.

Host: Is this a power play, Marc Ginsberg?

Ginsberg: I think it goes to a lot of deeper issues inside Syria. I mean, in some respects, most Americans probably don't realize Syria has had a history of convulsions ever since its liberation from France. It was a French colony. Al-Asad and his family come from a very minority sect of Islam, the Alawite sect. And this son which really was never meant to be the inheritor of his father's throne is only there because Asad's first son was killed in an automobile accident. This son has never gotten, shall we say, his feet under the desk and never really been viewed as a leader in his own right and this is indeed maybe a power play by him to consolidate his, shall we say, his credentials, his pan-Arab credentials. Remember, this is a Baath party [state]. This is the origins of the Baath party. It's only in recent years where the Baath party in Iraq and the Baath party in Syria began reconciling each other. Asad's father and Saddam were mortal enemies. And so you see a confluence of circumstances here and you also see a certain situation where and, indeed, their foreign minister said it is such a few weeks ago: If the Americans dare to attack Iraq, they will be treated the way we treated them in Lebanon. And indeed what the Syrians intend to do, is to do what is possible is to bleed us, as much as they can, inside Iraq because they do fear that we'll turn our attention to Syria.

Gaffney: And this is why the point Marc made about Lebanon is so important here. If we have any memory at all of what the Syrian involvement in attacks on Marines and other Americans in Lebanon were, we have a special responsibility I think to try to affect the liberation of the people of Lebanon. This is a country that has suffered under colonial misrule for decades now. It's been twenty years since they said they would get out. And it is a scandal that that hasn't happened before now and it is a scandal compounded by their assertions that we must stop our occupation of Iraq. This is a place that they could begin to show a good faith effort to end occupation in their own right.

Schanzer: Well, you know, ironically this is their insurance policy. One of the main reasons I think Syria has sort of tested the limits a little bit is that they know they have the power -- you know, essentially Lebanon is on life support. They can pull the plug and they can do a lot of damage inside Lebanon and I don't know if that's a risk that the United States administration is willing to take. Similarly, they have Hezbollah in their pocket and if they say "go" tomorrow, they could possibly launch something that would really turn into a regional war if not something a little bit bigger than that. And I think these are the sorts of calculated risks that the Syrian government is taking right now.

Host: Marc Ginsberg, in Lebanon the U-S experience in Lebanon, of course, most dramatically was the car bomb, the truck bomb attack on the marine barracks in Beirut. Is the U-S by talking tough on Syria trying to keep Syria from having a role in similar attacks that might take place within Iraq?

Ginsberg: No. We've already seen that the Syrians have blood on their hands because there have already been Syrians who have been caught, Syrian nationals, we're not just talking about Lebanese or Libyans or others who have come in, we're talking about Syrians. Now, one other thing: the rules of engagement in Lebanon were far more restrictive. You'll never see that type of strategic placement of marines, for example, in one place -- three hundred of them bivouacked in one place. I mean, and the rules of engagement for fighting and firing on Syrians who perhaps pose a danger are far different than it was in Lebanon when the Americans were there. But one thing that is important for us -- it's not just the American people that need to understand this. The Bush administration has played good cop, bad cop with Syria on this. The Syrians have gotten mixed signals from this administration. Until the war with Iraq, the administration was giving Syria a pass on a variety of issues and now that time has come to an end. Now that the administration's talking tough, it's important for it to act. And by the way, let me add one little quiver to our bow, which is that Turkey controls all of Syria's water. The Euphrates damn system up there is very much under Turkey's control, just like the Chinese sent a strong signal to the North Koreans about energy and shutting off their oil pipeline. Perhaps the water could be reduced a bit by the Turks to show a little bit of displeasure over how they're treating the United States and the region.

Host: Frank Gaffney, the Bush administration has signaled that it does want to make a new effort to achieve some kind of Middle East peace as a way of achieving stability and promoting democracy in the region. Is there any way that a peace deal that will provide security for Israel and that peace in a Palestinian state can be achieved without dealing with the question of terrorism coming from Syria?

Gaffney: I tend to think not. I think we've made an important stride towards creating conditions in which if a peace can be achieved, it will be, by removing Saddam Hussein, the guy who was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. But another step and arguably one at least as important is having a government that remains, as best I can tell, committed to the destruction of state of Israel change its spots. Perhaps the only way to do that is change that government. But, that seems to me to be a necessary precondition. And part of why I believe the administration is pushing now for these sorts of changes. It's not just about Iraq. It's not even just about terrorism and the weapons of mass destruction nexus. It's also, I think, about trying to create conditions in which they can actually have some prospect of success in bringing about peace between the Israelis and the Arabs. It's not going to be easy under the best of circumstances, but if Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley and so on are no longer a safe haven for terrorism across Israel's northern border. If the Golan Heights are no longer a necessary strategic barrier to the return of Syrian aggression against Israel from the North, then you could conceivably see a correlation of forces, if you will, the strategic conditions that are actually commensurate with an Israeli willingness to make peace -- which I think is genuine -- with security.

Host: Jonathan Schanzer, does terrorism against Israel wither if you're able to turn off the spigot from Syria?

Schanzer: I don't know if it's going to turn off from there, but I think that just in the same way that Saddam Hussein was able to sort of help the process along, I mean, you can't say that the $25,000 that he gave to these families was what actually caused terrorism in the first place. But it certainly encouraged it. What you have is, you have twenty-two groups right now inside Syria; no less than twenty-two groups that are terrorist groups and Syria's allowing them to operate. They're giving them the kind of funds and just the kind of environment they can continue to operate in. And I think that once you cut that off, you are going to see a different environment and I think that's how Syria's going to play a very pivotal role. If we can just finagle for this, just a little bit, you know, influence that government to stop the flow of terrorism there, I think you're going to begin to see very different landscaping. You think about it, who's left? Out of all the major actors in the Middle East, who's going to be left after Syria? Saddam's gone. Saudi Arabia I think will go along with whatever essentially we -- if we push policies in the right way, I think you'll begin to see the Saudis cooperate. In Iran, we're just not sure. It's on the brink. You're getting mixed messages out of there. But Syria's have really been that consistent actor along with Saddam all the way through.

Gaffney: You could see the liberation of Iran, as well, from within as it's people want to be done with this crazy Mullahocracy, but I think you're going to have to see some change from both Saudi Arabia because of its funding of this terrorist activity and from Iran, which in collaboration with Syrians made Hezbollah a growing concern. That's all possible though with this new changing line up.

Host: Well, Marc Ginsberg, how does how the U-S deals with Syria affect how change is made in Iran.

Ginsberg: Well, I think the two are, even though Iran and Syria are really the strong bilateral allies, and indeed Iran has been a major supporter of Syria financially and funding terrorist groups. They probably are paying the rent for most of these terrorist groups in Damascus, Iran's a whole other matter. The situation in Iran is one where democracy is trying to percolate up. Syria is a country that has had nothing but a tyrannical, iron-clad rule where there's no free press, no freedoms or anything. The people there, I am sure, would like to have a new system of government. If we can get their economy from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages within the next five years, it would be an achievement. And so, giving the Syrian people a belief that their lives could be better without them having to deflect as is the usual antidote for avoiding hard choices in the Middle East, most of these governments, like the Syrian government have focused their energies on the Arab-Israeli conflict, or Iraq, instead of dealing with the problems at home.

Host: I'm afraid we're going to have to go. That's the last bit of time we have. I'd like to thank my guests: Marc Ginsberg, former U-S Ambassador to Morocco; Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and Jonathan Schanzer of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Before we go, I'd like to invite you to send us your questions or your comments. You can e-mail them to Ontheline@ibb.gov

For On the Line, I'm Eric Felten.