January 6, 2008


Specter's 17th Visit To Syria Again Produces Nothing (Barry Rubin, 1/04/08, The Philadelphia Bulletin)

[T]here are three problems here that led to Mr. Specter instead to unintentionally give aid and comfort to Syria's regime.

First, there is no serious reason to believe that such an endeavor could succeed. A number of senators - including Mr. Specter himself - and leaders from other countries have visited Damascus and gotten nothing. Former French President Jacques Chirac said that experience in dealing with Syria taught him that talks were a waste of time and his successor, Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as President George W. Bush said the same thing about the time Mr. Specter was arriving in Damascus.

Second, the Western effort for some years has been to isolate and pressure Syria in order to try to scare Damascus into becoming more cautious. By going to Syria, Mr. Specter made the Syrians feel as if the effort was failing and that they merely need hold out in order to intimidate the West into surrender. Such responses are clear in the statements made by Syrian leaders and media. For example, al-Ba'th newspaper asked in an editorial why the U.S. government still pressured Syria while members of Congress were visiting Damascus and "confirming the importance of its role in solving the region's problems."

Third, the way Mr. Specter went about his self-styled mission was disastrous. He praised Mr. Assad and vouched for his good intentions. Why should a U.S. senator provide alibis for one of the world's leading terrorists? As the Associated Press summarized Mr. Specter's message, "Syrian President Bashar Assad is ready for peace with Israel, an influential U.S. senator said Sunday after talks with the Syrian leader." How does Mr. Specter know what Bashar really thinks? He only knows what Bashar told him in order to get a public relations' victory.

"There is a sense that [Mr. Assad] is ready and the Syrian public opinion is ready (for peace)." What does Mr. Specter possibly know about Syrian public opinion? If one was to judge by what the government tells its people on a daily basis, no such conclusion is possible. Mr. Specter could at least limit himself to saying that Mr. Assad claimed he was ready for peace rather than endorsing that view personally.

To make matters worse, Mr. Specter basically took Mr. Assad's side against the U.S. government. If the United States wanted to do so, he insisted, it could broker an Israel-Syria peace. Without going into all the reasons why this is wrong, one could simply point out that this means the U.S. government is responsible for the lack of peace.

On two specific points, the Syrians literally and obviously fooled Mr. Specter.

According to Mr. Specter and his colleague, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Mr. Assad promised to release seven dissidents jailed after attending a meeting endorsing fair treatment of Lebanon by Syria. After the two Americans announced the pledge - as proof of Mr. Assad's wonderful intentions - Syria officially denied that any such promise had been made.

A better indication of the regime's nature is that the day after Mr. Specter's talk with Mr. Assad, a Syrian dissident, Faeq al-Mir, was sentenced to three years in jail. What was Mr. Mir's crime? He sent condolences to a Lebanese parliamentarian regarding a Lebanese politician murdered by Syria. Will Mr. Specter learn anything from this experience?

But there's more. Mr. Specter and Mr. Kennedy bragged that Syrian officials showed them an alleged agreement with France that was going to make possible a successful election of a president in Lebanon. As the two Americans were talking about this "success," the French and Lebanese government announced that no such agreement existed. Indeed, as a result of Syria's breaking its promises, Mr. Sarkozy announced he would hold no further talks with Assad.

If not so tragic, the follies of Mr. Specter in Syria would be amusing.

When such useful idiots reward the regime for its misbehavior it convinces the Ba'ath that they can continue to get away with it and just makes forcible regime change more necessary, not less. So Mr. Specter and Mr. Kennedy didn't even serve their own warped purposes well.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 6, 2008 8:37 AM

We could have sent Phil Spector and the Dead Kennedys and done more good, tune-wise, anyways.

Posted by: Qiao at January 6, 2008 11:22 AM