Reform party of Syria
www.reformsyria.net
Change to blow through Middle East
Washington DC, November 3, 2004 /Nicolas Rothwell-Opinion/ -- The likely re-election of US President George W. Bush is already sending shockwaves through the Middle East. Israel, the Iraqi interim Government and the Arab states aligned with American interests are rejoicing, while nations in the US's crosshairs, such as Iran and Syria, now realise their hopes for a more tractable White House have been dashed.
The sharply ideological US view of the region, shaped by the war on terror, will continue for four more years with Mr. Bush at the helm.
Although a second Bush administration will shift its Middle Eastern priorities, and might even edge towards a mid-term strategy for pulling most US troops out of Iraq, re-election sets the seal on Iraq's future.
A John Kerry victory might have left room for some degree of European and Arab state involvement in designing the new Iraq. Now it is plain, Mr. Bush hopes to stick to his timetable for military confrontation with the insurgency, and democratic elections in January throughout Iraq. The war that was the centrepiece of Mr. Bush's first term in office will be seen through to the end.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, under intense domestic pressure as he plans his country's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, will be a big winner from a Bush win. Although both presidential candidates were resolutely supportive of Israel, it was Mr. Bush who took key policy steps that made possible Mr. Sharon's unilateral "disengagement" project.
A gain for Mr. Sharon from a Bush win will be a loss for the Palestinian leadership. Yasser Arafat, ailing in a Paris hospital, has been ostracised by the Bush White House as a terror supporter. The Palestinian camp's need to find a new generation of leadership is now accentuated by the likelihood that Mr. Bush and his strikingly pro-Israel foreign policy apparatus will remain in power.
Moderate Arab states, many of which have complex feelings about the Bush administration, will evaluate their prospects with care. A second-term American leader has great freedom to push his own blueprints for change, and George W. Bush's dream is for a revolutionary breakthrough to Middle East democracy.
While the President has close ties with the ruling dynasties of the Persian Gulf, popular opinion in all Arab nations is fiercely anti-American in the wake of the Iraq war. This tension is now likely to be prolonged; it is an important incubator for radical Islamic activism. However, there are also many Arab intellectuals and opinion-makers who support Mr. Bush. They argue that reform of the kind he advocates in the Arab world is long overdue. This is an important current of influence that will now be emboldened.
Key Arab clients and supporters of the US, such as Jordan and Egypt, are always relieved to see stability in the White House, but other Arab states will feel deep concern. First among these is Syria, which the US wants to abandon its logistical support for terror, and to pull its troops out of neighbouring Lebanon. Syria's regime has felt the sting of US pressure in recent months, and was secretly keen for a change of administration.
Iran, an Islamic state, regional superpower and neighbour of two countries invaded by Mr. Bush in his first term, will be a heavy loser. The Tehran regime is defying international demands for it to drop its nuclear enrichment programs, which have potential military implications. The return of the Bush administration, and of a president who listed the theocratic regime in Tehran as part of his "axis of evil", is unwelcome for the conservative ruling circle, and raises the possibility of an impending confrontation over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
A returned American president is entrenched in power by a confirmed mandate. But in the Middle East, which Mr. Bush wishes to transform, the result promises the precise opposite of stability: it is a recipe for continued American attempts to redraw the region's political landscape.
Excerpts from the Press Conference of President Bush
Washington DC, November 4, 2004 /RPS News/ - On the Middle East.
Q: Mr. President -- thank you. As you look at your second term, how much is the war in Iraq going to cost? Do you intend to send more troops, or bring troops home? And in the Middle East, more broadly, do you agree with Tony Blair that revitalizing the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political issue facing the world?
THE PRESIDENT: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions. (Laughter.) I'll start with Tony Blair's comments. I agree with him that the Middle East peace is a very important part of a peaceful world. I have been working on Middle Eastern peace ever since I've been the President. I've laid down some -- a very hopeful strategy on -- in June of 2002, and my hope is that we will make good progress. I think it's very important for our friends, the Israelis, to have a peaceful Palestinian state living on their border. And it's very important for the Palestinian people to have a peaceful, hopeful future. That's why I articulated a two-state vision in that Rose Garden speech. I meant it when I said it and I mean it now.
On Spreading Democracy Freedom and Human Rights.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll put out an agenda that everybody understands and work with people to achieve the agenda. Democrats want a free and peaceful world, and we'll -- and right away, right after September the 11th we worked very closely together to secure our country. There is a common ground to be had when it comes to a foreign policy that says the most important objective is to protect the American people and spread freedom and democracy. It's common ground when it comes to making sure the intelligence services are able to provide good, actionable intelligence to protect our people. It's not a Republican issue, it's a Republican and Democrat issue. So I'm -- plenty of places for us to work together. All right, Gregory.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. On foreign policy, more broadly, do you believe that America has an image problem in the world right now, because of your efforts and response to the 9/11 attacks? And, as you talked down the stretch about building alliances, talk about what you'll do to build on those alliances and to deal with these image problems, particularly in the Islamic world.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. Listen, I've made some very hard decisions: decisions to protect ourselves, decisions to spread peace and freedom. And I understand in certain capitals and certain countries, those decisions were not popular. You know, you said -- you asked me to put that in the context of the response on September the 11th. The first response, of course, was chasing down the terror networks, which we will continue to do. And we've got great response around the world in order to do that. There's over 90 nations involved with sharing information, finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. That is a broad coalition, and we'll continue to strengthen it. I laid out a doctrine, David, that said if you harbor terrorists, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists, and that doctrine was ignored by the Taliban, and we removed the Taliban. And I fully understand some people didn't agree with that decision. But I believe that when the American President speaks, he'd better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful. And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people. And the Taliban and their harboring of al Qaeda represented a direct threat to the American people. And, of course, then the Iraq issue is one that people disagreed with. And there's no need to rehash my case, but I did so, I made the decision I made, in order to protect our country, first and foremost. I will continue to do that as the President. But as I do so, I will reach out to others and explain why I make the decisions I make. There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I've heard that criticism. Remember, I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East. And I fully understand that that might rankle some, and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world. If we are interested in protecting our country for the long-term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy. And I -- I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It's just not a part of my thinking. And that's why during the course of the campaign, I was -- I believe I was able to connect, at least with those who were there, in explaining my policy, when I talked about the free election in Afghanistan. There were -- there was doubt about whether or not those elections would go forward. I'm not suggesting any of you here expressed skepticism. But there was. There was deep skepticism, and -- because there is a attitude among some that certain people may never be free -- they just don't long to be free or incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that. And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved -- proved that this administration's faith in freedom to change peoples' habits is worthy. And that will be a central part of my foreign policy. And I've got work to do to explain to people about why that is a central part of our foreign policy. I've been doing that for four years. But if you do not believe people can be free and can self-govern, then all of a sudden the two-state solution in the Middle East becomes a moot point, invalid. If you're willing to condemn a group of people to a system of government that hasn't worked, then you'll never be able to achieve the peace. You cannot lead this world and our country to a better tomorrow unless you see a better -- if you have a vision of a better tomorrow. And I've got one, based upon a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.
On Iraq.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Iraq, yes. Listen, we will work with the Allawi government to achieve our objective, which is elections, on the path to stability, and we'll continue to train the troops. Our commanders will have that which they need to complete their missions. And in terms of the cost, I -- we'll work with OMB and the Defense Department to bring forth to Congress a realistic assessment of what the cost will be.
Q: Now that the political volatility is off the issue because the election is over, I'd like to ask you about troop levels in Iraq in the next couple of months leading up to elections. The Pentagon already has a plan to extend tours of duty for some 6,500 U.S. troops. How many more will be needed to provide security in Iraq for elections, seeing as how the Iraqi troops that you're trying to train up are pretty slow coming on line?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the -- we are making good progress in training the Iraqi troops. There will be 125,000 of them trained by election time. Secondly, I have yet to -- I have not sat down with our Secretary of Defense talking about troop levels. I read some reports during the course of the campaign where some were speculating in the press corps about the number of troops needed to protect elections. That has not been brought to my attention yet. And so I would caution you that what you have either read about or reported was pure speculation thus far. These elections are important, and we will respond, John, to requests of our commanders on the ground. And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops. Q Mr. President, American forces are gearing up for what appears to be a major offensive in Fallujah over the next several days. I'm wondering if you could tell us what the objective is, what the stakes are there for the United States, for the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi elections coming up in January?
THE PRESIDENT: In order for Iraq to be a free country those who are trying to stop the elections and stop a free society from emerging must be defeated. And so Prime Minister Allawi and his government, which fully understands that, are working with our generals on the ground to do just that. We will work closely with the government. It's their government, it's their country. We're there at their invitation. And -- but I think there's a recognition that some of these people have to -- must be defeated, and so that's what they're thinking about. That's what you're -- that's why you're hearing discussions about potential action in Fallujah.
On the War on Terror:
We are fighting a continuing war on terror, and every American has a stake in the outcome of this war. Republicans, Democrats and independents all love our country, and together we'll protect the American people. We will preserve -- we will persevere until the enemy is defeated. We will stay strong and resolute. We have a duty, a solemn duty to protect the American people, and we will. Every civilized country also has a stake in the outcome of this war. Whatever our past disagreements, we share a common enemy. And we have common duties: to protect our peoples, to confront disease and hunger and poverty in troubled regions of the world. I'll continue to reach out to our friends and allies, our partners in the EU and NATO, to promote development and progress, to defeat the terrorists and to encourage freedom and democracy as alternatives to tyranny and terror. Q Thank you, Mr. President. I know you haven't had a chance to learn this, but it appears that Yasser Arafat has passed away.
THE PRESIDENT: Really?
Q And I was just wondering if I could get your initial reaction? And also your thoughts on, perhaps, working with a new generation of Palestinian leadership?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. My first reaction is, God bless his soul. And my second reaction is, is that we will continue to work for a free Palestinian state that's at peace with Israel. On Faith.
I will be your President regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no President should ever try to impose religion on our society. A great -- the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad -- I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you -- you don't have to worship. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is -- that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow
Tough time awaits Lebanon, Syria after Bush win
Re-election of US president is likely to increase pressure on Lebanon, Syria to implement Resolution 1559.
Washington DC, November 4, 2004/Middle East Online/ -- The re-election of US President George W. Bush signals more difficult times ahead for Syria and the pro-Syrian regime in Lebanon in the face of mounting US and UN pressure, lawmakers and the press warned Thursday.
"To the shelters, it's Bush," screamed the front page editorial of the leftwing As-Safir newspaper.
"The Americans did not wish to change their army commander in a period of war," it said.
"They did not hold him accountable on the so-called reasons for the war or its astronomical costs, but said: 'it is a war and we have to complete it,'" it said.
Lebanon's leading An-Nahar newspaper said Bush's re-election and the victory of the Republicans in Congress will encourage him to "pursue the same foreign policies that he led in the last four years, particularly concerning the war on terrorism and Iraq."
Beirut and its political masters in Damascus have been under pressure from the Bush administration which is leading an international campaign to end Syria's military presence in Lebanon and its interference in the domestic affairs of its neighbor.
Relations between the United States and Syria, which has about 15,000 troops on Lebanese soil, have long been strained. Washington in May slapped economic sanctions on Damascus, claiming it was supporting terrorism and seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction, charges denied by Syria.
Lebanese opposition MP Fares Sahed said Bush's re-election will "accelerate the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559," which laid out the international community's demands on Damascus.
"Bush's return means a speeding up of the process of drawing a mechanism for the implementation of this Resolution at the Security Council," said Sahed.
"And therefore he would pursue his policy of re-organising a new Middle East from a US security point of view, which will increase the pressure on Lebanon and Syria to implement Resolution 1559."
Ammar Musawi, an MP from the parliamentary bloc of the Lebanese Shiite Muslim radical Hezbollah movement, said that "we expected pressures whether Bush or (Democratic candidate John) Kerry had won."
"But with the return of Bush, these pressures will increase, and Lebanon and Syria are already under pressure," he told al-Balad newspaper.
Hezbollah, which enjoys strong support from Syria and the regime in Lebanon, was instrumental in the guerrilla war that led to the 2000 Israeli troop pullout from southern Lebanon after 22 years of occupation.
"Resolution 1559 was adopted during the term of Bush, and so was Syria Accountability and Lebanon Sovereignty Act," noted Farid el-Khazen, international relations professor at the American University of Beirut.
"Therefore the new Bush term will witness an accelerated implementation of these two resolutions," he told al-Balad.
"Bush's victory means a continuation of the US foreign policy, particularly the critical and dangerous situation as it is the case in Iraq which is in a state of war."
Syria Wants Saudi Oil Money
Washington DC, November 4, 2004/RPS News/ -- Several Saudi businessmen visited Syria yesterday to listen to Nibras El-Fadel, economic adviser to Baschar Al-Assad, about investing in Syria as well as discuss areas of mutual interest that could serve the Syrian regime. Syria is experiencing a looming economic disaster because of the capacity of the present government to absorb the 300,000 plus new comers every year into the marketplace. The present economy can only accommodate 100,000 per year. Restless youths are a threat to the police state of the Assad family.
Syria is trying to build a private sector able to absorb that excess labor force without the pains associated with opening a society. Some 50 percent of the country's income relies on crude oil, even though Syria is not an OPEC member and produces less than 500,000 barrels per day. The largest challenges the government faces is to convince Syrian capital invested overseas estimated at $10 billion to come home. According to an exiled Syrian businessman "Under the existing political and legal conditions, no capital would want to face fear no matter how noble is the nationalistic purpose". In other words, Syria must become an open society with laws that protect capital and not ruled by the few corrupt people. Syria experimented with capitalism last month by allowing shares of SyriaTel, the Syrian cellular operator owned by the Assad and the Makhlouf families, to float public shares in the market. The experiment failed miserably when only 6% of the shares were sold. Both families want to sell SyriTel completely.
Reform Party of Syria
The articles published on this site represent the opinion of their writers and not the opinion of the webmasters.
