Demonstration Effect: The U.S. in the Middle East

April 17, 2003

by Robert Nolan

Throughout the buildup to the second Gulf War, skeptics of the Bush administration's Middle East policies questioned how a war in Iraq would help foster democratic and pluralistic societies in the region. While many important questions remain unanswered, a number of clues to the administration's strategy have been revealed in the days since the war has been declared over. As American and Israeli officials accuse Iraq's neighbor Syria of harboring members of the former Iraqi regime and possessing chemical weapons, it is clear that the U.S. intends to wield its newfound power in the region to promote American ideals, whether by force or coercion. In hoping to create a democratic axis that spans from Iraq to Israel to Lebanon, however, the U.S. road to democracy in the region must first pass through Damascus.

Syria in the Hot Seat

“I believe that a free Iraq can be an example of reform and progress to all the Middle East,” said President Bush this week, basking in the glory of the American military success in Iraq and outlining, once again, new American objectives in the Middle East. “We have to make it clear that we didn't just come to get rid of Saddam. We came to get rid of the status quo.” For now, the status quo is most embodied by Syria and its young leader, Bashar Al-Assad. White House spokesman Ari Fleicher this week called Syria a “terrorist state,” and American officials accused Iraq's neighbor to the west of harboring fleeing Iraqi leaders, providing arms and equipment to Arabs willing to fight the U.S. occupation, and developing chemical weapons.

“We hope that Syria understands now that there is a new environment in the region,” said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, denying accusations that the U.S. had plans to use military force to overthrow the leadership of other countries in the region. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw echoed Powell's comments to a lesser degree. While Straw said that Syria was run “by intelligent people who have the future interest and welfare of their country at heart,” according to the BBC, he noted that his government looked forward to Syria “understanding this new reality and moving forward.”

U.S. warnings to Syria were accompanied by criticism from Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Al-Assad a “dangerous” leader whose “judgment is impaired,” for supporting Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion, despite Syrian cooperation with the U.S during the first Gulf War. Sharon issued a number of demands on Syria, including the dismantling of Palestinian terrorist organizations operating out of Syria, the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, and an end to cooperation with Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerillas.

The coordinated statements come as the U.S. prepares to release the long-awaited “road map” for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israeli lobbyists were in Washington this week, and according to comments attributed to Israeli Defense Minister Sahul Mofaz in the International Herald Tribune, Israel is pressing Washington to make Syria “take action along these lines” as it seeks concessions. Sharon today called for Washington to exert “heavy pressure” on Syria.

Arab Reaction

Arab leaders have reacted to the rhetorical attack on Syria with indignation. “What is even more worrying is that Israel has entered the situation,” said Arab League spokesperson Hesham Youssef, in a report from the Toronto Star. “This is like throwing oil on a fire, and makes the situation even more tense and precarious.” Israel currently occupies territory in the Golan Heights that Syria claims as its own.

Syria itself has responded with denials, and has threatened to counter American and Israeli charges by proposing a United Nations brokered treaty that would make the entire Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction. “The Syrian government is ready to sign a treaty under UN supervision to make the whole Middle East a zone free from all mass destruction weapons, nuclear, chemical and biological,” said Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara, in an interview with Australia's SBS. “It is better for the Americans, for the Israelis, for every citizen on earth.”

The move is viewed by many as an attempt to shift attention from Syrian violations to Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, a generally accepted fact that is not normally discussed by the Israeli government. In addition, most countries in the Middle East, including Syria, Israel, Iraq, Libya and Egypt, have failed to ratify the international Chemical Weapons Convention.

“Aggressive Engagement”

“No country has lost more from the U.S.-led victory in Iraq than Syria,” writes Stephen Fidler of the Financial Times, indicating that Syria might be the second domino to fall, by force or by fear, in the American plan to bring democracy to the region. “Once a pro-U.S. government is established in Baghdad, Damascus will be almost encircled by U.S. allies and partners: Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan.”

The impact of such geopolitical isolation is not lost on proponents of the “demonstration effect.” Those who support the bold task of transforming the Middle East towards democracy admit that while a formal doctrine has yet to be articulated, momentum and an American willingness to exert power in the region have at least shaped a number of guiding principles. “The power of the Iraqi example may cause them to rethink the costs of supporting terrorism and other mayhem,” write the editors of the Wall Street Journal. “One benefit of liberating Baghdad is that we may improve the behavior of [rogue] regimes without having to fight.”

According to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, the demonstration effect that has taken place as a result of the fall of Baghdad should be accompanied by what he calls “aggressive engagement.” “Syria, and countries like it, will be a problem, and we need a new strategic doctrine in the post-Saddam era to deal with them,” he writes. If the U.S. makes aggressive diplomatic demands not only on Syria, but on Israel and the Palestinians as well, Friedman suggests, the result could set off “triple self-determination” in Lebanon, Iraq and a future Palestinian state. “If Lebanon, Iraq and a Palestinian state could all be made into functioning, decent, free-market, self-governing societies, it would be enough to tilt the entire Arab world onto a modernizing track,” writes Friedman.

Still, many remain skeptical of such grand visions as the United States prepares to release the long-awaited “road map” for peace in the Middle East. “Even if the U.S feels there is a case for Syria to answer, its threats against Damascus are clumsily timed. They can make sense only as part of a broader strategy to bring peace between Israel and Palestine based on the road map to Palestinian statehood,” opines The Financial Times. “So far,” write the editors, there is no sign that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “is willing to deal with issues of territorial boundaries, Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, the status of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees.”

The Guardian's Jonathan Freeland is also doubtful of both the American and Israeli commitment to a lasting peace. “There is every reason to be skeptical, rather than hopeful, about the intentions of both the Israeli and the U.S. administrations,” he writes. The American administration “will put no pressure on Israel until the Palestinians are deemed to have made the grade on internal reform – and that judgment is not coming soon.”

While U.S. criticism of Syria following the successful prosecution of the war in Iraq highlights a dramatic new stage of American foreign policy based on the uninhibited projection of power, how this newfound leverage will be used in the Middle East is still up in the air. “In the longer term, the conclusions which the administration in Washington draws from its experience with Iraq could have far-reaching consequences both for the deployment of U.S. power around the world and for the future of international relations,” writes The Economist. “In the post-Saddam world, though, it would be wise not to rule anything out.”

Photo: REUTERS/Ruben Sprich