Politics

Sauver la Syrie et l'Amérique

Jul 23, 2013 Christopher R. Hill

DENVER – Les critiques la politique au Moyen-Orient de l'Amérique rappellent la boutade de Woody Allen dans Annie Hall : « La nourriture servie ici est vraiment infecte... et les portions sont si petites ! » Les États-Unis sont tenus pour responsables de nombreux maux dans cette région et pourtant on les accuse de ne pas s'être suffisamment engagés, de « diriger l'arrière-garde », de ne pas soutenir la démocratie, d'abandonner leurs amis, etc. Compte tenu de toutes les accusations que les Etats-Unis essuient, quant à leur implication dans la région au fil des décennies, on pourrait penser que les Etats-Unis sont invités à rester chez eux.

Mais la région a un cruel besoin de leadership et les États-Unis restent le seul pays à pouvoir y répondre. Le problème pour les Etats-Unis ne vient pas des divisions du Moyen-Orient, qu'il s'agit de mieux comprendre pour s'y frayer un chemin, mais plutôt des divisions au sein des États-Unis qui ont érodé le consensus national sur de nombreuses questions de politique étrangère. Ces différences internes ont laissé les Etats-Unis à l'écart durant les derniers bouleversements au Moyen-Orient.

Les Etats-Unis ont traditionnellement deux positions en matière de politique étrangère : réaliste ou idéaliste. Mais aujourd'hui les opinions se sont fragmentées en un large éventail de positions : une situation où le besoin de leadership se fait là aussi cruellement sentir.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

Christopher R. Hill

Writing for PS since 2010
103 Commentaries

Christopher R. Hill, former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, was US Ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005-2009. He is Chief Adviser to the Chancellor for Global Engagement and Professor of the Practice in Diplomacy at the University of Denver, and the author of Outpost: A Diplomat at Work.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 Comments on this article

TheStudent Economist Aug 14, 2013

Quite a few good points. While the policy you described is obviously more concrete than anything coming out of this administration, I'd like to focus on other problems that have exacerbated the Syrian Conflict. 1) No Leadership: as you pointed out there is very little political leadership coming from actual Syrians, even Egypt is suffering from this. 2) Water Under the Bridge: At this point, the war is on, and there is little we can do but sit on our hands and wait for this one to play out. Russia/Putin doesn't mind playing political chess and our international power has eroded to a point where unless chemical weapons are involved, we have no merit for serious policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery Jul 27, 2013

The pessimist in me says that the parties to the Syrian conflict will be ready for a conference if, and only when, they see that, having exhausted themselves and their foreign allies, they cannot achieve their aims by military means . Alas, that will be a very long time coming. And by that time, Syria of the late 20th century will be unrecognizable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Jul 25, 2013

For once, a cogent and undeniably realistic policy to find a solution in Syria.

First principle, boarders of Syria must be maintained and its sovereign entity more or less guaranteed by US-Russia.

Second, federalism may be a way out of sectarian revolution. However how to guarantee it requires US-Russia acquiescence.

Third, Obama (The Pasha!) is remotely inclined to spill blood and treasure in Syria, so far.

Bottom line, the Sunni-tribal support from Gulf States must be put on notice that the way forward demands compromise; same apples to Assad & Co.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wim Roffel Jul 24, 2013

The article assumes that all Sunni support the opposition. But it well known that in places like Aleppo and Damascus and in Raqqa province the majority of the population prefers Assad over the rebels. And with the increasing Islamization of the opposition many believe now that Assad has majority support and would win elections.

The suggestions what Obama should do sound right. Unfortunately I have the impression that the only thing Obama cares about is "regime change" and that he prefers to do that with the fewest possible American finger prints.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gary Tucker Jul 24, 2013

I would only propose that for a truly long term peaceful solution to not only the Syrian crisis but much of the Levant that your wonderful proposal have an important single reset in thinking.

Thus the nation evolving from what is currently Syria would indeed include the entire existing nation of Syria within its borders. Not to be divided. It would also be true that the nation evolving from what is now Syria would be a federal state, with broad local autonomy. And indeed the third also involves a carefully drafted and agreed upon parliament and constitutional framework.

But this could also be said, word for word, for Iraq. Or Lebanon. Indeed it is much of what the Palestinians have been demanding for their future nation, in principle with regards to Israel.

What is missing in this thinking is that what really makes sense, in the long term and for the entire region is if your statement is not just about Syria. But it is about a single nation that is the combination of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and the Palestinian Territories. The Nation of Syriaq if you will.

http://bit.ly/11kckhj

All remain within their current borders. It would just be a single all inclusive border. All would be part of a federal state with broad local autonomy. All would concern the shape of the future parliament and constitutional framework. And again so forth.

Just as Iraq is sliding ever so closely to a three part Shia/Sunni/Kurdish state so too would a Nation of Syriaq become a Federal Nation of Shia/Alawite, Sunni, Kurds. Druze, Christians and even remarkably perhaps a great number of Jews.

As all the nations of the region are falling apart the ironic answer may be that what they really need instead is all join together.

What the US could do is create a scenario of a central core for such a nation in a compromise capital of Amman. For decades now Amman has been the go to place for diaspora refugees from virtually every surrounding and inclusive nation mentioned. The only group who have not shown up in numbers are perhaps the Kurds.

What the US needs to be able to do is show what a unified Syriaq would entail. To the Shia, the Sunni, the Kurds, the Arab League, the Russians, Iran, the EU, the Israelis.

What the US also needs to do is allow that the Syrian Army, to a very great extent, would remain intact and become the core of a Syriaq Army. What the US also needs to do is let Russia take the wheel on making it work from ground. Alone and with the people within Syriaq.

What the US could do however is convince all parties, including the Jordanians, that a nation of Syriaq has its best chance of succeeding as a Hashemite Kingdom. And with Amman as the central axis of a much larger Federal State, first of all as the capital of a nation of 70 million, Amman and surrounding region would no longer be a city without a major industry. Being the capital would provide a stable economic base for the entire region. It would also mean hundreds of thousands of refugees could go home. And this time for good. This is a concept the people of Jordan have not had since the nation was created.

The second part of the axis is that it is between all the other nations and the Palestinians. While Palestinians may not have considered merging with Jordan one on one in the past to any great degree, being part of a much larger Syriaq would be a tempting proposition. Both for the Palestinians in Palestine and those elsewhere in Syriaq.

It is no accident that the Iraqi national anthem is a Palestinian song. It is no accident that before the troubles in Syria, Syrian children used to stand in class and recite "we are all Palestinians."

As members of the Nation of Syriaq, the negotiating stance between Syriaq and Israel might have a much more peace oriented nature and foundation. The people of Syriaq would need to turn inward to both create and rebuild a new nation.

Before the end of World War I this was pretty much the hope of millions of Arabs in the Levant anyway. A single united country. It would be a century late but better late than never.

A single nation with Basra, Baghdad, Damascus, Erbil, Aleppo, Beirut, Al Quds, and Amman. That is a nation that has a promise to do great things.

And again. the people of Syria would remain united within the same border, as would the people of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and perhaps the Palestinians.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
J St. Clair Jul 23, 2013

"The first principle could be that Syria should continue to exist within its current borders. Another might be that Syria will be a federal state, with broad local autonomy. A third could concern the shape of a future parliament. And so forth." ...the gist of your article is to force the structure of the their govt. to be the same/similar to as one's own.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.