New York Times Editorial - The price of not talking to Syria's Assad
New York Times Editorial - The price of not talking to Syria's Assad
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: August 8, 2006
When asked Monday why the United States isn't talking with Syria about the Lebanon crisis, President George W. Bush replied, "Syria knows what we think." That may be. But Syria is also unlikely to even consider doing what Bush wants - rein in Hezbollah and help halt the killing in Lebanon and Israel - unless its leaders know what potential rewards as well as punishments await them. And for that, the United States needs to offer a serious high-level discussion with Syria, and it needs to do it now.
Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, is brutal, dishonest and less than competent. But he may also be more vulnerable to outside pressure, and inducements, than Hezbollah's other patron, Iran. Driving even the thinnest wedge between Syria and Iran would be a diplomatic breakthrough for a White House badly in need of breakthroughs. Even if the United States and France manage to pry a resolution out of the UN Security Council, unless Hezbollah is constrained there is little chance of actually deploying an international peacekeeping force, regaining Lebanon's sovereignty and building a stable peace.
Bush has always seen talking, by itself, as a reward. As a result, U.S. diplomats have been barred from serious contact with a host of dangerous characters from Pyongyang to Tehran to Damascus. That cold shoulder may have made Bush feel righteous, but it hasn't done anything to choke off nuclear programs in Iran or North Korea. And it's not likely to persuade Syria to cut off shipments of rockets to Hezbollah, or accept international monitors on its border, or oust Iraqi Baathist financiers from Damascus - or any of the other things the White House wants Syria to do but refuses even to discuss with its leaders.
Of course, talking isn't enough. Bush's impulse, even when he agrees to talk, is to lecture and not listen. The White House will have to hear what Syria wants and consider what inducements might be worth offering in exchange for Syria's help.
That's not appeasement. That's negotiation. No one is suggesting Bush give away the store. At a minimum, however, Bush will have to start with a clear signal that what America wants is a change in Syria's conduct, not the overthrow of its regime.
After much internal roiling, Bush grudgingly agreed to talk to North Korea and has signaled that America may also be willing to sit down with Iran. But in the time it has taken for him to come to those decisions, North Korea has churned out plutonium for even more bombs, while Iran is on its way to mastering the skills needed to produce weapons-grade uranium.
There is no guarantee that negotiations will persuade any of these countries to do what's right or even what's in their obvious self-interest. Assad is not known for personal courage or good sense. But the price for not trying to talk will be more fury toward the United States and its few remaining allies in the region. That's no reward.
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: August 8, 2006
When asked Monday why the United States isn't talking with Syria about the Lebanon crisis, President George W. Bush replied, "Syria knows what we think." That may be. But Syria is also unlikely to even consider doing what Bush wants - rein in Hezbollah and help halt the killing in Lebanon and Israel - unless its leaders know what potential rewards as well as punishments await them. And for that, the United States needs to offer a serious high-level discussion with Syria, and it needs to do it now.
Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, is brutal, dishonest and less than competent. But he may also be more vulnerable to outside pressure, and inducements, than Hezbollah's other patron, Iran. Driving even the thinnest wedge between Syria and Iran would be a diplomatic breakthrough for a White House badly in need of breakthroughs. Even if the United States and France manage to pry a resolution out of the UN Security Council, unless Hezbollah is constrained there is little chance of actually deploying an international peacekeeping force, regaining Lebanon's sovereignty and building a stable peace.
Bush has always seen talking, by itself, as a reward. As a result, U.S. diplomats have been barred from serious contact with a host of dangerous characters from Pyongyang to Tehran to Damascus. That cold shoulder may have made Bush feel righteous, but it hasn't done anything to choke off nuclear programs in Iran or North Korea. And it's not likely to persuade Syria to cut off shipments of rockets to Hezbollah, or accept international monitors on its border, or oust Iraqi Baathist financiers from Damascus - or any of the other things the White House wants Syria to do but refuses even to discuss with its leaders.
Of course, talking isn't enough. Bush's impulse, even when he agrees to talk, is to lecture and not listen. The White House will have to hear what Syria wants and consider what inducements might be worth offering in exchange for Syria's help.
That's not appeasement. That's negotiation. No one is suggesting Bush give away the store. At a minimum, however, Bush will have to start with a clear signal that what America wants is a change in Syria's conduct, not the overthrow of its regime.
After much internal roiling, Bush grudgingly agreed to talk to North Korea and has signaled that America may also be willing to sit down with Iran. But in the time it has taken for him to come to those decisions, North Korea has churned out plutonium for even more bombs, while Iran is on its way to mastering the skills needed to produce weapons-grade uranium.
There is no guarantee that negotiations will persuade any of these countries to do what's right or even what's in their obvious self-interest. Assad is not known for personal courage or good sense. But the price for not trying to talk will be more fury toward the United States and its few remaining allies in the region. That's no reward.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home