The PostGlobal discussion for this week is: "What changes would people in your part of the world be grateful to see in the coming year?" At first glance, all of my answers would be political. A deeper look, however, would be mental, social, and educational. These are the real problems that cripple us in the Arab World (and they certainly are linked to political freedoms). For this argument, I borrow from an earlier article I wrote this winter for Asia Times Online. I would like to people braver, smarter, and less Puritan, not only in Syria but also throughout the Arab World.

Some would immediately argue: these changes cannot be achieved without political reforms. I invite readers to read through the article and then decide which must come first: mental and social reforms, or political ones. I hope readers digest what’s written in this article, and then try to imagine how horrendous political freedoms would be to an Arab society that sadly still has this devastating mentality on women's rights, religion, education, and freedom of speech. Democracy cannot be achieved by pressing a button. It has to start with a correct mindset and with education.

A short while ago, I had a long conversation with a friend about being free (hurr) and being liberal (mutaharrer). Freedom is the prerequisite for liberty. Back in the early 1940s, the Syrian poet Nizar Qabbani was criticized on the campus of Damascus University for writing about women at a time when the nation was ablaze with anti-French riots. He asked, "Why have we been spilling blood against the French since 1920?" A friend replied: "For independence." "Wrong" said Nizar, "we did it for freedom!" Syria might become independent, he added, but it needed to be free in order to be a healthy country. "Nations, just like human beings, need two legs to function properly,” he said. “One leg is independence. The other is freedom."

Continue »

Syria finally decided on November 25 to attend the U.S. peace conference in Annapolis. This came only after the U.S. incorporated the Golan Heights issue into the conference agenda, after Syrian protests that it would not attend unless the occupied Heights were on the conference table. Had Syria not chosen to attend, the conference would have been doomed to fail. The reason is simple: the Americans cannot talk peace in the Middle East without Syria.

Not much has changed in terms of Syrian demands towards the Middle East peace process since Madrid, 1991. I’ll first detail the story here at length, because I believe it to be a prelude to what will happen at Annapolis on November 27.

On March 6, 1991, after the liberation of Kuwait, President George Bush Sr. gave his famed victory speech, saying: “We must do all that we can to close the gap between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” The Syrians believed him and showed enthusiasm towards what came to be known as the Madrid Peace Conference. The Israelis, led at the time by Yitzhak Shamir, did not. They were distracted by an international conference, co-sponsored by the U.S.S.R., which would bring them face-to-face with all of the Arab countries.

Seven days later, Bush sent his Secretary of State James Baker to meet President Hafez al-Assad in Damascus. Before the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to Syria Edward Djerjian advised, “Nobody can predict how long this meeting’s going to last. So be careful how much you drink. Assad will not leave the room. If you drink too much, the forces of nature will overcome you!”

After the meeting, Baker told the U.S. President, “Assad gave me the clear impression that he is serious about pursuing peace, but that he will be a tough nut to crack!” Assad told his American guest: “A peace conference should not be convened just once and then disappear. The conference should be re-convened whenever necessary.” Assad insisted that the U.N. co-sponsor the event, but Baker replied, “Mr. President, the Israelis will not accept the United Nations—they hate the United Nations.” Baker promised a U.S. guarantee to get the Israelis to withdraw from the Golan. The Syrians went along with that—and the rest is history.

Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara went to Madrid and called on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and South Lebanon. Shamir—uninterested—replied with a thundering speech, accusing Syria of being a state sponsor of terrorism. Shara was furious. He took out a newspaper clipping (given to Walid Moualim by a member of the Lebanese delegation), dated 1948, with a picture of the young Shamir under the bold words WANTED. Shara said, “I will just show you, if I may, an old photograph of Mr. Shamir. Why was this picture distributed? Because he was WANTED. He helped, as I recall, in the assassination of Count Bernadotte, the U.N. mediator in Palestine in 1948. He kills peace-makers!”

I believe Annapolis will follow a similar pattern. The Syrians did not want to create a problem at the conference but the Israelis, uninterested in peace, intimidated them to such an extent that they set aside their prepared speech and resort to the famed WANTED one. True, the Syrians will be represented at Annapolis by Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Miqdad, but they are very skeptical about what the Americans have to offer. Ehud Olmert is as uncomfortable with the conference as Shamir was in 1991. This time it is not Shara at Annapolis, but his trusted protégé, Dr Miqdad, a seasoned Syrian statesman who served as his country’s ambassador to the U.N. in 2003-2006.

Continue »