Syria’s Goal: Getting Americans to Acknowledge Key Role for Damascus

The Syrian government’s prime motivation for joining the negotiations that led to the release of the American hostages from hijacked TWA Flight 847 was a desire to have the Reagan Administration indebted to President Hafez Assad, according to Western analysts here.

While Assad and his government have never particularly craved publicity, they nonetheless relish those rare opportunities when Americans, and by extension the Reagan Administration, must acknowledge Damascus’ role as a key player in the Mideast.

“Once again the Syrians have shown the Americans that they must come to them when they want to accomplish anything in this part of the world,” said one Western diplomat.

The Syrians apparently wanted the international recognition for their role, too. During the negotiations, the Syrians insisted that the freed captives attend a televised news conference once they reached Damascus in a convoy from Beirut rather than merely be driven to the airport for their flight to West Germany.

The Syrians were drawn into the matter for other reasons as well.

The continuation of the hijack crisis, according to diplomats, seriously raised the risk of renewed American intervention in Lebanon. Assad had bitterly opposed the deployment of U.S. Marines in Beirut after Israel’s June, 1982, invasion of Lebanon, and hoped to avoid a repetition.

By arranging the hostage release, Syria also helped Nabih Berri, the leader of Amal, Lebanon’s main Shia Muslim militia. Berri agreed to act as a mediator between the United States and the hijackers, who are believed to be members of a more radical Shia Muslim group knows as Hezbollah, for Party of God.

Berri, who is also Lebanon’s justice minister, is considered one of Assad’s proteges and has virtually been anointed by the Syrians as the legitimate Muslim spokesman in Lebanon.

If, as expected, 735 Lebanese prisoners from the Israeli prison camp at Atlit near Haifa are released in the coming days, Berri will be able to claim with conviction that it was his intervention, rather than the hijacking, that proved decisive with the United States.

Freedom for the Lebanese prisoners was a key demand of the hijackers.

As the theater of the televised news conference suggests, Syria is also glad to accept the world’s approbation for its role in ending the hijacking at a time when it is increasingly isolated in the Arab world.

In May, the Syrians came under fire for supporting Berri’s decision to send his Amal militiamen into Palestinian refugee camps around Beirut with the aim of disarming Palestinian guerrillas there.

The ensuing fighting dragged on much longer than anyone anticipated, and the destruction of two of the three camps with a high casualty toll caused many Arab governments as well as Palestinian groups based in Damascus to criticize the Syrian regime.

Now, “with the whole world watching, Syria has been given a chance to do something positive,” commented one Western observer.

While there are benefits to the Syrians in terms of their international stature, it remains unclear what they might hope to receive from the Americans in settlement of the new obligation owed by the United States.

Last month, the Reagan Administration asked Congress to approve the sale of F-20 warplanes to neighboring Jordan and made clear that they were intended as a deterrent to Syria rather than Israel, Jordan’s traditional enemy.

The Syrians have frequently denounced the accord reached by Jordan’s King Hussein and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat to begin negotiations toward the establishment of a Palestinian entity on the West Bank of the Jordan River.

For its part, the United States seems prepared to accept Syria’s continuing role as the main power broker in Lebanon. Diplomats said there may be some formal acknowledgement of Syria’s contribution there as part of the current negotiations.

“The Syrians are always hopeful that the Americans will finally acknowledge their mastery of events in Lebanon,” noted one diplomat. “The hijacking negotiations give them another chance to say, ‘See, all you need to do is come to see us and we produce results.’ ”

Assad was deeply angered at the May 17, 1983, signing of the American-sponsored agreement between Israel and Lebanon, which he regarded as a peace treaty. The agreement was abrogated by Lebanon on March 5, 1984, under heavy Syrian pressure.

The diplomats agreed that the Syrians entered the negotiations long after the hijacking started, and probably urged Berri to take control of the hostages from the hijackers.

There has been speculation for some time that Syria may be contemplating a crackdown of some kind on Hezbollah because of the disruptive effect the group has on Syria’s plans to settle Lebanon’s continuing civil strife.

The hijacking occurred as the Syrians seemed poised to bring about significant political reforms in Lebanon. Those consultations were all placed in a state of suspension by the hijacking crisis.