Damascus Appears to Be Ripe for Peace

Syria is today at a critical crossroads. The death of President Hafez Assad will undoubtedly have far-reaching effects on its domestic and foreign affairs. Admittedly, indulging in predictions is a risky enterprise, particularly in the Middle East. Yet there are obvious factors that are bound to affect Syria’s future.

In the realm of foreign matters, there are two major problems that the next Syrian president will have to deal with. One is Lebanon, where a national consensus favors the withdrawal of the 35,000-strong Syrian army and, more important, the restoration of Lebanon’s full sovereignty.

Muslim and Christian Lebanese citizens both believe that the end of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon justifies the end of the so-called special relationship between Beirut and Damascus. A few days before the death of President Assad, several Lebanese newspapers daringly launched a hostile campaign against the Syrian foreign minister, Farouk Shareh, for having stated that Syrian troops were indispensable in preventing a renewed civil war. Shareh had to back down, claiming that he had been misquoted.

In comparison, the issue of Israel appears to be less threatening to the Syrian regime. Israeli officials projected a positive image of Bashar Assad, the likely next Syrian president, and let it be known that there will be no interference in Syrian domestic politics from them. The Israelis expressed a willingness to resume peace negotiations as soon as Damascus is ready.

Conditions within Syria are ripe for peace with Israel. The public is tired of an unending conflict that has produced useless suffering and economic woes. Hafez Assad had convinced his people since the Madrid conference in 1991 that peace was in Syria’s national interests. Yet he also repeatedly reminded them of his commitment made 30 years ago to conclude a “just peace” that included return of all the Golan territory seized by Israel in 1967. He felt that he could not accept less than what Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan obtained in exchange for full peace.

Many in the Israeli intelligence community believe that it will be harder to achieve peace with Assad’s successor than with Assad himself. Being determined to bequeath to his son a country at peace, it was believed that the former president ultimately would have accepted a less favorable deal. He had enough clout and undisputed power to “sell” it to his people. He did not, however, and, ironically, died on the anniversary date of the conquest of the Golan by Israel 33 years ago.

His son, Bashar, if elected, will probably postpone decisions on foreign issues until his rule becomes well established. He has tougher problems to deal with. Although he would be inheriting a country that has known 30 years of stability, a variety of factors undermine the system.

First and foremost, the Sunni Muslims, who are the vast majority of the population, will probably be tempted to challenge a state apparatus controlled by the Alawite minority--to which the Assad family belongs, allied to another minority community, the Christians.

The Alawites themselves are divided into competing clans, one of them led by one of Hafez Assad’s brothers, Rifaat Assad, a former general who was forced into exile after an attempted coup. Rifaat, a billionaire, has extensive property abroad, including a television station in London that he uses as a propaganda tool. He is believed to have a clandestine organization inside Syria that includes members of the armed forces.

Among the various political groups that have been forced to go underground by the ruling Baath Party, the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be the most threatening. Crushed by a bloody repressive campaign in the early 1980s, during which about 10,000 of its followers were killed by the security forces in the city of Hama, the brotherhood members have never forgotten their martyrs or forgiven the ruling Alawites, whom they do not consider to be true Muslims.

Also, Syrians are probably one of the most politically sophisticated peoples of the Middle East, and many may be yearning for the freedoms they have been deprived of for so many years. Many have not forgotten that they exercised their democratic rights in the 1950s when they enjoyed a multi-party system, elections and governments controlled by parliament.

Bashar Assad may or may not have to face a power struggle--for which he is ill prepared. Yet if he is as modern as he appears to be, if he genuinely wishes to introduce sweeping political and economic reforms as some of his admirers contend, he could go down in history as the man who led Syria into a new era of stability and peace.