A Triumph For Free Trade… In Rhetoric
Could the EC’s most recent agreement with Syria lead to more coalition troops dying in Iraq?
By David Frankfurter
The EC and the government of Syria have just concluded their negotiations for a trade deal within the MEDA framework - a deal yet to be rubber-stamped by the respective parliaments. An official press release referred to clauses covering free trade, human rights, and terror.
It is no secret that an essential part of Syrian financial strategy is gaining improved access to European markets as well as grabbing an increasing share of EU aid to the Levant. The dictatorship of the late Hafez el-Assad had brought stability but continued poverty to the average Syrian.
Around 50% of Syria’s foreign commerce is now conducted with the EU. The Ambassador of the EC Mission in Damascus, Frank Heske, noted that total aid through the MEDA programme is to reach Euro.300 million over 2002 – 2006. Nevertheless, the European taxpayer must question the wisdom of this substantial investment in the “new Syria”.
Syria’s creativity over the past decade for developing new trade links does not point to a healthy and ongoing relationship with Europe. For example, President Bashir Assad’s cousin has spent at least two years directing arms towards his co-Bathist customer in Baghdad. While sitting on the UN Security Council, Syria purchased weapons from Poland, Libya, and the Koreas amongst others and illegally re-exported them for tens of millions of dollars to Saddam’s army. As Saddam diverted huge sums from the United Nations food-for-oil program into these arms purchases, he also secretly stashed away billions of dollars in Syrian bank vaults.
It appears that the border between Syria and its Southern neighbour is still highly porous. What should be of grave concern to Europeans is whether coalition troops in Iraq are now suffering as a result of this trade in weapons.
Similar questions can be asked of the now infamous “Niger Shipment” of uranium, which arrived in Iraq via Libya and Syria. Not only has Dr Ayad Allawi of Iraq’s Presidential Committee apparently confirmed the reports as genuine. These stories reinforce the allegations about Syria’s non-conventional weapons programs.
Syria’s trade in violence is not just limited to “hardware”. Damascus is also involved in transferring “human resources”. On December 19, 2003, AP commented on how volunteers recruited in Italy, Britain and Germany were able to cross freely the Syrian border with Iraq. Their aim: to attack and kill coalition troops. Syria’s commercial policy is clearly not engineered to stabilise the Middle East
Interestingly, there are those who see trade discussions as a breakthrough, which will lead to greater economic and political freedoms in Syria. Christian Leffler, the EU's chief negotiator, found his opposite numbers to be “positive” and “constructive”. Patrick Searle, the leading British apologist for Syria, believes that the government in Damascus will now introduce reforms.
But why did the EC make an agreement, before reforms have been introduced? Are they blind to the reports of organizations like Amnesty International (AI), which cited an increase in human rights abuses in 2002. Hundreds of political prisoners are still imprisoned without trial. 10 days after the trade discussions were concluded, an AI press release demanded the release of 14 prisoners of conscience from Syrian prisons. And none of this even considers Syria’s dubious role in Lebanon and its support for the warmongering Hizbollah.
The French government and its allies in the EC’s secretive corridors of powers have obviously been galled by America’s insistence that Syria is still a pariah state. As AI was preparing its statement, President Bush was approving a Bill from Congress authorizing economic sanctions against Syria. A tragedy for Europe or an ironic reminder that Syria still harbours terrorist cells, including those who actively oppose the work of the coalition in Iraq?
The EU is now presented with two moral dilemmas. First, should the representatives in Brussels approve the agreement negotiated with Damascus? To say “no” or to ask for serious clarifications would require a bold step against the wishes of Commissioner Patten and others. Second, even if the seal of approval is given, what happens next? Hand over the money and then demand the promised reforms? It is times like this when the taxpayer probably knows both what should be done and what unfortunately will be done.
Syria has an excellent opportunity to redeem itself. It has been cited in the Parliament of Westminster and other western democracies for having produced a series of anti-Christian and anti-Semitic broadcasts. The programmes are now being shown via the Internet throughout Europe. This abomination clearly repudiates the terms and the spirit of the trade discussions. The programmes should be recalled and an apology issued.
Fortunately for the Damascan oligarchy, morality does not often play a major role when deciding European foreign policy. Judging from the pleas for further EU aid, the benefits of previous inflows have not yet filtered down to the average Syrian. Just as the President’s father massacred thousands in Homs in 1982, so the current regime is able to claim innocence at the begging table.
The result of this forceful diplomacy is that EU taxpayer and her defense personnel foot the bill in more ways than one.
Syria, The MONSTER!