Normalization of Ties with Damascus and Caesar Act

A truck crosses the Syria-Jordan border after it was reopened on Wednesday (Reuters)
A truck crosses the Syria-Jordan border after it was reopened on Wednesday (Reuters)
TT
20

Normalization of Ties with Damascus and Caesar Act

A truck crosses the Syria-Jordan border after it was reopened on Wednesday (Reuters)
A truck crosses the Syria-Jordan border after it was reopened on Wednesday (Reuters)

The train of normalization of ties bound for Damascus has departed. Still, the dispute remains over how fast it should go, the stops it should make, and the challenges and reforms needed for its railway to reach the Syrian capital.

A few have boarded the train openly, others secretly, while some have booked a ticket and set conditions for them to make the trip. However, many are waiting for the test results, monitoring the regime’s behavior while betting on sanctions and isolation taking effect.

In late 2018, Damascus received the first dose of Arab normalization of ties with the UAE, Bahrain, and other Arab countries, reopening their embassies. They joined a host of other nations like Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Iraq, and Algeria. These countries did not shut down their embassies in Syria, even after the Arab League had suspended Damascus’ membership in 2011.

The Czech Republic was the only European country that kept its ambassador in Damascus to represent both itself and US interests.

Since the spring of 2012, Western countries have either altogether boycotted Damascus and shut down their embassies or resorted to transferring their ambassadors to Beirut for “security reasons” and allowing them to make periodic visits to Syria.

The same applies to Syria’s embassies abroad, most of which have been closed, except for some capitals, which either maintain a good political relationship with Damascus (such as Bucharest) or have international institutions that require the presence of a representative for the Syrian government, such as Vienna, Geneva, Paris, and New York.

The second dose of normalization took place this year, as European countries expanded their contacts with Damascus.

Some countries, such as Cyprus, Greece, and Spain, have extended the stay of their diplomats in Syria or have begun to dust off diplomatic headquarters in Damascus.

More so, Athens agreed to the presence of Syrian diplomats for the first time in years, and Ankara decided to replace diplomats at the Syrian consulate in Istanbul.

Security-wise, most of these countries were establishing or resuming intelligence contacts with Damascus.

Ali Mamlouk, the head of the National Security Bureau, had visited European capitals, including Rome, and stopped by Arab countries either overtly or covertly.

Mamlouk received several western intelligence officials from major European countries and envoys from the previous US administration to investigate the file of the missing US journalist, Austin Tice.

What’s New in Terms of Normalization of Ties?

Today, Damascus is taking its booster shot regarding the normalization of ties with officials taking the relationship beyond its security and diplomatic scope to the open political level. This can be witnessed at ministerial meetings with government delegates in New York when dealing with the Syrian opposition’s delegation is waning.

It can also be noticed through direct contact with President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus.

Previously, several countries avoided political contacts or direct communication with Assad in public.

Some countries even avoided changing their ambassador or appointing a charge d’affaires in Damascus in order not to give the Syrian president any credibility.

Nevertheless, matters appear to have changed now.

Without surprise, Iran and Russia, key regime backers in Syria, sent officials to Damascus to meet with Assad.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s public visit to Damascus, the first in a decade, took place on July 17, the same day Assad was sworn in as president once again. The top Chinese diplomat’s visit symbolically acknowledged the validity of Syrian presidential elections that were otherwise slammed by the West and the local opposition.

As far as communication with Assad goes, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed phoned the Syrian president concerning “humanitarian” support in the face of the “coronavirus pandemic” in early 2020.

Later, Iraqi President Barham Salih called Assad to explain why he was not invited to a recent summit in Baghdad.

However, what attracted attention was Jordanian King Abdullah II’s phone conversation with Assad a few days ago. The call had different dimensions.

Firstly, it came after the Jordanian monarch had met with US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin in July and August.

Amman revealed that the monarch reaffirmed “Jordan’s support for efforts to preserve Syria’s sovereignty, stability, territorial integrity, and people.”

Secondly, the call comes after King Abdullah telling CNN that the “Syrian regime was there to stay.”

Thirdly, Jordan has hosted the operations room led by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to train thousands of Syrian opposition fighters against Damascus since 2013.

Fourthly, the call comes after Russia and Jordan succeeded in pushing Syrian opposition fighters in Daraa to surrender and hand over their arms, helping Assad’s government to fully return to the war-torn country’s south.

Fifth, it follows Amman hosting several Syrian ministers, including Defense Minister Ali Ayoub, to review the situation at borders between Jordan and Syria.

Sixth, the call ensues Amman getting the green light from the US to run natural gas pipelines and electricity networks from Egypt to Syria without facing sanctions.

What’s the Difference Between Normalization and Sanctions?

Washington had sanctioned more than 600 Syrian individuals and entities as of mid-2020, when the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act went into effect. Meanwhile, European countries sanctioned 350 individuals and entities.

The UK, after exiting the EU, issued its own sanctions list.

According to the Caesar Act, there are seven official stipulations to lift sanctions off Damascus and six political conditions to normalize ties with the Syrian capital. Four of the conditions for normalization date back to before the events of 2011.

Legally, any change to the Caesar Act requires Congress voting. But the US president has the right to suspend all or part of the sanctions for renewable periods not exceeding 180 days, if specific criteria are met:

i. The Syrian and Russian governments cease using Syrian airspace to target civilian populations
ii. Areas of Syria not under government control are no longer cut off from international aid and have regular access to humanitarian assistance, freedom of travel, and medical care
iii. The Syrian government release all political prisoners and allow access to detention facilities
iv. The Syrian government and its allies cease the deliberate targeting of medical facilities, schools, residential areas, and other civilian targets
v. The Syrian government take steps to fulfill its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and make “tangible progress” toward becoming a signatory to the Convention Prohibiting Biological and Toxin Weapons
vi. The Syrian government permit the safe, voluntary, and dignified return of Syrians displaced by the conflict
vii. The Syrian government takes “verifiable steps” to establish meaningful accountability for perpetrators of war crimes in Syria and justice for victims of war crimes committed by the Assad government.

What is clear is that “normalization doses” are clashing with the “Ceasar Act virus,” which first demands a strategic change in Syria and a vote in Congress. This explains the cautious steps the Biden administration is taking towards Assad and his government, as well as the public criticism leveled by US officials and legislators against the actions taken by Amman towards Damascus.



Will a Weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon Disarm? 

Hezbollah fighters shout slogans during the funeral procession of their top commander Fouad Shukur, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike on July 30, in a southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon, Aug. 1, 2024. (AP)
Hezbollah fighters shout slogans during the funeral procession of their top commander Fouad Shukur, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike on July 30, in a southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon, Aug. 1, 2024. (AP)
TT
20

Will a Weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon Disarm? 

Hezbollah fighters shout slogans during the funeral procession of their top commander Fouad Shukur, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike on July 30, in a southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon, Aug. 1, 2024. (AP)
Hezbollah fighters shout slogans during the funeral procession of their top commander Fouad Shukur, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike on July 30, in a southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon, Aug. 1, 2024. (AP)

Israel's latest airstrike on what it called a Hezbollah missile storage facility in Beirut's southern suburbs came during increasing pressure for the Iran-backed Lebanese group to disarm.

The disarmament of what has been the region's most powerful non-state armed group has come to look increasingly inevitable. Hezbollah is severely weakened after a war with Israel in which much of its top leadership was killed, and after losing a key ally with the fall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a conduit for Iran to send arms.

Israel and the US are pushing for swift disarmament, but when and how it will happen - if it does - is contested.

Lebanon's President Joseph Aoun has said he is committed to bringing all arms in the country under state control, but that it will happen through discussions around a national security plan and not through force.

Many fear that an attempt to force the issue would lead to civil conflict, which Aoun has called a “red line.”

Hezbollah officials have said in principle that they are willing to discuss the group's arsenal, but leader Sheikh Naim Qassem said in a speech earlier this month that any serious discussions are contingent on Israel withdrawing its forces from territory they occupy in southern Lebanon and halting near-daily airstrikes.

“The Lebanese have to strike a delicate balance” on disarmament, said Aram Nerguizian, a senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Go too slow ... and you will lose internal momentum and international legitimacy. Go too fast and you get accused by a still-hurting and battered Shiite community” — who make up most of Hezbollah's constituency — “of acting as a proxy for Israel, while risking Hezbollah remnants ... waging an insurgency against the Lebanese government.”

What would disarmament look like? After Lebanon’s 15-year civil war ended in 1990, the country went through a process of disarming most of the militias that had taken part. Hezbollah was the exception, given special status as a “resistance force” fighting against Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon at the time.

Aoun has outlined his vision of a similar disarmament process. Former Hezbollah fighters could apply to join the Lebanese army as individuals, the president said. Weapons deemed “usable” by the army would become part of its arsenal, while those deemed “unusable” would be destroyed.

Nerguizian said that more than 90% of Hezbollah's “sophisticated and heavy weapons” — which once included tens of thousands of missiles and drones — are believed to have been destroyed already, the vast majority of them by Israel.

What remains, he said, would not be compatible with the Lebanese army's arsenal, which is largely Western-supplied, while Hezbollah uses Iranian, Russian and Chinese-made weapons.

Nerguizian said it is unlikely that large numbers of Hezbollah's tens of thousands of fighters would be incorporated into the army because their ideology has not been compatible as a paramilitary force that has largely been “tied to the preferences of Iran.”

Retired Lebanese army Gen. Hassan Jouni agreed that much of Hezbollah's arsenal would not be easily integrated but said the post-civil war era provides a precedent for integrating fighters.

After going through training, “they become like any other soldier,” he said. While there might be a “religious and ideological obstacle” for some Hezbollah fighters, “I do not think this is the case for everyone.”

Ibrahim Mousawi, a member of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, told The Associated Press that “everything is open for discussion.”

“We don’t want to jump into discussing the details,” he said. “This is something that is being left in the hands of the president and the Hezbollah leadership to deal with.”

Mousawi said the destruction of Hezbollah’s arsenal “shouldn’t be acceptable to Lebanon.”

The cash-strapped Lebanese army has struggled to maintain its aging arsenal. In recent years, it has turned to the US and Qatar to help pay soldiers' salaries.

“We are part of the Lebanese strength,” Mousawi said. “If the Americans are really keen to show us that they really respect Lebanon and they care for the Lebanese, ... why don’t they equip the Lebanese army with defensive weapons?”

When might disarming occur? US envoy Morgan Ortagus said earlier this month in an interview broadcast on Lebanese channel LBCI that Hezbollah should be disarmed “as soon as possible."

A Lebanese diplomat said there is ongoing pressure from the Americans on that front. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

Hezbollah’s stance that it will not discuss giving up its armed wing before Israel withdraws from five key border points in southern Lebanon appears likely to drag out the process. Israeli officials have said that they plan to remain there indefinitely to secure their border and guard against any ceasefire violations by Hezbollah.

Israeli officials did not respond to a request for comment on the issue of Lebanon's army integrating former Hezbollah weapons and fighters.

Lebanese officials say that the Israeli presence violates the ceasefire agreement in November, under which Israel and Hezbollah were supposed to withdraw their forces from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese army taking control alongside UN peacekeepers.

The Lebanese diplomat said that US officials had acknowledged that Israeli forces remaining in the five border points constituted an “occupation” but had not put strong pressure on Israel to withdraw quickly.

A “smart way to break the deadlock” and avoid further escalation is for Washington to increase its support for the Lebanese army and push Israel to withdraw, said Bilal Saab, a former Pentagon official and senior managing director of the Washington-based TRENDS US consulting firm.

Retired Lebanese army Gen. Elias Hanna said he believes that Hezbollah is “still in the phase of denial” regarding the diminution of its military and political clout.

He said disarmament needs to take place as part of broader discussions about Lebanon's military doctrine and strategy. The Lebanese army could benefit from the experience of Hezbollah, which for many years maintained deterrence with Israel before the latest war, he said.

Saab said he believes the outcome is not in doubt.

“Hezbollah has a choice,” he said. “Either lay down its arms or have them removed by Israeli force.”