A lecture by former US ambassador to both Syria and Israel Edward Djerjian on regional issues
Regional-USA, Politics, 1/17/2002

I'm very honored to be at the Assad Library and to have this opportunity to share some thoughts with you. It is a great experience to be back in Damascus; I haven't been here for a while, so it's good to be able to see old friends and to have the honor of meeting President Bashar al-Asad and Syrian Government officials, and to meet again with my colleague, Ted Kattouf, the Ambassador at the United States Embassy.

What I would like to do this evening is to make some observations on what I see as some of the geo-political implications of September 11 and the terrorist attacks against America and American targets. I think it's very important for individuals in other countries to understand that the events of September 11 have had a major impact on the United States of America, at the governmental level, and at the popular level. As you well know, any government of the world, any state, its highest priority has to be the defense of its homeland, the defense of its people. When there is a violation of that high interest, it has major consequences, major implications. So, September 11th is an event of a deliberate act of terrorism which has had major consequences at many different levels.

We are very wont to describe the new era that we have come into in the 21st century, and earlier, at the end of the 20th century, as the era of globalization. And the term "globalization" has been defined mostly in terms of economic and financial trade, information technology, computers, and as a technical, scientific, financial phenomenon. That obviously has major implications world-wide.

But, I think on September 11, what we in the United States saw - also - is the other side of globalization. And the other side of globalization, in my view, is an equally important phenomenon of the 21st century, and that is the role of religion, culture, ethnicity, the need for conflict resolution, the issues of social injustice and cultural dialogue between nations and peoples. Because the phenomenon of terrorism is a very complex one - let me say from the outset that I do not believe there is any, any, justification for terrorism or terrorist acts against civilians, against innocent targets. There simply cannot be any justification under the guise of religion, politics, ideology be it within the realm of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, there simply cannot be any justification for acts of terrorism.

So, the challenge that we have is - and I say "we," the international community; this is not a unilateral American responsibility, this is an international responsibility. I believe that terrorists, no matter who they are or where they come from have a political agenda. Many seek political power through the reversal of existing regimes or systems or to create events that will destabilize a situation in a country or the international order. There is no doubt in my mind that while Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida struck at the United States as the remaining superpower and a symbol of the current international order, that a higher priority on his political agenda is the reversal of regimes in the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia.

There is a political agenda here. But, we must also recognize that the Osama bin Ladens of the world exploit - exploit - conditions of social injustice in countries, exploit the lack of conflict resolution in regions. For example, Osama bin Laden came late in the game in raising the Palestinian issue as a justification for what he is about.

But extremists and terrorists are wont to exploit these conditions - economic, social, political, existing conflicts - for their own ends.

And they do so at times in the name of religion; they do so at times in the name of a political ideology. But I would like to submit that the challenge we have in the international community after the fall of the "isms" that marked much of the 20th century - Fascism, Nazism, Communism - I believe that the "ism" of the 21st century that is the enemy is extremism and terrorism, of whatever form or for whatever justification it claims to have.

So how does the international community attempt to deal with this challenge. This is truly the most important challenge that I think we face at the beginning of the 21st century. And there are no easy answers. I do not believe that there are definitive and quick victories in the campaign against terrorism. It's not like World War II, for example, where on one day Germany was defeated, Japan was defeated and one could claim victory. I think there would have to be a series of victories, not only when necessary in the military sense, but equally important in the political, economic, diplomatic, cultural sense. Let me try to explain that a little.

If we take as an example the Bush Administration in the United States, and how it is pursuing its policy against what is called the global reach of terrorism. I think it is very instructive. First of all, it is not a unilateralist approach. I think the President of the United States has very wisely, very intelligently crafted a series of coalitions, and I want to stress the plural, a series of coalitions in the campaign against terrorism. And it's sort of like a pyramid structure. At the first level are the close allies of the United States, especially in the NATO context; countries like France and Germany and our European partners and also the Japanese, in which we have a relationship where cooperation goes from the political to the economic to the military. That is the first level of coalition-building against terrorism. There is an identity of views within and amongst our allies, and we are cooperating closely with them.

At the second level of the coalition-building are two key countries: China and Russia, with whom there is an extensive level of cooperation in the face of this common threat.

At the third level are other countries in the world in which the approach of the Administration is to reach out and actually consult, see how we can get together, see what the common ground is to face the challenge of terrorism.

And then, there is also at the next level those countries who the United States has identified as countries that, somehow or other, are supporting terrorist groups. And, here again, I think the Administration has very intelligently said that there is both a challenge and an opportunity, that this threat is a threat against us all, and we have to cooperate.

So, I think that under these circumstances post-September 11, there is a tremendous challenge and a tremendous opportunity to try to craft an international response to a threat that endangers international order and the stability and peace of regions and countries of the world.

Now in my view, and I must stress I speak personally, I do not represent my government, I am no longer an official of the United States Government, I am the Director of the university-based think tank at Rice University, the Baker Institute of Public Policy, and I am expressing my own views. But I do think that the strategic approach that is being used to combat terrorism necessitates a whole array of policy approaches.

For example, one must look at - and while I said at the outset and I must stress again that there is no justification for acts of terrorism - at the same time one must look at those factors that terrorists exploit and see how we can alleviate the root causes and factors. Therefore, diplomacy is a key instrument in the campaign against global terrorism, a key instrument. Conflict resolution - be it the Arab-Israeli conflict, be it the Kashmir conflict, the conflicts in Africa, the conflicts in Asia, the conflicts of Latin America - conflict resolution is very important. Because as long as these regional conflicts go without resolution, they are not only a danger on their own merits and create instability and killing and lost opportunities on their own merits, as we see in the Arab-Israeli context, they are exploited by extremists and terrorists for their own ends.

Then there is the array of instruments that the international community, both in terms of international organizations; be it the World Bank, the IMF, individual countries, the Europeans who have done much of this in terms of economic and social development. We in the United States have our own development assistance programs. But I think we have to take a harder look at these programs to see what they are actually doing on the ground, what are they accomplishing on the ground. Because, one of the factors that extremists exploit is the lack of economic prosperity, the lack of social opportunity of populations in the world and in certain countries of the world. And that's what I call social injustice. When you have unemployment and when you have big gaps in income, disparity in countries, when the educational systems are not producing the caliber of people that any society needs in order to make a productive contribution to a country, society, culture, it causes frustration. It causes deep frustrations in societies. So, therefore, economic and social development, in my eyes, is a very important factor if we are going to approach this issue intelligently and on a broad enough scale.

And then, of course, is what is very evident, cooperation between and amongst countries, on intelligence sharing and security measures and up to and including military action when necessary. I am fully supportive of the Administration's war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al-Qaida, this is part of the campaign that has grabbed most of the headlines because it is a military campaign and that grabs the headlines. But it is an important but only one part of what necessarily has to be a very broad strategy in combating the global reach of terrorism.

Another major factor that I think we have to address and analyze, study, is what I call the under-estimated role of religion and culture in politics and policy. Religion and culture play a very important role in politics. At the Baker Institute recently we gave a series of seminars on the role of religion in politics. We have an outstanding professor who is an expert in this, Professor Bill Martin. We brought experts from around the world. And, the first seminar we gave was on the role of the religious right in the elections of November 2000. The religious right played an interesting role. So when I say the role of religion, I'm not talking about religion outside of the United States, I'm talking about religion in every society, in every culture, in every form. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, whatever. We also gave a seminar on Islamic, Judaic and Christian fundamentalism in the Middle East. Very interesting because it showed the impact of religion on politics in the Middle East context.

The fact that extremists exploit religion for their own ends, and let me make clear my view that I think Osama bin Laden has literally hijacked Islam for his own ends. In my view as an outsider, I do not believe that Osama bin Laden in any way represents Islam. He is exploiting his religion for political ends. We have seen this happen in countries, we have seen this happen in many countries of the world, including here.

So, it is very important that policy-makers, academicians, even people in the private sector understand what I call the under-estimated role of religion and culture in politics. And even in private enterprise, we have seen some American companies go into ventures overseas where they didn't realize the religious and cultural environment they were working in. And their projects failed because they didn't even take these factors into consideration, because on the corporate board, religion and culture is something for governments and academicians to think about. And even here we see that if corporations in the private sector do not take some of these things - like the role of religion and culture - into consideration when making investments overseas, that they may fall short. And I won't mention the companies names but some American companies have fallen prey to this, and certainly some European companies have as well.

So in the elaboration of a strategy at the beginning of the 21st century to combat and confront the scourge of terrorism and extremism, the task that we have - the international community, all of us - is whether we are going to be capable, as the French say, a la hauteur, are we going to be up to the challenge of being able to craft a broad strategic approach that not only gets to the immediate dangers of terrorist actions, but that also gets to the root causes.

Q: The military campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan has been described as Phase 1 of the war on terrorism. What do you predict we will see in Phase 2 or Phase 3? A: I think it's very difficult to predict exactly what the next phase will be, but let us assume that the military campaign is successful - and I believe it is indeed being conducted successfully - we then need to determine what policy approaches along the lines that I've described have to be put into affect. And a lot, I think, will depend on the level and quality of cooperation we get from our various coalition partners and the various countries in the world.

If September 11 and the campaign in Afghanistan result in the international community, for the large part, coming together effectively, the next phase may very well be - it could be political, economic, certainly intelligence cooperation, security cooperation, and I cannot predict that there will be military phase in the next step. But that will depend on the circumstances.

Q: Following the events of September 11, there was some harassment of Arabs and Muslims in the United States. How do you evaluate these events, and what do you have to say about the status of Arab and Muslim communities today in America.

A: The Arab-American community is a very vibrant, important community in the United States which has made great achievements in American society. I think President Bush has certainly taken the lead in this. He, as soon as there was word of a first incident of harassment against Arab-Americans, he went on national television and he made it very clear that the United States Government would in no way tolerate discrimination and harassment against Arab-Americans Ð Americans Ð because, in effect, Arab-Americans are simply Americans, and therefore we would not tolerate it. He also went to an Islamic Institute and took great pains to point out that the United States had no argument with Islam, that indeed the United States recognizes and accepts Islam as one of the great religions of the world. And he has reiterated these themes frequently during this period. So I think that in our system when there is harassment against Americans, we have a whole system of Ð not only the political approach to the issue which is opposed, but we have non-governmental groups, we have the American Civil Liberties Union, we have Anti-Defamation Leagues, we have citizens groups who are very sensitive to discrimination against American citizens who then take up the cause of abating, preventing, and defending those citizens who are being attacked. So it's a community effort. And I must say that there will always be people in any society who will try to act in a violent manner or in an extra-judicial manner because of their own mindset. But, I think that the status of of the Arab-Americans has been well-defended from the President on down, and I simply do not think that this is a major issue.

Q: Why does the United States ignore the state-supported terrorism of the Government of Israel against the civilian population of Palestine in this war on terrorism? A: If you look at the history, the recent history of US engagement to try to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, I think you will agree that my country has taken a leading role in recognizing the tragic dimensions of this conflict and making efforts along with our allies and others to resolve it.

To me, it is a tragedy that lives continue to be lost on both sides of the Arab-Israeli equation, because basically, you look at the disastrous situation on the ground between the Israelis and the Palestinians today - the violence, the injuries, the deaths - and you realize, also, concomitantly, that there simply is no military solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. There simply is not a military solution. There has to be a political solution. The only way out is through negotiations. The only way out is through mufawadat. Therefore, one has to ask oneself the question: how may more lives have to be lost or be maimed before the parties eventually get back to where they are going to wind up, at the negotiating table? And that, to me, is the tragedy in the Arab-Israeli equation. Because it's not only lives that are being lost, and people being injured, but there are opportunities that are being lost, there are opportunities of socio-economic development in this region that are being lost because of this ongoing conflict. So there is only one way out, and again, the United Stares has taken a leading role and if you look, look at the history in 1973, 1974 under Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger, they negotiated disengagement agreements of which Syria was a very important part, the establishment of UNDOF the United Nations Disengagement of Forces Agreement, that has held until this day. That has held until this day.

In 1979 a Democratic President, Jimmy Carter, with Cy Vance as Secretary of State, in the Camp David Accords of 1979, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, the United States played a critical role. And in 1991, the Madrid Peace Conference, which, for the first time in the Arab-Israeli conflict, established a framework of direct face-to-face negotiations between the Arabs and Israelis. And that was an historic moment. And I must say that move could not have been made in Madrid without the decision of Syria to enter into direct face-to-face negotiations. But that was done, that was accomplished under President Bush and Secretary of State Baker.

And today, President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell are engaged in a very intensive effort to obtain a cease fire and get security talks going between the Israelis and the Palestinians so that the framework can be established for them to re-engage in political talks and get back to the table. And our diplomats in the field, Assistant Secretary Burns, our Ambassadors in the field, General Zinni are active in this.

The only way this tragedy is going to end is through political negotiated settlement. And that's what we all have to put our efforts to.

Q: In the Arab world, we often find that former US Administration officials, after retirement, become sympathetic to the Arab cause. How can you explain this? A: Is that question directed at me? Because I would like to believe that I have been rather consistent in my views and my approach both as a diplomat serving my country and in retirement as a private individual.

You enter into discussions and dialogue when you have differences. Your president, Bashar al-Asad, has made that very clear, his own views. You enter into dialogue to resolve differences; if you don't have differences you really don't need much of a dialogue. And, therefore, I believe that dialogue is essential.

I have not changed my views. As an American diplomat, I had one responsibility: to represent my country's interests. I did not represent Arab interests. I did not represent Israeli interests. I represented the interests of the United States of America. And I've never changed that. So, I think it's really a false proposition, this question of why diplomats after retirement become more sympathetic. A good diplomat, a professional diplomat has one responsibility: to represent his or her country's interests. And I'd like to believe that that's what I've done as a diplomat and in retirement.

But I also believe, at the same time, that candor and speaking directly and being able to live up to commitments you've made is essential for successful diplomacy. If a diplomat is too artful, a bit misleading, he or she can make some short term tactical gains, but in the long term, I think it's a flawed approach. So candor, an approach of integrity that what you are saying and what you are committing yourself to you will live up to, I think is essential in diplomacy. And that's certainly very important in the Arab-Israeli context. It's very important in the Arab-Israeli context.

This issue is an issue that I still believe to this day, despite the terrible situation on the ground, is an issue that can be resolved through peaceful negotiations, but it takes strong political will on the part of the Arabs, the Israelis and the international community. But I do believe that Ð with strong political will Ð we can reach an agreement.

You know, in the Israeli-Syrian dimension since 1991, we have had many negotiations on the Israeli-Syrian track, and a great deal of progress has been made on that track. It's a legacy of negotiations between the Israelis and the Syrians in the Middle East framework. So with the ongoing efforts that were made on the Palestinian track in recent years, when the Palestinian issue was the dominant issue, there were the highs and the lows and, unfortunately, at the Camp David meetings with President Clinton and Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat, the whole house of cards collapsed and led to this situation which we have now. However, even in those discussions, some very interesting thoughts and ideas were presented. So I think the challenge of diplomacy is to Ð in the Israeli-Palestinian example - to pick up the pieces, secure a ceasefire, which will get security talks rolling into political negotiations.

Q: Mr. Djerejian, you have said that one of the objects of the September 11th attacks on America was, in fact, the Government of Saudi Arabia and the stability of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Today we see increasing criticism in the US of Saudi Arabia because of the involvement of its citizens in the attack and increasing tension between the two countries. In your judgment does this mean that bin Laden has succeeded? A: No, Bin Laden has not succeeded. The point I'm making is that we know Bin Laden's position on the Saudi Government and the Saudi system. He thinks the system is not representative of Islam, which I think is one of the great ironies of all time when you have a Wahhabite system, regime in Saudi Arabia which is very conservative in its Islamic views and policies. He obviously doesn't have a religious agenda, he has a political agenda which is the destabilization of that regime.

Now I do not think that Bin Laden has won in this campaign at all because it simply hasn't worked. He has not destabilized the Saudi regime. And despite the various news reports that the question alluded to, I think we have to look at the full picture. When I said that the United States Administration is reaching out to various countries in the world to see to what extent we can cooperate together, we must not forget that the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is a multi-dimensional relationship that started way back with the first meeting between President Franklin Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz. This relationship goes back, there are many common interests and there is much cooperation. There are differences. And in any relationship there are going to be differences. And the challenge is to resolve those differences, and it certainly can be done amongst friends as it can be done at times without dissonance.

Q: Mr. Ambassador, there are many who believe that the United States now is exercising to such an extreme degree the powers of a superpower that there is concern that we are now seeing the creation of a new global system, a new set of global laws which is dictated by the United States of America. Does this concern you, should it concern us? A: That may be a perception, but I think it's an erroneous perception. The United States obviously exerts a great influence in the world because of what the United States is: the remaining so-called superpower. But at the same time, let's just take a look at what I've been explaining about the United States Administration's approach on this issue of terrorism, it is reaching out to countries of the world; it is reaching out to coalition members. It has adopted a multi-lateralist approach to the issue of global terrorism. That to me is not acting in an arrogant or unilateralist manner. Bil aks; on the contrary. It is a recognition that, in order to resolve many of the problems that we face in the 21st century, there is gong to have to be a great deal of international cooperation, the role of international organizations and institutions, that will supplement the bilateral relationships that any country, not just the United States, has with others.

So, maybe this is a perception, maybe it's something you've been reading in the press, the media flaunting this supposedly imperial role of the United States. I don't think the United States has an imperial role. It exerts great influence, and it has to be careful in the manner in which it exerts itself towards the world. But I think that is recognized. And I have heard President Bush say that the United States must act with humility in various instances and various ways. So I think it's a false impression, but it's something we Americans should guard against because of who we are at this time.

Q: What are your objectives in Jordan? Will you meet King Abdullah, and how do you evaluate the US-Jordanian relationship and Jordan's role in the peace process? A: I am travelling to Jordan tomorrow and I hope to have the honor of meeting with Kind Abdullah in Amman. I served in Jordan for three years and I attach a great deal of importance to the US-Jordanian relationship and Jordan's role in the Middle East. I had the privilege of working with the late King Hussein and we did much together on the Arab-Israeli peace process, we did much together on regional issues. So, I think the US-Jordanian relationship is very strong. It has a Fee Trade Agreement with the United States, one of four countries. The contacts between Jordan and the United States remain very close with various levels of cooperation. Of course, Jordan has been in the middle of Arab-Israeli politics and its population has suffered, as have others, but in a more particular way because of its geographic location and the history of the conflict. But I am confident of the US ÐJordanian relationship progressing, and we are consulting very closely with Jordan during this period. So, I'm looking very much forward to my meeting with the King.

I also should say - I'm still thinking about that question about retired people being more sympathetic. I guess - Ambassador Kattouf mentioned this in his introduction - I was Ambassador to Syria and I was Ambassador to Israel. And at the time, that made a lot of news, because it was sort of unexpected.

And I will say something to you that I haven't said publicly. That was a life-long career aspiration of mine. I wanted to be able to do something like that, to represent the United States in a very important Arab country like Syria which has a very important role to play, and I wanted to represent the United States in Israel. And I wanted to show that American diplomats represent their country, and they can serve their country and they can serve the cause of Arab-Israeli peace by serving their own country well.

Previous Stories:
  Syrian, Lebanese ports monitored by American vessels in the Mediterranean   (1/12/2002)
  Young man gets five year prison sentence for mosque aggression   (1/11/2002)
  Arab lawyers condemn American threats against Iraq   (1/11/2002)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search