The White House has criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria during a Middle East trip that began last Friday. Pelosi is the highest ranking U.S. official to go to Syria since former Secretary of State Colin Powell visited that nation in 2003. Defying the White House’s Middle East policy by meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad, Pelosi said, “The road to Damascus is a road to peace.”
After meeting for three hours with Assad on Wednesday, the House speaker announced that the Syrian president is “ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel.” Assad has repeatedly said over the past year that Damascus is willing to negotiate with Israel as long as talks lead to the return of the Golan Heights, seized by Israel after the 1967 Six-Day War.
Former President Jimmy Carter expressed his support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria, rejecting White House criticism of the visit. “I was glad that she went,” Carter said. “When there is a crisis, the best way to help resolve the crisis is to deal with the people who are instrumental in the problem.”
Vice President Dick Cheney reflected on the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria last week, calling her statement about peace talks with Israel “nonsensical,” and the visit an example of “bad behavior.”
As a newspaper, The Bridge staff, decided to bring the issue of Pelosi’s visit to Syria to our university community, and we concluded some interesting findings that might bring some more understanding of the importance of this unique event.
We asked Dr. Nasser Momayazi, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, How do you feel about Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria? “The United States has to keep Syria and Iran in the loop as part of an international support group for Iraq, diplomacy has been nearly non-existent in an effort to solve the Middle East problem, the Speaker’s of the house visit to Syria is a first and important step toward solving the conflict in the Middle-East. ” He also added, “Dialogue is the only method to near the gap existing between two countries, active, positive debate is a necessary step toward a lasting peace in the region.”
“Her visit to Syria is in constant with the report issued by the Hamilton-Baker Commission, which is an ad hoc bi-partisan commission, the report is laudatory in that it enjoys or has opinion with respect to the Iraqi dilemma,” replied Dr. Archibald Laud-Hammond, assistant professor of Philosophy and Political Science, he also added, “I am also of a firm opinion that generally it is politically judicious and prudent to engage in détente with countries that may be perceived to be inimical to the interests of the United States, an important reason for this approach is to create conditions or opportunities that may hopefully lead to pacific resolution of conflicts thereby creating an atmosphere of entente; therefore, I am lead inexorably to the conclusion that House Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Syria was praise worthy,” Hammond concluded.
“On the face it, it might seem as a partisan and divisive move and even ill considerate; but personally I think it was smart and courageous move on her part, I believe on the long run it will help the American foreign policy in general and President Bush’s policy in particular; for many reasons: one of them for example: it shows that America does not shy away from major and controversial issues, and taking different tracks to deal with these issues. Other reason: multi track diplomacy will be more effective than one track just like the one we have right now,” said Mohamed Ben-Ruwin, associate professor of Political Science. “I think also it was a contributive visit from the perspective of the people in the region; because it shows that America is willing to extend its hands to deal with those who differ with them. I believe that constructive engagement and fair treatment to all the major players in the region is the only solution to deal with the challenges that we are facing in that region.”
Associate professor of Public Administration, Dr. Peter Haruna, also weighed in on this issue by saying, “It is a power struggle between the executive and the legislature, in this the legislature represented by Speaker of the House, and the executive represented by the President; In a checks and balances system this should be expected, the most important point that gets lost is whether the interest of the American people is best served by the visit or hurt by the visit,” and Haruna also added, “it is very hard to know the details of what went on between Speaker Pelosi and the President of Syria outside of the news reports, unless these details can be obtained, it is very hard to take a position on whether the visit is warranted or not.”
Was Nancy Pelosi genuinely trying to help establish a peaceful solution to a chronic problem, or was the move simply political by trying to undermine President Bush in particular and the Presidency at large will remain to be seen.