Democracy can be troublesome when it comes ot international diplomacy. It is proving troublesome in the negotiations between Israel (a democracy) and Syria (which has a totalitarian regime) with the United States (a democracy) as peacebroker.
President Assad of Syria has few restraints to what he might agree to during the present peace talsk with Israel in the United States. However, President Bill Clinton’s administration has to be wary of the Jewish vote, paticularly in New York. Though usually pro-Democrat, if Mr Clinton is seen as not supporting Israel enough, or is seen as agreeing with Israel to a sell-out, votes for Al Gore in the presidential race this year will be lost.
From the Israeli point of view, Prime Minister Ehud Barak has to content with die-hard ultra religious groups who do not want to surrender any of the Golan Heights which were captured from Syria in 1967. Unfortunately, for Mr Barak, his government is dependent on some ofthese groups for its majority in the Parliament. He has already given to blackmail by one religious party offering them millions of dollars for religious education in return for continued support.
Mr Barak is well aware that if peace is ever to come permanently to Israel he must hand back occupied land to Syria and the Palestinians. Over the long term Israel has done well to negotiate peace party by party rather than in an overall context which would see it outnumbered by its Arab neighbours. Essentially, Egypt and Jordan are out of the equation now. They have settled with Israel and pose little or no threat. Now Syria, which controls events in Lebanon, must be accommodated. And then Israel would have less difficulty dealing with the Palestinians who would not have the strong military backing they have had in the past.
The troubles with democracy aside, coming to terms with Syria, however, is a tall order. The Golan Heights is a very strategic piece of land. If Syria re-occupied it, it could fire shells virtually across Israel. It scares many Israeli citizens. But what should scare them more is the prospect of no peace and endless threat. And peace will involve risk.
The role of the US is crucial. Mr Barak wants the guarantee of a formal pact with the US that would commit US troops in the case of an attack against Israel as well as guaranteed weapons funding. In light of US reluctance to commit troops anywhere a formal pact might be the only way to allay concerns in Israel, even if it comes with restrictions on Israel’s capacity to trade weapons with third parties. The pact might be necessary to ensure that any deal with Syria passes the referendum that Mr Barak has promised his people on any land for peace arrangement — troublesome democracy again.
But however troublesome democracy may appear to be, democracies have the strength to be peace-enhancing as well as peace-frustrating. As a general rule democracies do not go to war against each other. Syria and the Palestinian Authority may not be fully democractic now, but the sings are hopeful that after a Syria settlement, the Palestinians and Lebanon might get more democratic and less inclinded to engage in hostilities against Israel.
If Mr Barak is to succeed in achieving peace for Israel, he will have to take the risk of returning the Golan Heights. One thing is for certain, there can be no peace unless he does. And while Golan remains in Israel hands, it feeds the anti-democratic forces in Syria and Lebanon.