Clinton’s opportunity

When he left Russia, the regime of Boris Yeltsin was in disarray, marring an otherwise fruitful visit.

When he returned to Washington, the Whitewater deal, legally and politically ambiguous, awaited.

But President Bill Clinton, dogged by bad luck (much of it of his own making), still has an opportunity for achievement in the Middle East.

The weekend summit in Geneva with Syrian President Hafez Assad produced results that were positive, if vague and semantically encumbered.

The Syrian leader, in a unique joint appearance with a U.S. president, indicated for the first time publicly that peace with Israel was possible, and desirable.

His rhetoric, however, was as heavy as his national objectives have been murky. He called for a “peace of the brave,” and “normal” relations that could be achieved if Israeli leaders “have sufficient courage to respond to this kind of peace.”

In their efforts to establish Palestinian self-rule, Israeli leaders have assumed a tolerable level of risk. They have been candid about their intentions. If the Syrian leader wants courage, he is asking the right people, but with Assad the issue is one of definition, and the United States and Israel must be prepared to pin him down.

An unpredictable force in the Middle East for more than 20 years, Assad’s Syria remains a foreign policy enigma. An ally, of sorts, bought and paid for during Desert Storm, Syria was left with one of the region’s most powerful military machines after Iraq’s was dismantled by coalition forces. Ignored during the historic rapprochement between the PLO and Israel, Assad had turned vindictive spoiler, aiding rogue Palestinian elements determined to undermine the agreement.

Although President Clinton may have helped the Syrian leader see his relationship with Israel differently, there are reasons for caution, even as there is an eagerness to hope.

In an area notorious for self-destructive acts and inscrutable motives among states, Syria has been conspicuous as a destabilizing force, sometimes treacherous militarily, a nation that acts only out of narrow self-interest and for short-term gain. But it must be included in a comprehensive, regional peace plan — one that embraces all countries in the Middle East.

It appears that Assad can be negotiated into compliance. But if success is possible, it will require something from the Clinton administration that thus far has been absent in Bosnia and the remnants of the Soviet empire: a commitment to pursue clear foreign policy objectives.