The visit to Syria by Prime Minister Vajpayee was the first by an Indian Prime Minister since 1988 and the first major interaction between the two countries after Bashar al-Assad became Syrian President three years ago. The warmth extended to Vajpayee on this trip is a sign of the importance of India to his Syrian hosts. Having seen its neighbour Iraq collapse under American military might, unable to respond to Israel’s attack on an alleged training camp for Palestinians in its territory, and now under threat of American sanctions, Syria needs heavyweight political support on the world stage. And India has provided just that. It also helps that India is building closer ties with Syria’s two primary antagonists, Israel and the United States. Vajpayee’s visit also conveys a strong message to the Israelis, since it comes soon after the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon’s visit to India.

India’s ties with Israel are no longer hostage to India’s relations with the Arab world, and all concerned know this, but it cannot vacate its moral high ground on the Palestinian issue. The Syrian journey is opportune in this context. India’s support for the “land-for-peace” formula based on UN resolutions helps reinforce India’s image of being a traditional friend of the Arab world.

Vajpayee’s visit to Syria is important also for other reasons. Since the US and its allies have increasingly ignored the United Nations and international norms, aspiring world players like India have few means for conveying a message to the Americans without jeopardizing their relationship. The trip to Syria, under the US scanner over its alleged support to terrorists, is one such means used well by India. The fact that Prime Minister Vajpayee chose to make his strongest statement yet on the happenings in Iraq before his arrival in Damascus, was obviously intended as a message for Syria but also the US, and was significant since they were made in the wake of the American Congress passing the Syria Accountability Act, paving way for more sanctions against that country.

On the economic front, there was an attempt to make up for lost time. Syria’s trade turnover with India happens to be higher than its trade with Egypt but overall bilateral trade remains low at about $130 million.  Several agreements were concluded between the two countries to increase bilateral trade. This includes a $25 million loan to Syria and upgradation of their joint trade committee to a joint commission. Nine agreements have been signed in the fields of biotechnology, education, small industries, agriculture, science and technology, culture and technical cooperation. India is setting up an IT education centre in Syria and a grant of $1 million has been made to create a Syrian National Biotechnology Centre. Syria, like India, is a victim of restrictive US export regimes, especially regarding dual-use items. Thus, India’s offer of assistance in these high-tech areas has added significance.

Further, as part of India’s strategy to diversify its energy sources, ONGC has been prospecting in Syria, and will soon conclude agreements worth $15 million with its Syrian counterpart. Meanwhile, India can pursue other opportunities in this sector, if the threatened American sanctions come into effect. Syria has moved cannily over the years by inviting a few American oil and gas companies and even after the American invasion of Iraq, but these deals could be affected by the sanctions. Besides, other western investors could be scared away for fear of antagonizing the US.

India, however, ignores certain issues at its own risk under the garb of non-alignment and non-interference. While the Indian and the Syrian sides expressed their opposition to American intervention in Iraq, India should have considered the Syrian presence in Lebanon. India should also have noticed Syria’s involvement in the Iraqi resistance as well – American sources indicate that nearly half the detainees in Iraq since the invasion are from Syria. Given this record, it is not surprising that, while Syria supports the resolution of the Indo-Pak dispute according to the terms of the Shimla Agreement and Lahore Declaration, it has been less than forthcoming about cross-border terrorism in Kashmir.

Also, Syria’s chemical and biological weapons programmes, even though they are currently incapable of weaponisation, should be a legitimate concern for New Delhi. As history has shown, to follow Eisenhower’s cynical maxim and turn a blind eye to the doings of a supposed friend is to risk ending up with neither friendship nor peace.