Oman’s Diplomatic Strategy Amidst Syrian Regime Change
The article discusses Oman’s response to the end of Baathist rule in Syria and the subsequent regime change. It highlights Oman’s historical engagement with Assad’s government, contrasting its approach to other Gulf states. The article also explores the divided public opinion in Oman regarding Assad’s ouster and increasing discontent towards Israeli actions in the region, culminating in calls for international support for Syria’s recovery.
The sudden end of over six decades of Baathist rule in Syria on December 8 took Gulf states by surprise. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members were unprepared for the swift collapse of the Syrian Army as rebel forces captured cities during an 11-day offensive led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which ultimately ousted Bashar al-Assad. With Assad gone, the Gulf Arab monarchies are now pragmatically interacting with the new Islamist rulers in Damascus to foster regional stability and maintain Syria’s territorial integrity amidst this pivotal transition.
Oman’s response to this remarkable shift in Syria is noteworthy. Unlike other GCC members, Oman never fully downgraded its diplomatic ties with Damascus during the civil war. While Muscat withdrew its ambassador in 2012 following Arab League decisions, it reinstated the ambassador in 2020. As Oman assesses the new rulers in Syria, it is maintaining a cautious approach consistent with its historically neutral, “friends-of-all” foreign policy, while public sentiment in Oman regarding Assad’s ousting remains mixed.
Throughout the Syrian civil war, Oman emphasized the necessity for a diplomatic resolution, advocating engagement with Assad’s regime. Omani representatives, including the foreign minister, have consistently visited Syria, demonstrating a commitment to supporting Assad as a legitimate leader. Following the regime change, Oman’s leadership had to pragmatically accept the new realities of Syria and engage with the new government contextually, all while adhering to its long-standing policy principle of non-interference.
The Omani government’s response aligns with its foreign policy principles of maintaining equitable relations with Middle Eastern nations and eschewing interference in internal affairs. Historically, Oman has successfully nurtured relationships with various regimes irrespective of their political stances, ever focused on maintaining diplomatic ties with the governing authorities in each country.
In contrast, public sentiment in Oman regarding Assad’s downfall is multifaceted. Some Omanis align with the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance,” viewing Assad’s ouster negatively. These individuals regard Assad’s regime as a counterbalance to Israel’s influence in the region, and they harbor suspicions regarding foreign influences over his removal.
Another segment of society supports Assad’s overthrow, emphasizing his regime’s brutality and tyranny. This group is optimistic about a future under HTS leadership, holding aspirations for moderate governance similar to Turkey’s approach. Conversely, a third narrative acknowledges Assad’s dictatorial rule but fears a subsequent rise of extremist Islamist factions in Syria, reflecting concerns among liberal elites within Oman.
Omani unity has surfaced in response to Israel’s military actions in Syria following Assad’s fall. The public is increasingly critical of Israeli aggression, especially following recent events in Gaza, which have spurred a rise in anti-Western sentiment. This collective outrage is further amplified by voices like the Grand Mufti of Oman, who expresses solidarity with regional non-state actors while maintaining a critical stance towards Israel’s actions.
Since the onset of Israel’s military aggression, Oman has vocally condemned Israeli behavior, marking a shift in its historically more accommodating stance. The Omani government is now actively calling for the international community to relieve sanctions on Syria, positing that such measures cripple Syria’s recovery and stability.
Oman is likely to continue emphasizing criticism of Israel while carefully avoiding commentary on Syria’s internal matters, embodying the neutral stance maintained since Sultan Qaboos’s leadership. This pragmatic foreign policy orientation places Oman in a suitable position to facilitate potential dialogues aimed at enhancing regional stability, reminiscent of its approach toward the Yemeni civil conflict.
The implications of Syria’s ongoing transition could resonate throughout the Arab world, inciting Omans’ concern regarding foreign actors capitalizing on Syria’s vulnerabilities. Thus, Oman advocates for a supportive international environment, allowing Syrians to dictate the direction of their political transition without external interference.
The article examines Oman’s diplomatic stance towards Syria following the abrupt end of Assad’s regime and the implications of this regime change for the stability of the Middle East. It highlights how Oman maintained diplomatic relations during the Syrian civil war, contrasting its approach with those of other Gulf States. Further, it explores societal reactions within Oman regarding Assad’s ouster and the complexities of public sentiment towards Iranian influence, the implications of HTS governance, and reactions to Israel’s military actions in the region.
In summary, Oman’s diplomatic approach following the regime change in Syria reflects its longstanding policy of cautious engagement and non-interference. While the government seeks to maintain stable relations with the new Syrian leadership, public opinion is divided among various narratives concerning the implications of Assad’s ousting. Oman’s strong condemnation of Israeli military actions and advocacy for sanctions relief further underscore its evolving foreign policy, aiming to support regional stability.
Original Source: arabcenterdc.org
Post Comment