September 13th, 2007 @ 4:40 am by evmonk

UPDATE: See this short documentary by Current TV, Syria 101, for an invaluable introduction to the country, its politics and its people.

That’s an interview Kucinich did on Syrian TV last week while visiting the region as part of a peace initiative and fact-finding tour - and, as Bluegal points out, to check up on the over 1 million Iraqi refugees living in Syria. It’s causing quite a stir in the right-wing blogosphere (and on Tucker Carlson), with sites like Right Wing News and HotAir calling the interview “borderline treasonous.”

As evidence, they claim Kucinich’s criticism of the United States, combined with his diplomatic rhetoric regarding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, amounts to giving “aid and comfort” to our enemies. They cite the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq from Syria as proof that the latter is, indeed, our enemy.

Before addressing these claims, let’s take a brief glimpse at American public opinion on the issue of speaking with America’s supposed enemies.

Yes, you’re reading that right. The vast majority of Americans – Democrats, Republicans, and everyone else – believe that the U.S. should speak with Syria and Iran. But that one was too easy. What about the more controversial elements of the visit?

For many of us, an emotional response comes naturally when we see a fellow American speak out against the policies of our government on foreign soil. But is this response rational? Does presenting a monolithic face to foreign countries increase our security? Or might we make more diplomatic progress and improve feelings toward the U.S. abroad by being honest about the differences of opinion within our diverse nation? It is my opinion that speaking the truth – in America or Syria or anywhere else – is both the right thing to do and, in this case at least, patriotic. I do sympathize with those who say this was not a wise political move for Kucinich. But considering how far back he is in the polls, I think cutting through the suffocating norms of political discourse at every opportunity is the only chance he has to surge ahead.

Most importantly, the accusations of treason are flawed on a few levels.

Level #1: Dennis’s statements regarding the U.S. and President Assad amount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which the Constitution defines as treason.

First of all, Syria is not our technically our “enemy” in the Constitutional sense – the U.S. hasn’t declared war on them. While Syria may be George Bush’s enemy, they surely aren’t the enemy of most Americans. And most Syrians do not think of Americans as their enemy either.

Secondly, treason is defined by our Constitution as follows: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The “aid and comfort” argument is often used to slander those who communicate openly and honestly with foreign powers, but in plain English it “requires overt acts such as giving sensitive government security secrets to other countries…[and] can include spying on behalf of a foreign power or divulging military secrets” (source). Clearly, Kucinich did no such thing, and was attempting only to repair the U.S. image in Syria and be frank with the Syrian people about our mistakes.

(Here’s a great explanation of the somewhat vague Constitutional definition.)

Level #2: Syria is our enemy because they are supplying foreign fighters in Iraq.

Syria is guilty of bordering Iraq and has trouble controlling their borders (unlike America…?), but a very small percentage of insurgents in Iraq are foreign born – as few as 4% according to reports in 2005. And among the foreign fighters in Iraq, nearly 50% come from Saudi Arabia. You know, our ally. The same ally that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. The same ally that we’re giving a $20 billion arms deal in order to “stabilize” the region.

So if talking with Syria is treasonous because they supply foreign fighters to Iraq, what is giving billions of dollars worth of human-killing machines to a country supplying five times the number of Syrian fighters in Iraq? Sound foreign policy?

Level #3: Syrian’s president is a bad guy, and therefore acknowledging America’s mistakes to Syrians must also be bad.

You won’t get any argument from me on the first part. Syria’s government violates human rights, stifles democracy, and has a ways to go before it will be held up as a model of success in the Middle East. But this doesn’t mean that our officials cannot be honest with the Syrian government about our own mistakes and try to find common ground in order to expand the prospects for peace in the region.

In conclusion, if Kucinich isn’t elected president he’ll make a hell of a Secretary of State.

Share This

Filed under: Politics, Kucinich, News, Video on September 13th, 2007