[Peace-discuss] Sensible article about Syria/Lebanon

[Morton K.Brussel]

ZNet | Mideast

The road to Damascus

by Ignacio Ramonet; Le Monde diplomatique; March 14, 2005

WAS Syria responsible for the assassination on 14 February of the 
former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri? A part of Lebanese public 
opinion, which has been profoundly shocked, believes so. The 
denunciation by the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, of the 
perpetrators of "this odious crime", and of those who are behind them, 
has done little to dissipate the charges against Syria. The culpability 
of the Ba'ath regime is not in doubt for most of the international 
media. Journalists have offered several possible motives for the 
murder, of which the foremost is the determination of Damascus to keep 
Lebanon under its control with parliamentary elections due next May.

  There were Syrian grievances against Hariri, who was accused of 
financing and attempting to promote an anti-Syrian front. There was 
another accusation: that Hariri had mobilised his friends (including 
the French president, Jacques Chirac) in favour of security council 
resolution 1559, voted through in September 2004 with the support of 
Paris and Washington, which called for "a free and fair presidential 
election in Lebanon", and for all remaining foreign forces to withdraw, 
along with "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and 
non-Lebanese militias" (the Shia militias of the Hizbullah party, 
supported by Syria and Iran, and the Palestinian militias in refugee 
camps).

  This death has given Washington an extra pretext for increasing 
pressure on Damascus. The United States ambassador in Syria was 
recalled for "urgent consultations". The US deputy secretary of state 
for the Middle East, William Burns, present in Beirut for Hariri's 
funeral, took the opportunity to announce that his death "must give 
renewed impetus to achieving a free, independent and sovereign Lebanon 
. . . What that means is the immediate and complete implementation of 
UN security council resolution 1559. What that also means is the 
complete and immediate withdrawal by Syria of all of its forces from 
Lebanon." Burns seems to have forgotten that the US invaded and 
occupied Iraq without any mandate from the United Nations.

  It is worth recalling that, at the time of the US invasion, Damascus 
believed that one of the main goals of that war was the encirclement of 
Syria (1). The US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, accused 
Damascus of having helped to arm Saddam Hussein, and of providing a 
base for the resistance organisations that harass the US occupation 
forces. The former secretary of state, Colin Powell, went to Syria in 
May 2003 to put these accusations to Assad, along with other 
longer-standing charges, such as Syria's alleged alliance with Iran and 
its support for Hizbullah militias, which the US (but not the European 
Union) has placed on its list of terrorist organisations.

  In such a situation the Syrian regime would hardly have wanted to 
worsen its case unless it was intent on suicide. This has led some 
observers to wonder whether implying the - too obvious - culpability of 
Syria might not have been the aim of Hariri's assassins. Eyal Zisser, 
Syria specialist at the Dayan Institute of the University of Tel Aviv, 
says: "It's totally illogical that Syria would do it. It would be such 
a stupid move on their part. Everyone is watching them and they don't 
want to destabilise Lebanon" (2).

  We need to ask ourselves what are the real objectives of Washington 
and Paris in Lebanon. If their aim is to establish real democracy, can 
that be constructed without the Shia, the main community with strong 
ties to Damascus? Can it be guaranteed by the opposition parties, given 
their rejection of the principle of one man, one vote and their defence 
of an obsolete confessional system? If the goal is the evacuation of 
occupied Lebanon, can the international community forget that other 
parts of the region have been occupied since 1967 - the Golan Heights, 
the West Bank, Gaza (which may be evacuated this summer) and East 
Jerusalem - despite the many UN security council resolutions? Is this 
another case of double standards?

  We are again in a time of obscure manoeuvres. In the Middle East we 
seem to have reached the second act, which includes the possibility of 
a revival of civil war in Lebanon: this does not seem to worry 
Lebanon's current champions.

  After the Iraq war, and despite the disaster of the occupation and the 
defeat of electoral candidates supported by Washington, major 
manoeuvres are now under way against countries that have long been on 
the US hit list: Iran and its ally, Syria, which is clearly the weakest 
link. Were those who killed Rafik Hariri aware that they were 
symbolically offering the international community the Syrian regime's 
destiny on a plate?

  (1) See Paul-Marie de La Gorce, "Syria surrounded", Le Monde 
diplomatique, English language edition, July 2004.

  (2) Quoted by Jefferson Morley, "Who Killed Rafik Hariri?", Washington 
Post, 16 February 2005.

  Translated by Ed Emery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5376 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050314/0aeb4dac/attachment.bin