| |
Syria puts its foot down
By George Baghdadi
DAMASCUS - Syria, a
staunch opponent of the United States-led war on Iraq,
has said that it would consider any post-war
administration run by the United States military in
Baghdad as an "occupation government".
US
Secretary of State Colin Powell had stated earlier that
Washington was sending a team this week to Iraq to begin
laying the groundwork for an interim authority.
President George W Bush described it as a "transition
quasi-government ... until the conditions are right for
the people to elect their own leadership". He said the
United Nations would have a "vital role" in setting up
the interim authority.
Syria, the only Arab
nation on the UN Security Council, backed Resolution
1441 calling on Iraq to account for and destroy its
weapons of mass destruction. But it has nonetheless
warned that imposing a US military regime on Iraq would
have dangerous repercussions in the region.
"There is a difference between a transitional
government and a military government. If it is going to
be a military one, then it will be an occupation
government. There are international laws that call for
recognizing the government that the people choose,"
Buthaina Shaaban, head of the press department at the
Syrian Foreign Ministry, told Inter Press Service.
Perhaps nowhere do the questions about what
comes next after Iraq generate a sharper sense of dread
than in neighboring Syria, controlled since 1963 by a
rival branch of the same Ba'ath Party that has been at
the helm of affairs on Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Syrian President Bashar Assad told the Lebanese
newspaper al-Safir on Thursday that the US-British
military offensive in Iraq is "clear occupation and a
flagrant aggression against a United Nations member
state".
Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Kaftaro, Syria's top
Muslim religious leader, called last month for suicide
bombings against US and British invaders in Iraq. A
suicide attack on US marines on Saturday following his
statement looks set to further strain relations between
Syria and the US.
In the aftermath of the timid
rapprochement that followed the 1991 Gulf War, relations
between Syria and the US have reached a low ebb. Syrian
officials dismiss the notion of any possible effect of
war or any unease that their country might fall into US
sights next.
Much ink, though, has been spilled
on the warnings issued last month by US Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in which he deemed Syria's
alleged dispatch of military material to Iraq a "hostile
act". US Secretary of State Colin Powell followed up
warning that Syria "can continue direct support for
terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein,
or it can embark on a different and more hopeful
course".
The remarks were couched in some of the
strongest language used in years against Syria, a
country on the US State Department's list of states that
allegedly sponsor terrorism by hosting radical
Palestinian groups and supporting Lebanese Hezbollah.
Commentators generally believe those threats indicate
that the US may target Syria once it is done with Iraq -
a view not necessarily shared by all.
Some
suggest that Syria can be a partner in the war against
terrorism if it is given encouragement rather than being
threatened. Richard Murphy, US Assistant Secretary of
State for Near Eastern Affairs from 1983 to 1989, said
he did not believe armed conflict with Syria was on the
immediate horizon.
British Prime Minister Tony
Blair on Monday gave assurances to Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad that Damascus was not a target. "Blair
explained that Britain disagrees completely with those
who promote the targeting of Syria," an official source
quoted Blair as telling Assad in a telephone
conversation.
Many believe the "Syria-next"
scenario to be improbable. For one thing, the Bush
administration knows that an assault on Syria would
merely polarize the Middle East further. And, perhaps
more significantly, even Washington hardliners don't
really believe a war is needed to change Syrian
behavior.
(Inter Press Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
