|
|
|
|
Bush has clear run at
Syria
By Stephen Zunes
(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus)
The broader implications of the February
14 assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik
Hariri, who was seen by many as the embodiment of
the Lebanese people's efforts to rebuild their
country in the aftermath of its 15-year civil war,
are yet to unfold. A Sunni Muslim, Hariri reached
out to all of Lebanon's ethnic and religious
communities in an effort to unite the country
after decades of violence waged by heavily armed
militias and foreign invaders.
The
assassination took place against the backdrop of a
growing political crisis in Lebanon. This began in
September 2004, when Syria successfully pressured
the Lebanese parliament, in an act of dubious
constitutionality, to extend the term of the
unpopular pro-
Lebanese premier
quits
Lebanon's Prime Minister Omar Karami
and his pro-Syrian government resigned on Monday
in the wake of unrest set off by the
assassination of popular former prime minister
Rafik Hariri. Thousands of flag-waving
demonstrators in Martyrs' Square, who defied
police and a ban on protests, cheered the
announcement.
The announcement means
Karami's cabinet will remain as the caretaker
for the government until President Emile Lahoud
appoints a new prime minister. The new prime
minister will consult with parliament to form a
cabinet, which then must undergo a vote of
confidence.
But some people are also
calling for Lahoud's resignation. Lahoud, a
close ally of Syria, angered Hariri when his
term as president was extended by three years
last fall, secured by a Syrian-backed
constitutional amendment.
| Syrian President Emile
Lahoud, a move roundly condemned by the
international community. Washington was
particularly virulent in its criticism, which can
only be considered ironic, given that the US
attempted a similar maneuver in 1958 to extend the
term of the pro-American president Camille
Chamoun. The result was a popular uprising
suppressed only when president Dwight Eisenhower
sent in US Marines.
Hariri had his
critics, particularly among the country's poor
majority, whose situation deteriorated under the
former prime minister's adoption of a number of
controversial neo-liberal economic policies. There
were widespread charges of corruption in the
awarding of contracts, many of which went to a
company largely owned by Hariri, a
multibillionaire businessman prior to becoming
prime minister. A number of treasured historic
buildings relatively undamaged from war were
demolished to make room for grandiose construction
projects.
The size and sophistication of
the explosion that killed Hariri, his bodyguards
and several bystanders have led many to speculate
that foreign intelligence units may have been
involved. Initial speculation has focused on the
Syrians, who had previously worked closely with
Hariri as prime minister. That relationship was
broken by the Syrians' successful effort to extend
the term of Lahoud, with whom Hariri had
frequently clashed as prime minister. As a result,
Hariri was poised to lead an anti-Syrian front in
the upcoming parliamentary elections in May.
Hariri made lots of other enemies as well,
however, including rival Lebanese groups, the
Israeli government, Islamic extremists and
powerful financiers with interests in his
multibillion dollar reconstruction efforts. A
previously unknown group calling itself "Victory
and Jihad in Syria and Lebanon" claimed
responsibility for the attack, citing Hariri's
close ties to the repressive Saudi monarchy. As of
this writing, however, there has been no
confirmation that they were responsible for the
blast nor that such a group even exists.
While Syria remains the primary suspect,
no evidence has been presented to support the
charge. Damascus has publicly condemned the
killings and denied responsibility. Syria's
regime, while certainly ruthless enough to do such
a thing, is usually not so brazen. They would have
little to gain from uniting the Lebanese
opposition against them or for provoking the US
and other Western nations to further isolate their
government.
The US, however, has
indirectly implicated Syria in the attack and has
withdrawn its ambassador from Damascus.
Syria's role in Lebanon
Syrian
forces first entered Lebanon in 1976 at the
invitation of the Lebanese president as the
primary component of an international peacekeeping
force authorized by the Arab League to try to end
Lebanon's civil war. The US quietly supported the
Syrian intervention as a means of blocking the
likely victory by the leftist Lebanese National
Movement and its Palestinian allies.
As
the civil war continued in varying manifestations
in subsequent years, the Syrians would often play
one faction off against another in an effort to
maintain their influence. Despite this, they were
unable to defend the country from the US-backed
Israeli invasion in 1982, the installation of the
Phalangist leader Amin Gemayel as president, and
the US military intervention to help prop up
Gemayel's rightist government against a popular
uprising.
Finally, in late 1990, Syrian
forces helped the Lebanese oust the unpopular
interim prime minister General Michel Aoun, which
proved instrumental in ending the 15-year civil
war. (Given that General Aoun's primary outside
supporter was Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the US
quietly backed this Syrian action as well.)
The end of the civil war did not result in
the end of the Syrian role in Lebanon, however.
Most Lebanese at this point resent the ongoing
presence of Syrian troops and Syria's overbearing
influence on their government.
The Bush
administration, Congressional leaders of both
parties, and prominent media commentators have
increasingly made reference to "the Syrian
occupation of Lebanon". Strictly speaking,
however, this is not an occupation in the legal
sense of the word, such as in the case of
Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara or Israel's
occupation of Syria's Golan region and much of the
Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank (including
East Jerusalem), all of which are recognized by
the United Nations and international legal
authorities as non-self-governing territories.
Lebanon has experienced direct foreign
military occupation, however: from 1978 to 2000,
Israel occupied a large section of southern
Lebanon and - from June 1982 through May 1984 -
much of central Lebanon as well, resulting in the
deaths of thousands of Lebanese civilians.
A more accurate analogy to the current
Syrian role would be that of the Soviets in the
Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe during
much of the Cold War, in which these nations were
effectively client states. They were allowed to
maintain their independence and distinct national
institutions, yet were denied the right to pursue
an autonomous course in their foreign and domestic
policies.
Currently, Syria has only 14,000
troops in Lebanon, mostly in the Bekaa Valley in
the eastern part of the country, a substantial
reduction from the 40,000 troops present in
earlier years. This does not mean that calls for
an immediate withdrawal of Syrian forces and an
end to Syrian interference in Lebanon's political
affairs are not morally and legally justified.
However, the use of the term "occupation" by
American political leaders is an exaggeration and
may be designed in part to divert attention from
the continuing US military, diplomatic and
financial support of the real ongoing military
occupations by Israel and Morocco.
In
September of last year, the US - along with France
and Great Britain - sponsored a resolution before
the UN Security Council (UNSC) that, among other
things, called on "all remaining foreign forces to
withdraw from Lebanon". UNSC resolution 1559 was
adopted with six abstentions and no negative votes
and builds on UNSC resolution 520, adopted in
1982, which similarly calls for the withdrawal of
foreign forces.
The Bush administration,
with widespread bipartisan Congressional support,
has cited Syria's ongoing violation of these
resolutions in placing sanctions on Syria.
Ironically, however, no such pressure was placed
on Israel for violating UNSC resolution 520 and
nine other resolutions (the first being adopted in
1978) calling on Israel to withdraw its forces
from Lebanon. In fact, during the Bill Clinton
administration, the US openly called on Israel to
not unilaterally withdraw from Lebanon as
required, even as public opinion polls in Israel
showed that a sizable majority of Israelis
supported an end to the Israeli occupation, during
which hundreds of Israeli soldiers were killed.
Today, many of the most outspoken
supporters of a strict enforcement of UNSC
resolution 1559 - such as Democratic Senator
Barbara Boxer of California - were also among the
most prominent opponents of enforcing similar
resolutions when they were directed at Israel. In
short, both Republicans and Democrats agree that
Lebanese sovereignty and international law must be
defended only if the government challenging these
principles is not a US ally.
(Israel was
finally forced out of Lebanon in May 2000 as a
result of attacks by the militant Lebanese Shi'ite
group Hezbollah. Four months later, the
Palestinian uprising against the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip began.
Militant Palestinians claim they were inspired by
the fact that Israel ended its 22-year occupation
not because of the US-led peace process and not
because of the United Nations - which was blocked
by the US from enforcing its resolutions - but
because of armed struggle by radical Islamists.
Though, for a number of reasons, such tactics are
unlikely to succeed in the occupied Palestinian
territories, the support of Islamist groups and
their use of violence by large sectors of the
Palestinian population under Israeli occupation
can for the most part be attributed to the US
refusing to support an Israeli withdrawal from
southern Lebanon through diplomatic means.)
What next?
Whether or not the
Syrians played a role in Hariri's assassination,
his death will likely escalate pressure by the
Lebanese to challenge Syria's domination of their
government. Once centered primarily in the
country's Maronite Christian community,
anti-Syrian sentiment is growing among Lebanese
from across the ethnic and ideological spectrum.
Ultimately, the country's fate will be determined
by the Lebanese themselves. If the US presses the
issue too strongly, however, it risks hardening
Syria's position and allowing Damascus to defend
its ongoing domination of Lebanon behind
anti-imperialist rhetoric.
While there are
many areas in which the Syrian regime of President
Bashar al-Assad should indeed be challenged, such
as its overbearing influence in Lebanon and its
poor human-rights record, there is a genuine fear
that increased US efforts to isolate the regime
and the concomitant threats of military action
against Syria will undermine the efforts of
Lebanese and Syrians demanding change.
One
major problem is that most charges against the
Syrian government by the Bush administration and
the Congressional leadership of both parties are
rife with hyperbole and double standards.
For example, the US has demanded that
Syria eliminate its long-range and medium-range
missiles, while not insisting that pro-Western
neighbors like Turkey and Israel - with far more
numerous and sophisticated missiles on their
territory - similarly disarm. The US has also
insisted that Syria unilaterally eliminate its
chemical weapons stockpiles, while not placing
similar demands on US allies Israel and Egypt -
which have far larger chemical weapons stockpiles.
The US has demanded an end to political repression
and called for free and fair elections in Syria,
while not making similar demands of even more
repressive and autocratic regimes in allied
countries like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.
Contrary to US charges that Syria is a
major state supporter of international terrorism,
Syria is at most a very minor player. The US State
Department has noted how Syria has played a
critical role in efforts to combat al-Qaeda and
that the Syrian government has not been linked to
any acts of international terrorism for nearly 20
years. The Palestinian Islamist groups Hamas and
Islamic Jihad have political offices in Damascus,
as they do in a number of Arab capitals, but they
are not allowed to conduct any military
activities. A number of left-wing Palestinian
factions also maintain offices in Syria, but these
groups are now largely defunct and have not
engaged in terrorist operations for many years.
Much has been made of Syrian support for
the radical Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah.
However, not only has Syrian support for the group
been quite minimal in recent years, the group is
now a legally recognized Lebanese political party
and serves in the Lebanese parliament. During the
past decade, its militia have largely restricted
their use of violence to Israeli occupation forces
in southern Lebanon and in disputed border regions
of Israeli-occupied Syria, not against civilians,
thereby raising serious questions as to whether it
can still be legally considered a terrorist group.
Currently, the Bush administration has
expressed its dismay at Russia's decision to sell
Syria anti-aircraft missiles, claiming that it
raises questions in regard to President Vladimir
Putin's commitment against terrorism. The
administration has been unable to explain,
however, how selling defensive weapons to an
internationally recognized government aids
terrorists.
Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and US Congressional leaders have also
accused Syria of threatening the Arab-Israeli
peace process. However, Syria has pledged to
provide Israel with internationally enforced
security guarantees and full diplomatic relations
in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from
Syrian territory seized in the 1967 war, in
concordance with UNSC resolutions 242 and 338,
long recognized as the basis for peace. They have
also called for a renewal of peace talks with
Israel, which came very close to a permanent peace
agreement in early 2000. However, the right-wing
US-backed Israeli government of Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon has refused to resume negotiations
and pledges it will never withdraw from the Golan,
thereby raising questions as to whether it is
really Syria that is primarily at fault.
Another questionable anti-Syrian charge is
in regard to its alleged support of Saddam Hussein
and its ongoing support of anti-American
insurgents in Iraq. In reality, though both Iraq
and Syria were ruled by the Ba'ath Party, Syria
broke diplomatic relations with Baghdad back in
the 1970s and was home to a number of anti-Saddam
exile groups.
Syria and Iraq backed rival
factions in Lebanon's civil war. Syria was the
only country to side with Iran during the
Iran-Iraq war and contributed troops to the US-led
Operation Desert Shield in reaction to Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait.
Syria, as a
non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in
2002, supported US-backed resolution 1441
demanding that Iraq cooperate with UN inspectors
or else face "severe consequences". The Syrian
government has substantially beefed up security
along its borders with Iraq, and US military
officials have acknowledged that relatively few
foreign fighters have actually entered Iraq via
Syria.
Most critically, there is no reason
that Syria would want the insurgents to succeed,
given that the primary insurgent groups are either
supporters of the old anti-Syrian regime in
Baghdad or are Islamic extremists similar to those
who seriously challenged the Syrian government in
1982, before being brutally suppressed. Given that
Assad's regime is dominated by Syria's Alawite
minority, who have much closer ties to Iraq's
Shi'ites than with the Sunnis who dominate the
Arab and Islamic world, and that the
Shi'ite-dominated slate that won the recent Iraqi
elections share their skepticism about the US role
in the Middle East, they would have every reason
to want to see the newly elected Iraqi government
succeed so US troops could leave.
Despite
the highly questionable assertions which form the
basis of the Bush administration's antipathy
toward Syria, there have essentially been no
serious challenges to the Bush administration's
policy on Capitol Hill. Indeed, Democratic House
leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader
Harry Reid have strongly defended President Bush's
policies toward Iraq and Lebanon and helped push
through strict sanctions against Syria based on
these same exaggerations and double standards.
During the United State's 2004 election campaign,
Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential
nominee, criticized Bush for not being anti-Syrian
enough.
Among the few dissenters is
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who
expressed his concern to Rice during recent
hearings on Capitol Hill that the tough talk
against Syria was remarkably similar to what was
heard in regard to Iraq a few years earlier. One
of only eight members of Congress to vote against
the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act in the fall of 2003, he warned his
fellow senators that the language was broad enough
that the administration might later claim it
authorized military action against Syria.
As long as the vast majority of Democrats
are afraid to appear "soft" toward the Syrian
dictatorship and as long as so few progressive
voices are willing to challenge the Democrats,
Bush appears to have few obstacles in his way
should he once again choose to lead the country to
war.
Stephen Zunes is a
professor of politics and chair of the peace and
justice studies program at the University of San
Francisco. He is Middle East editor for Foreign
Policy In Focus and the author of Tinderbox:
US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism
(Common Courage Press, 2003).
(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Middle East Sex News
|
|
|
