The Syria verdict is out. In
fact, it has been out for years, long before
Detlev Mehlis, the German judge and prosecutor,
inundated us with the findings of his
ground-shaking report regarding who planned,
funded and carried out the assassination of the
former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, on
February 14.
There is little that Syria
can say or do to keep the hordes at bay, save
offerings of stern political concessions, mainly
to Israel and the United States, a response that
somehow seems irreconcilable with the crisis at
hand.
Attempts to reduce the dispute
invited by the killing of Hariri to that of a
foreign power's resolve on vulgarly micromanaging
the inner politics of its weaker neighbor to serve
its own interests are unrelenting. Yet, few are
willing or even interested in pondering the
general atmosphere surrounding the political row
invited by Hariri's death.
Predictably,
the particulars of Syrian-Lebanese relations are
too complex to be rashly addressed with a few
assertions. However, it
is
important to note that the intricacies of that
relationship extend beyond recent events: being
Hariri's murder and its aftermath.
For
decades, Lebanon has been the stage for a regional
and international power play, in which various
Arab countries, Israel and the United States have
been engrossed. These power brokers manipulated
the countries' political alliances, poured in
money, supplied weapons, helped validate some
players within the unfolding Lebanese drama, and
marginalized others.
While Syria had its
own inventory of alliances, Israel had and still
maintains some proxies, as well as Washington with
its right wing Lebanese Christians, Iran its
militias, and even Iraq, during the Ba'ath party
reign, had its share of meddling. The Palestinian
Liberation Organization (PLO) was also a
significant power broker throughout the 1970s,
until the deadly Israeli invasion of Lebanon in
1982, which killed tens of thousands of Lebanese
and Palestinians. Since then, Palestinians have
been confined to their refugee camps following the
expulsion of PLO forces to various world capitals.
Considering that nearly all of the
competing forces on the Lebanon stage, whether
internally or externally, maintain their interests
in the country's affairs, thus involvement, it's
unscrupulous, to say the least, to heap criticism
on Syria alone for Lebanon's misfortunes, past and
present, and to solely single out Damascus as the
only likely suspect in Hariri's murder. It's
ironic that those who have for long contributed to
Lebanon's demise are now the main players in
leading the fault-finding chorus, demanding
justice and the "truth".
This should not
in any way suggest that Syria's record in Lebanon
is a shining example of courtesy and decency.
Syria's thrust in Lebanon had little to do with
alleviating the country's woes. It certainly had
more to do with sheltering and benefiting Syria
itself, an objective that often led to abuses of
power, unwarranted interference in Lebanon's
political affairs and ultimately to near complete
hegemony over the country's sovereignty.
But to act as if the international uproar
led by the Bush administration, more specifically
the pro-Israeli elements within the
administration, is a sincere endeavor to unmask
the truth and bring Hariri's murderers to justice
is to succumb to yet another mockery as sizeable
as that of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass
destruction.
The Bush administration,
which began "rallying" the international community
to isolate, sanction and mull over military action
"as a last resort" against Syria, is itself a
barefaced violator of human rights, a burden felt
almost exclusively by Arab and Muslim nations.
Coincidentally, as American diplomats are
now stampeding to bring "the perpetrators of
Hariri's killing to justice" - as phrased by the
State Department - administration officials are
pressuring Congressional lawmakers to exempt the
Central Intelligence Agency from a proposed ban on
the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment" of anyone held by US authorities,
mostly Arabs and Muslims.
It's obvious to
those familiar with US foreign policy in the
Middle East that Bush's sudden interest in
"justice" is spatially and temporally unique in
the Lebanon scenario, with the purpose of molding
Lebanon into another "friendly" regime to join the
many others circulating within the American
sphere.
The crowd that would likely be in
charge of operating the Lebanon project are
ironically the same individuals who drafted and
pushed for anti-Syria policies in Washington, most
notably the so-called Syria Accountability and
Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003,
which was cemented by American sanctions and a
US-led international campaign to expel Syria out
of Lebanon.
It was certainly no secret
that the act was the joint efforts and handy work
of right wing Christian Lebanese individuals,
pro-Israeli key members of the Bush administration
and the Israeli lobby, whose keenness in "rolling
back" Syria is unrivaled.
It's
interesting, and even more disturbing, how the US
foreign-policy approach to Syria has remained
consistent with the infamous report prepared for
the Israeli government in 1996, by the same
individuals who successfully managed to manipulate
US foreign policy to build a case for war on Iraq,
namely Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser, among others. "A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm" counseled that
"given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is
both natural and moral that Israel abandon the
slogan 'comprehensive peace' and move to contain
Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass
destruction program, and rejecting 'land for
peace' deals on the Golan Heights".
The
policy report recommended that Israel should
establish "the precedent that Syrian territory is
not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by
Israeli proxy forces". It also read: "Israel can
shape its strategic environment, in cooperation
with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing
and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus
on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own
right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional
ambitions."
The bloody hands behind
Hariri's murder are, so it seems, the least
relevant detail as far as Israel and the Bush
administration are concerned. The death of the
"father of Lebanon" was more of an opportunity to
further "contain" and extract more concessions
from Damascus, concessions that are likely to be
generously offered, now that Syria is a lone
ranger in the face of the Israeli and American
storm.
Considering the non-existent Arab
front in halting the encroaching anti-Syrian
crusade and the reckless and self-destructive
foreign policy practiced by the Bush
administration, Syria will most likely be forced
to offer exhaustive concessions in order to be
spared the same campaign that was unleashed on
Iraq years before the 2003 invasion. Syrian
President Bashar Assad has given many signs that
he will do all that it takes to spare his country
the feared calamity.
Syria is expected to
eliminate any influence it might still maintain
over Lebanon, expel Palestinian factions that
oppose the Israeli occupation and prepare to
accept Israel's own interpretation of a suitable
resolution to the occupied Golan Heights conflict.
Interestingly, these are all but American
concerns. The US call on Damascus to fully
cooperate in its "war on terror" has long been
satisfied; the US contentment with Syria's ongoing
cooperation was registered in a State Department
acknowledgement in April 2003 and later dates.
Syria's fallout is evidently with Israel, not the
United States.
The German judge who is
leading the international investigation into the
assassination of Hariri might have indeed been
accurate and honest in his assessment that led him
to construe a Syrian role in the murder. But one
should be wary of overstating the rapport between
that alleged involvement and the campaign to
pressure Syria on a vast range of issues, of which
Hariri's death is a minor detail, a pretext at
best.
Ramzy Baroud, veteran Arab
American journalist, teaches mass communication at
Australia's Curtin University of Technology,
Malaysia Campus. His forthcoming book,
Writings on the Second Palestinian Uprising is
being published by Pluto Press in London. He is
also the editor-in-chief of
PalestineChronicle.com
