|
UKRAINE MODEL: What the opposition plans to do is affect a
peaceful democratic revolution on the lines of the Orange movement
of Ukraine.
What the opposition must ensure however is not to be provoked into
blind retribution and turn violent. The assassination last week of
former PM Rafiq Hariri and his companions caused the pent up anger
in many Lebanese (at the humiliation they suffer daily and
silently at the hands of the Syrians) to boil over.
The Lebanese have been suffering in silence either in fear of
punishment or in hope that the Syrian and Lebanese governments
might somehow change.
What Hariri’s killing resulted in was a de facto meeting of minds
between the International Community and the Lebanese opposition.
The Syrian Leadership is therefore advised to consider this latest
message wisely and begin withdrawing its troops from Lebanon,
instead of sticking to the same old excuse that it would only do
so at the request of the Lebanese government. By pulling out
voluntarily, the Syrians would send a message to all parties
concerned saying that they have chosen a new path in their
relations with regional countries and the outside world.
For its part, the Lebanese government would do well to think about
recent domestic and international developments with a little less
of the arrogance that resulted from its perceived victories on the
security front. The Lebanese government is now under intense
scrutiny both from within the country and outside, and could do
much worse than turn the country into a Syrian protectorate or
deliberately invoke a civil war as an excuse to keep Syrian troops
on Lebanese soil. In either case, the only losers will be the
Lebanese and the Syrians.
While there is no Lebanese consensus on the need for Syria to pull
out of Lebanon, there is no consensus either on the need for the
Syrians to remain. It has to be said that Syria has as many
opponents in Lebanon as it has supporters.
Therefore, and notwithstanding whether the sovereign Lebanese
government asks the Syrians to stay or not, it is a fact that the
events of the last few days in Lebanon have stripped the Syrian
presence of any shred of legitimacy.
There is no doubt that the Syrians did play an important and vital
security role in Lebanon at a critical juncture of that country’s
history, a role for which most Lebanese are thankful. But there
might be many Syrians who feel that the Lebanese are being
ungrateful for the help their country has given them during an
ugly civil war in which the Lebanese themselves played the
dirtiest of roles. And they would be right, for it would be wrong
to forget all the good Syria has done in Lebanon.
Yet the Lebanese also remember the other side of the role Syria
played in Lebanon, one that spoils the image of a benevolent
neighbor. Syria’s history of assassinations, oppression, and
exploitation cannot be easily erased from the collective Lebanese
memory. If the relationship between Syria and Lebanon is to be
normalized therefore, both sides must admit to the existence of
much hatred between them.
This hatred is not between the two peoples as such, but between
two different cultures. Large sectors of the Lebanese and Syrian
peoples hate the oppressive way in which both countries are run.
On the other hand, the Syrian and Lebanese governments hate
anything that might threaten their stranglehold on power. It is a
relationship of mutual hatred that can only breed irrationality,
recklessness, and miscalculation.
In the past, local and regional maneuvers and reliance on
antagonisms between the great powers ensured that traditional
regional balances prevailed. Now that the Cold War is over, these
factors are no longer pertinent. Syria in particular miscalculated
badly by believing that it played a pivotal role in relations
between the United States and the Soviet Union, only to be
sidelined by both sides. In the current climate, in which mutual
interests cause Russia to ally itself with China, and the United
States with France, all traditional alliances are invalid.
Damascus had better beware.
A senior European Diplomat (with in depth knowledge of the role
Syria and Lebanon play as far as the United States, France,
Russia, China, and Britain are concerned) described what happened
this way: Before Hariri was assassinated, and because of the hard
line adopted by the United States and France vis-à-vis Syria’s
reaction to UN Security Council Resolution 1559, certain
international figures (including the UN Secretary General’s
Special Envoy) urged Washington and Paris to be patient and give
diplomacy a chance.
Resolution 1559 requires all foreign troops to leave Lebanon, and
all foreign governments to stop interfering in the country’s
internal affairs. It also demanded that all Lebanese and
non-Lebanese militias be disbanded. Those urging patience believed
that a gradual approach—together with attempts to convince the
parties concerned—would ensure a smooth implementation of the
resolution in the run up to the April date for the Secretary
General to present his report on 1559 just before Lebanon goes to
the polls in May. But after Hariri’s assassination, says the
European diplomat, the gradual approach went out the window.
Without officially naming Syria as the guilty party, the EU (and
not only France) and the United States decided that both the
current governments in Syria and Lebanon had to go.
According to this informed European diplomat, the United States
"sees Syria as a walkover militarily compared to the threat
emanating from Iran. Washington therefore would greatly welcome an
easy showdown that would divert attention away from its troubles
in Iraq and from the looming confrontation with Iran."
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE: In other words, it makes no difference whether
Syria had anything to do with Hariri’s killing or not (indeed the
Syrians denied any involvement and condemned the assassination);
the most important thing is that the world got the impression that
Syria did the deed, which caused irreparable damage to the Syrian
leadership. According to strategic experts, Syria committed a
major strategic blunder.
Even if the Syrians succeed in proving that they had nothing to do
with Hariri’s murder, it is already too late. The Americans and
Europeans have forgotten their differences over Iraq and are now
united as far as Lebanon is concerned.
Hariri’s death unified the United States and Europe against Syria.
Damascus, which was concerned at U.S.-French cooperation which
begat Resolution 1559, must now be very worried indeed at what is
going on in Lebanon and its reaction to it.
"Damascus has to be very, very afraid of the measures about to be
taken against it," said a European diplomat on condition of
anonymity. This is not part of a neo-conservative plot against
Syria, he went on, but "a natural consequence of bad (Syrian)
policies and calculations."
Relations between the Syrian Leadership and the Lebanese
Opposition have plunged to unprecedented depths of hatred and
animosity. The impression left by Syrian reactions to Hariri’s
death was that the former Lebanese prime minister had gained so
much strength and influence as an opposition leader that he had to
be removed. There were attempts by some foreign powers to achieve
conciliation between Hariri and the Syrians, but these were rudely
interrupted when unknown assailants murdered Hariri.
Syria’s relations with that other opposition stalwart [Druze
leader] Walid Junblatt, have also reached the point of no return.
Those who killed Hariri also want to see Junblatt dead. They
killed Hariri first thinking that he had no militia of his own and
no effective support outside Lebanon as Junblatt has. What they
overlooked was Lebanese anger that overstepped the divisions of
sect and religion and boiled over into incessant demand for
change.
The forces that killed Hariri and were about to kill Junblatt had
better beware, for their days are numbered—although in fact who
actually committed the crime is no longer relevant. The issue is
now much greater than Hariri, horrific as his murder undoubtedly
was.
The Lebanese have risen against an intolerable situation. They are
in revolt against the fear and subjugation represented by the
Syrian-supported official Lebanese security apparatus and the
Syrian leadership that has taken its domination of Lebanon for
granted for years.
Even the mechanism of the current Lebanese uprising is different.
This is not an imported insurrection, but a homegrown revolt born
of oppression, domination, and tyranny. Its message is simple and
crystal clear, if its recipients choose to understand it.
The message to Syria is this: Thank you for all you have done in
the past, and goodbye. The best Syria can do both for itself and
for Lebanon is to pull out immediately.
The message to the Lebanese Government is peaceful although
extremely angry:
Those who intend to involve the country in another civil war had
better beware, for they will not escape punishment as war
criminals like the leaders responsible for the first civil war
did.
Lebanon and Syria are now under intense international scrutiny for
many reasons. It is wrong to believe moreover that this scrutiny
will only be transient, for it is a fact that Washington is
prepared to take decisive steps against the Governments of both
Syria and Lebanon. While such steps were only figments of
neo-conservatives’ imaginations in the past, they have become
favored options of not only the United States, but of Europe as
well.
These steps will possibly include:
International sanctions, international isolation, and military
strikes—which by the way will be met with more local, regional and
international support than was possible before Hariri was
murdered.
End... |
