Post by Islamic Revival on Mar 1, 2005 23:57:11 GMT -5
When in Doubt, Blame Syria
Linda Heard, solitairemedia@yahoo.co.uk
www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=59752&d=1&m=3&y=2005
Those who want to get with the latest US program must put the blame on Syria. What for? Doesn’t matter in the least. Whether it is for the two world wars, the demise of Elvis or sinking the Titanic, Syria makes a handy and eminently fashionable punching bag. Even if Syria’s accusers get it wrong, no matter. Syria’s friends are one by one deserting an apparently sinking ship.
The US clearly blames Syria for the assassination of Rafik Hariri in downtown Beirut. It hasn’t said so in so many words. Instead, it has pulled out its ambassador and has engaged in the quest of isolating Syria from Lebanon.
Never mind that given the current climate, Hariri’s death was not in Syria’s interests. It didn’t need a clairvoyant to anticipate the passing of “Mr. Lebanon” would destabilize the region, sharpen the anti-Syrian knives, and perhaps pit Lebanese against Lebanese. So what did Syria have to gain?
When a suicide bomb recently exploded on the Tel Aviv waterfront, the Israeli government, in a marked departure, immediately went for Syria’s jugular. Syria is behind those deaths, it said, while putting its dialogue with the Palestinians on ice, just for good measure.
When it comes to Iraq, Syria is once again America’s bad boy. Foreign insurgents and their weapons flow through Syria’s porous borders, it contends, while conveniently overlooking those who arrive via its allies Jordan and Turkey.
Then, just a few days ago, Syria goes and spoils it all by handing over one of America’s most wanted: Saddam Hussein’s half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim Al-Hassan Al Tikriti. You see when states are being fingered as renegade it doesn’t do for them to show voluntary cooperation. It spoils the profile.
It is truly unfortunate for those powers just itching for an excuse to drop bombs on Damascus that the Syrian President Bashar Assad can hardly be painted as the personification of evil in the way Saddam Hussein was, no matter how good their spinmeisters weave the tale.
Bashar is generally seen as a soft-spoken intellectual, who after the accidental death of his wildly popular swashbuckling brother Basil was pulled from his medical studies in Britain and reluctantly groomed to take over from his authoritarian father.
In the early days, Bashar, placed in charge of an anti-corruption campaign, was keen to modernize his country, introduce reforms and get Syria wired to the Internet. At first, there was speculation within over whether he was tough enough to lead and worries he would be constrained by his father’s old guard.
Over time he proved his detractors wrong and showed he had the courage and tenacity to stick to his principles. Despite opposition, he released hundreds of political prisoners from Syrian jails and facilitated the establishment of independent newspapers. He has further offered to engage in unconditional talks with Israel and been rebuffed.
When the chips were down, the Syrian president stood up for his Iraqi neighbor risking American ire. But even though the anti-war movement was proved right over Iraq’s mythical WMD and the country’s post-occupation descent into bloodshed and chaos, Bashar’s loyal stance has proved to be one of the reasons for Syria’s current pariah status.
Others include Syria’s unfailing support for the Palestinian cause, its refusal to close the offices of Palestinian militants in its capital, as well as its backing of Hezbollah, which played such a large part in Israel’s exit from southern Lebanon.
Now a large section of the Lebanese public — too close to the issue, perhaps, to see the big picture or too personally affected to care — has chosen to sign-up to the US-orchestrated Syria blame game.
There is no doubt the Lebanese have a genuine grudge. Syria has overstayed its welcome since it was invited in to Lebanon in 1976 to help quell the civil war. Over time, its brotherly presence has morphed into occupation, and here I take the opportunity to dispel the false illusions of some of my Lebanese readers, who somehow believe I support that occupation. The idea that one nation should control another by force and subjugate its citizens is vile. That, for me, is an absolute.
Syria has made grave mistakes in Lebanon. It reneged on its commitments to withdraw contained in the 1991 Taif agreement and until Bashar came to power, it increasingly treated its tiny neighbor as part of Greater Syria.
Throughout the Syrian occupation, the Lebanese have paid dearly in terms of personal freedoms and have had to put up with a flood of Syrian workers, along with horrendous tax burdens, which go toward filling the coffers of Damascus.
Under pressure, Syria recently agreed to abide by Taif, under which Lebanon has obligations too, although an Italian newspaper published yesterday quotes Bashar as saying “it will only happen if we receive serious guarantees”. Article 2 of Taif acknowledges that the two countries share a common destiny and common interests, while Article 3 demands that each country “coordinate their stands on regional and international issues.”
On the latter point, the Lebanese are divided. While anti-Syrian groups have held demonstrations to demand Syria’s exit, pro-Syrian Lebanese are planning their own protests in Beirut’s Martyrs’ Square. Thus far, these have remained peaceful.
The problem is even if Syria takes every last soldier out of Lebanon, it may still be a marked entity in the way Iraq was even after Saddam submitted to the return of weapons inspectors. George W. Bush has already warned that Syrian intelligence officers must also pull out. In the light of the covert nature of intelligence gathering, how on earth can Syria prove that?
In response to my last week’s column ‘Lebanon, Syria and the US’, I received the following e-mail from a Christian Lebanese.
“I submit to you that the Americans or the Israelis would not have been any worse for Lebanon. At least the Americans rebuild after they invade...”<br>
Conversely, one of his compatriots, a Syrian Druze wrote: “While I agree that the Syrian-Lebanese relationship needs to be corrected, I fully support your contention that the recent events are orchestrated from the outside... a la Ukraine, perhaps.”<br>
If sectarian violence in Lebanon once again rears its ugly head — and what an excruciatingly sad day that would be — Syria will remain as the convenient fall guy for all and sundry with one important exception: Iran, a country which finds itself in a similar rocky boat.
From a Syrian standpoint, since its traditional allies have begun abandoning it in droves out of self-interest or fear, it may be forced to cast around for new ones with all that could ensue.
Call me old-fashioned, but wouldn’t the region profit, if the US, Israel and those Lebanese in their joint camp used a few more carrots and a lot less stick? Let’s quit this transparent blame game and turn to the more grown-up pursuits of dialogue, mutual respect and compromise.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback.
Linda Heard, solitairemedia@yahoo.co.uk
www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=59752&d=1&m=3&y=2005
Those who want to get with the latest US program must put the blame on Syria. What for? Doesn’t matter in the least. Whether it is for the two world wars, the demise of Elvis or sinking the Titanic, Syria makes a handy and eminently fashionable punching bag. Even if Syria’s accusers get it wrong, no matter. Syria’s friends are one by one deserting an apparently sinking ship.
The US clearly blames Syria for the assassination of Rafik Hariri in downtown Beirut. It hasn’t said so in so many words. Instead, it has pulled out its ambassador and has engaged in the quest of isolating Syria from Lebanon.
Never mind that given the current climate, Hariri’s death was not in Syria’s interests. It didn’t need a clairvoyant to anticipate the passing of “Mr. Lebanon” would destabilize the region, sharpen the anti-Syrian knives, and perhaps pit Lebanese against Lebanese. So what did Syria have to gain?
When a suicide bomb recently exploded on the Tel Aviv waterfront, the Israeli government, in a marked departure, immediately went for Syria’s jugular. Syria is behind those deaths, it said, while putting its dialogue with the Palestinians on ice, just for good measure.
When it comes to Iraq, Syria is once again America’s bad boy. Foreign insurgents and their weapons flow through Syria’s porous borders, it contends, while conveniently overlooking those who arrive via its allies Jordan and Turkey.
Then, just a few days ago, Syria goes and spoils it all by handing over one of America’s most wanted: Saddam Hussein’s half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim Al-Hassan Al Tikriti. You see when states are being fingered as renegade it doesn’t do for them to show voluntary cooperation. It spoils the profile.
It is truly unfortunate for those powers just itching for an excuse to drop bombs on Damascus that the Syrian President Bashar Assad can hardly be painted as the personification of evil in the way Saddam Hussein was, no matter how good their spinmeisters weave the tale.
Bashar is generally seen as a soft-spoken intellectual, who after the accidental death of his wildly popular swashbuckling brother Basil was pulled from his medical studies in Britain and reluctantly groomed to take over from his authoritarian father.
In the early days, Bashar, placed in charge of an anti-corruption campaign, was keen to modernize his country, introduce reforms and get Syria wired to the Internet. At first, there was speculation within over whether he was tough enough to lead and worries he would be constrained by his father’s old guard.
Over time he proved his detractors wrong and showed he had the courage and tenacity to stick to his principles. Despite opposition, he released hundreds of political prisoners from Syrian jails and facilitated the establishment of independent newspapers. He has further offered to engage in unconditional talks with Israel and been rebuffed.
When the chips were down, the Syrian president stood up for his Iraqi neighbor risking American ire. But even though the anti-war movement was proved right over Iraq’s mythical WMD and the country’s post-occupation descent into bloodshed and chaos, Bashar’s loyal stance has proved to be one of the reasons for Syria’s current pariah status.
Others include Syria’s unfailing support for the Palestinian cause, its refusal to close the offices of Palestinian militants in its capital, as well as its backing of Hezbollah, which played such a large part in Israel’s exit from southern Lebanon.
Now a large section of the Lebanese public — too close to the issue, perhaps, to see the big picture or too personally affected to care — has chosen to sign-up to the US-orchestrated Syria blame game.
There is no doubt the Lebanese have a genuine grudge. Syria has overstayed its welcome since it was invited in to Lebanon in 1976 to help quell the civil war. Over time, its brotherly presence has morphed into occupation, and here I take the opportunity to dispel the false illusions of some of my Lebanese readers, who somehow believe I support that occupation. The idea that one nation should control another by force and subjugate its citizens is vile. That, for me, is an absolute.
Syria has made grave mistakes in Lebanon. It reneged on its commitments to withdraw contained in the 1991 Taif agreement and until Bashar came to power, it increasingly treated its tiny neighbor as part of Greater Syria.
Throughout the Syrian occupation, the Lebanese have paid dearly in terms of personal freedoms and have had to put up with a flood of Syrian workers, along with horrendous tax burdens, which go toward filling the coffers of Damascus.
Under pressure, Syria recently agreed to abide by Taif, under which Lebanon has obligations too, although an Italian newspaper published yesterday quotes Bashar as saying “it will only happen if we receive serious guarantees”. Article 2 of Taif acknowledges that the two countries share a common destiny and common interests, while Article 3 demands that each country “coordinate their stands on regional and international issues.”
On the latter point, the Lebanese are divided. While anti-Syrian groups have held demonstrations to demand Syria’s exit, pro-Syrian Lebanese are planning their own protests in Beirut’s Martyrs’ Square. Thus far, these have remained peaceful.
The problem is even if Syria takes every last soldier out of Lebanon, it may still be a marked entity in the way Iraq was even after Saddam submitted to the return of weapons inspectors. George W. Bush has already warned that Syrian intelligence officers must also pull out. In the light of the covert nature of intelligence gathering, how on earth can Syria prove that?
In response to my last week’s column ‘Lebanon, Syria and the US’, I received the following e-mail from a Christian Lebanese.
“I submit to you that the Americans or the Israelis would not have been any worse for Lebanon. At least the Americans rebuild after they invade...”<br>
Conversely, one of his compatriots, a Syrian Druze wrote: “While I agree that the Syrian-Lebanese relationship needs to be corrected, I fully support your contention that the recent events are orchestrated from the outside... a la Ukraine, perhaps.”<br>
If sectarian violence in Lebanon once again rears its ugly head — and what an excruciatingly sad day that would be — Syria will remain as the convenient fall guy for all and sundry with one important exception: Iran, a country which finds itself in a similar rocky boat.
From a Syrian standpoint, since its traditional allies have begun abandoning it in droves out of self-interest or fear, it may be forced to cast around for new ones with all that could ensue.
Call me old-fashioned, but wouldn’t the region profit, if the US, Israel and those Lebanese in their joint camp used a few more carrots and a lot less stick? Let’s quit this transparent blame game and turn to the more grown-up pursuits of dialogue, mutual respect and compromise.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback.