Post by Islamic Revival on Feb 22, 2005 3:58:13 GMT -5
Lebanon, Syria and US
Linda Heard, solitairemedia@yahoo.co.uk
www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=59346&d=22&m=2&y=2005
Palestine is occupied. Iraq is occupied. Afghanistan, the Middle East, Gulf and the Caspian are seething with US military personnel, pilots, submarines, Apache gun-ships, fighter jets and spy drones. Iran and Syria are being threatened. And yet, it is absolutely imperative that Syria quits Lebanon tout suite, or so goes the White House line.
Naturally, the vast majority of the Lebanese want a complete Syrian withdrawal in the same way that Palestinians want to reclaim their land and Iraqis want the invaders out (except those in government suffering from severely twisted arms). What human being on earth wants foreigners dictating their “do’s and don’ts” or telling them how their country should be run?
But there is a fundamental difference between the Syrian “occupation” and the others previously mentioned. The Syrians were invited into Lebanon in 1976 when the country’s civil war was at its bloodiest to bring stability. Over time, this it helped to achieve.
Furthermore, the Syrians have long said they have a plan for a staged withdrawal, which is more than one can say for the Americans in Iraq. Indeed, its troop levels are already substantially down.
Certainly, the late Syrian leader Hafez Al-Assad was prone to considering Syria and Lebanon as two halves of the same country. The absence of a Syrian Embassy in Beirut attests to that, while visiting dignitaries from Syria were never accorded a diplomatic reception until relatively recently when the current President Bashar Assad flew in and received the red carpet treatment.
Put simply, the Syrians have overstayed their welcome, although given that Lebanon doesn’t possess an army to speak of, it has always maintained it would leave when the Israelis quit Lebanese land (there is still the Shiba Farms issue outstanding) and the Palestinians received their much-coveted state. At the same time, Syria has long been attempting to hold peace negotiations with Israel, which still occupies its strategic Golan Heights, but has been constantly rebuffed.
In addition, Syria was a main player in the “war on terror” during the months following the Sept. 11 attacks in the US when both No. 10 and Buckingham Palace received Bashar and his wife as honored guests. What has changed?
Syria was one of the few Arab countries, which publicly and vehemently opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq and it has never been forgiven for that. Almost from day one of the war it was being accused by the Pentagon of exporting equipment, such as night goggles to the Iraqis, and later on, as the main conduit for insurgents. Never mind that it has been proved time and time again that only a tiny percentage of the insurgents are non-Iraqis. There were even attempts at accusing Syria of harboring the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Syria with its shortly-to-become obsolete pan-Arab ideology and “enemy of Israel” status has further been as a red rag to the neocon bulls. A Middle East adviser to the US Vice President David Wurmser has long been an advocate of the US and Israel working together to “roll back” Syria’s Baathist leadership, while Pentagon No. 2 Paul Wolfowitz said some years ago: “There has got to be a change in Syria” due to the “extreme ruthlessness” of its government.
Now that Iraq is in the process of being “tamed” — although whether it ever will be is a different matter — the last thing the Americans want is a renegade Syria on its borders. Neither do they want Syria’s continued support for Hezbollah, whose militant Islamist members serve as a buffer to Israel in southern Lebanon. But how could Syria best be demonized so as to bring the international community on board the Bush administration’s agenda?
Then along came the tragic assassination of Lebanon’s former and widely beloved Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut’s downtown, which he so lovingly restored. Who did it? According to the pro-Syrian Lebanese government any one of a number of people or organizations. Hariri may have been termed “Mr. Lebanon” but his high profile status attracted all kinds of enemies.
“Syria,” said the US in nonverbal terms by withdrawing their ambassador and demanding the immediate Syrian pull out of Lebanon. No proof, nothing.
In the same way that individuals have been branded as terrorist supporters and bundled off in chains to Guantanamo, Bagram or Abu Ghraib, so Syria has been effectively labeled Hariri’s killer.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently stated Syria should be held indirectly responsible for the killing of Rafik Hariri “given their continued interference in Lebanese affairs”. If this is the US standard for apportioning blame, then the US is responsible for all the killing, maiming, orphans and abuses, occurring in both Afghanistan and Iraq under its watch.
For its part, Syria maintains Hariri was a friend and has pointed out that it wouldn’t be in its interests to have him killed, especially in the light of so many international knives out for its blood. What could Syria possibly have to gain? We shouldn’t forget, too, that Bashar is highly educated and intelligent, not someone who would be stupid enough to believe Syria could get away with such an outrageous act.
Unfortunately, those Lebanese, who have united against Syria following Hariri’s demise, have fallen right into the trap.
But they should be careful what they wish for. If Syria began pulling out in earnest tomorrow and cut ties with Beirut, where does that leave tiny Lebanon, especially if the new Israeli-Palestinian détente turns sour? What if unfriendly influences fomented a new civil war, just as they did before? Who will step in then? The Americans, who are leading the charge, perhaps or, its client state, the Israelis? The Syrians would no doubt tell them “on your bike”. It isn’t that Syria shouldn’t leave its neighbor but that the timing is wrong. First, let’s wave goodbye to Iraq’s invaders and witness the Middle East peace process reaching fruition. Then, if Syria still insisted on hanging around where it isn’t wanted, it should, indeed, be hauled in front of the UN Security Council with all that could follow.
Once again, Syria is not the aggressor here. Imad Mustapha, the Syrian ambassador in Washington asserted that: “Syria is trying to engage constructively with the United States. We are not enemies of the United States and we don’t want to be drawn into such an enmity.” With the specter of Iraq as a precedent, Syria appears to be hedging its bets and forming closer ties with Iran, currently accused of enriching uranium for weapons purposes. Russia seems to be lining up with them both and is set to supply Syria with advanced missiles.
It is time for the Lebanese to decide where they stand during these threatening times. Their choices are thus. They can go shoulder to shoulder with their Syrian cousins, or trust the Americans and the Israelis to secure their safety and future prosperity? Sadly, either way they could be losers in a world where winners are inevitably the ones with the biggest bombs and hardest hearts.
— 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=59346&d=22&m=2&y=2005
Palestine is occupied. Iraq is occupied. Afghanistan, the Middle East, Gulf and the Caspian are seething with US military personnel, pilots, submarines, Apache gun-ships, fighter jets and spy drones. Iran and Syria are being threatened. And yet, it is absolutely imperative that Syria quits Lebanon tout suite, or so goes the White House line.
Naturally, the vast majority of the Lebanese want a complete Syrian withdrawal in the same way that Palestinians want to reclaim their land and Iraqis want the invaders out (except those in government suffering from severely twisted arms). What human being on earth wants foreigners dictating their “do’s and don’ts” or telling them how their country should be run?
But there is a fundamental difference between the Syrian “occupation” and the others previously mentioned. The Syrians were invited into Lebanon in 1976 when the country’s civil war was at its bloodiest to bring stability. Over time, this it helped to achieve.
Furthermore, the Syrians have long said they have a plan for a staged withdrawal, which is more than one can say for the Americans in Iraq. Indeed, its troop levels are already substantially down.
Certainly, the late Syrian leader Hafez Al-Assad was prone to considering Syria and Lebanon as two halves of the same country. The absence of a Syrian Embassy in Beirut attests to that, while visiting dignitaries from Syria were never accorded a diplomatic reception until relatively recently when the current President Bashar Assad flew in and received the red carpet treatment.
Put simply, the Syrians have overstayed their welcome, although given that Lebanon doesn’t possess an army to speak of, it has always maintained it would leave when the Israelis quit Lebanese land (there is still the Shiba Farms issue outstanding) and the Palestinians received their much-coveted state. At the same time, Syria has long been attempting to hold peace negotiations with Israel, which still occupies its strategic Golan Heights, but has been constantly rebuffed.
In addition, Syria was a main player in the “war on terror” during the months following the Sept. 11 attacks in the US when both No. 10 and Buckingham Palace received Bashar and his wife as honored guests. What has changed?
Syria was one of the few Arab countries, which publicly and vehemently opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq and it has never been forgiven for that. Almost from day one of the war it was being accused by the Pentagon of exporting equipment, such as night goggles to the Iraqis, and later on, as the main conduit for insurgents. Never mind that it has been proved time and time again that only a tiny percentage of the insurgents are non-Iraqis. There were even attempts at accusing Syria of harboring the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Syria with its shortly-to-become obsolete pan-Arab ideology and “enemy of Israel” status has further been as a red rag to the neocon bulls. A Middle East adviser to the US Vice President David Wurmser has long been an advocate of the US and Israel working together to “roll back” Syria’s Baathist leadership, while Pentagon No. 2 Paul Wolfowitz said some years ago: “There has got to be a change in Syria” due to the “extreme ruthlessness” of its government.
Now that Iraq is in the process of being “tamed” — although whether it ever will be is a different matter — the last thing the Americans want is a renegade Syria on its borders. Neither do they want Syria’s continued support for Hezbollah, whose militant Islamist members serve as a buffer to Israel in southern Lebanon. But how could Syria best be demonized so as to bring the international community on board the Bush administration’s agenda?
Then along came the tragic assassination of Lebanon’s former and widely beloved Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut’s downtown, which he so lovingly restored. Who did it? According to the pro-Syrian Lebanese government any one of a number of people or organizations. Hariri may have been termed “Mr. Lebanon” but his high profile status attracted all kinds of enemies.
“Syria,” said the US in nonverbal terms by withdrawing their ambassador and demanding the immediate Syrian pull out of Lebanon. No proof, nothing.
In the same way that individuals have been branded as terrorist supporters and bundled off in chains to Guantanamo, Bagram or Abu Ghraib, so Syria has been effectively labeled Hariri’s killer.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently stated Syria should be held indirectly responsible for the killing of Rafik Hariri “given their continued interference in Lebanese affairs”. If this is the US standard for apportioning blame, then the US is responsible for all the killing, maiming, orphans and abuses, occurring in both Afghanistan and Iraq under its watch.
For its part, Syria maintains Hariri was a friend and has pointed out that it wouldn’t be in its interests to have him killed, especially in the light of so many international knives out for its blood. What could Syria possibly have to gain? We shouldn’t forget, too, that Bashar is highly educated and intelligent, not someone who would be stupid enough to believe Syria could get away with such an outrageous act.
Unfortunately, those Lebanese, who have united against Syria following Hariri’s demise, have fallen right into the trap.
But they should be careful what they wish for. If Syria began pulling out in earnest tomorrow and cut ties with Beirut, where does that leave tiny Lebanon, especially if the new Israeli-Palestinian détente turns sour? What if unfriendly influences fomented a new civil war, just as they did before? Who will step in then? The Americans, who are leading the charge, perhaps or, its client state, the Israelis? The Syrians would no doubt tell them “on your bike”. It isn’t that Syria shouldn’t leave its neighbor but that the timing is wrong. First, let’s wave goodbye to Iraq’s invaders and witness the Middle East peace process reaching fruition. Then, if Syria still insisted on hanging around where it isn’t wanted, it should, indeed, be hauled in front of the UN Security Council with all that could follow.
Once again, Syria is not the aggressor here. Imad Mustapha, the Syrian ambassador in Washington asserted that: “Syria is trying to engage constructively with the United States. We are not enemies of the United States and we don’t want to be drawn into such an enmity.” With the specter of Iraq as a precedent, Syria appears to be hedging its bets and forming closer ties with Iran, currently accused of enriching uranium for weapons purposes. Russia seems to be lining up with them both and is set to supply Syria with advanced missiles.
It is time for the Lebanese to decide where they stand during these threatening times. Their choices are thus. They can go shoulder to shoulder with their Syrian cousins, or trust the Americans and the Israelis to secure their safety and future prosperity? Sadly, either way they could be losers in a world where winners are inevitably the ones with the biggest bombs and hardest hearts.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback.