What next for Syria and Lebanon?
Joshua Landis posts that Syria will have to withdraw. He’s absolutely right. As Juan Cole points out, it no longer matters whether Syria was behind the attack or not. Most of the Lebanese factions seem to believe it was, or at least their leadership is seizing the opportunity to push for a pullout — as they should. I have a hard time imagining Syria resisting the pressure to pull out. They’re probably just trying to find a way to save a little face, probably with the help of the Arab League (cue in Mubarak finding a way to make himself useful.)
If the Syrians did carry out the attack (and, say, that is proven by a UN investigation), then the regime is either finished or will become isolated in the same way that Iraq was in the aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait. (In a sense, I think sanctions are worse than an attack — as we saw in Iraq.) Kofi Annan has joined the US and France in asking Syria to withdraw from Lebanon.
What will happen if, or rather when, they do so? Will there be retributions against those Lebanese who enthusiastically cooperated with the Syrians? Will the web of business relationships that link many prominent Lebanese businesspeople with Syrian ones (usually regime cronies) fall apart, and if so will it damage the country’s economy? Will the international community renegotiate Lebanese debt at the Paris Club to help out? (They should, but with extremely stringent political conditions.) Will Syria implode as scapegoats are found for this mess and a major source of regime income dries up? A lot of questions, a lot of potential danger, but also a possible way out of dictatorship for Syrians. I’m not sure whether there are forces inside the country that could pull off a coup (presumably the safest option for the general population) against Assad, though. Perhaps the Islamists?
This site says that Maariv, the Israeli Hebrew-language daily, has an article saying Israeli intelligence thinks Hizbullah did it. I’d appreciate if someone can confirm that (or articles elsewhere in the Hebrew press) as Haaretz only seems to have this analysis piece, which is interesting for the following tidbit:
One of the first people to understand the new situation, not surprisingly, was Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, who called for “unity in the ranks” in Lebanon and for the first time revealed that he held a weekly meeting with Hariri, including a meeting a week before the assassination.
Israel also said today that Iran would be able to build a nuclear weapons in six months.
In the meantime, Hizbullah’s main backer, Iran, says Israel was probably behind the attack. Here in Cairo, most people are quite shocked (I include here some senior government officials I’ve been meeting over the past few days, which is why I’ve been busy) and sad for the Lebanese.
The Middle East Quarterly, the gazette of a Likudnik think tank in Washington, put out a piece by Farid Ghadry, who advocates the following:
How can the U.S. government promote change in Syria? Funding of dissident groups is essential to pressure the Syrian regime. If Hezbollah gets ample supplies of money from Iran, why are democratic countries so stingy about funding democratic movements? Behind the Bush administration’s democratic advocacy are few programs and even fewer organizations. Only 3.2 percent of Middle East Partnership Initiative funds have been provided to indigenous nongovernmental organizations.[33]
The U.S. government should create a fund to empower democracy advocates across the Middle East. This money should not be distributed to any groups or trade unions affiliated with oppressive regimes. Both Assad’s regime in Damascus and other dictators throughout the Middle East are savvy enough to set up front groups to channel funds away from legitimate civil society. Already, the Syrian Baath party has embraced reforms to co-opt the movement and ensure that reforms never threaten Assad’s autocratic rule. In June 2004, an anonymous Syrian opposition leader claimed that the Baath party has infiltrated all internal opposition groups.[34]
The war against Saddam Hussein breathed new life into reform movements in the Middle East. Three years ago, the words reform, democracy, and freedom of expression were relegated to the lexicon of a very small group of Arab intellectuals. In September 2000, an Arabic-language Google search of the word “reform” (islah) yielded less than 2,000 mentions; in October 2004 these increased to 25,000. There still is a long way to go, though; the word jihad gets almost 90,000 mentions.
While the Western democracies may ignore the nascent reform movements, dictatorial regimes across the Middle East are increasingly worried about their own growing democracy movements. Nowhere is this truer than in my homeland, Syria. Short of sending troops into Syria, however—an outcome neither Americans nor Syrians want—democracy will be an elusive dream unless the U.S. government is willing to support reformists publicly and fund them properly. A meeting in the White House with a Syrian democratic leader will send clear signals to Syria and beyond that change is on its way, thereby encouraging faster reforms.
Hmm, I wonder which Syrian democratic leader he could have in mind? Surely not himself? Ghadry, the leader of the Reform Party of Syria, has been the subject of a number of articles recently about his quest to be the Syrian Ahmed Chalabi, except less arrogant. You can also read Ghadry’s articles at the National Review.
Naji Najjar, another exiled liberator, writes in Arutz Sheva, the once-banned Israeli settler radio station, begging for military help from Israel and America to get rid of the Syrians. His site has more.
Reuters has a piece with some reaction in Syria, which is saying Lebanon is ungrateful because Syria kept it from war:
“There is a feeling that they want to turn anything into a pretext,” said analyst Ahmad Samir al-Taqi of the latest U.S. move. “The recalling of the ambassador is a form of escalation in the direction of resolution 1559,” he added.
Lebanese opposition figures such as Druze politician Walid Jumblatt and exiled Christian general Michel Aoun swiftly accused Damascus after Hariri’s death, provoking anger in Syria.
“They are shameless, absolutely shameless,” raged Um Said, an elderly woman shopper waving a lettuce.
“Now we are no good? Now Syrians are their enemy? Don’t they remember our sons who ran to help them?” she asked.
Sad in so many ways.
Categories: Lebanon, Syria.
The following is from Gordon Thomas’ book, “Gideon’s Spies”:
Farid Ghadry is the Ahmad Chalabi-wannabe of Syria. He has no constitutency in Syria at all. I have never even met a member of the Syrian opposition that think Ghadry, or his project the reform party of Syria, is a positive or attractive addition to their movement. Indeed, as late as last Summer he was still listing Rifat al-Asad as a villian of the regime although he was in exile since 1984 (only returning twice - once for his mother, Na`isa funneral in 1992 and another time for Basil’s funneral in 1994). He is no longer there so someone must have alerted him to Rifat absence from Syria.
Ghadry and the Reform Party of Syria is rooted in distributing misinformation and smacks of political opportunism.
I agree we shoud read what the nut says because I am sure he is hearing people whisper in his ear, I just don’t think what comes out means very much as Ghadry is marginal by any account.
I believe that the information circulating in the Israeli press on Hizbollah involvement in the Hariri killing , originating from Israeli intelligence sources, should be taken very cautiously. Sylvain Shalom, the Israeli FM, has pressurised France on lifting its objection to the EU blacklisting of Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation - Chirac has however resisted this. The Hizbollah has been accused of fomenting plots against the life of Abou Mazen, quite an incredible assertion knowing the responsible way in which Hizbollah has behaved on the Lebanese-Israeli border since May 2000.
The allegations against Hizbollah must also be seen against the backdrop of the ongoing campaign against Iran - knowing the close ties between the two, aiming at Hizbollah implies aiming at Iran too.
In the absence of any concrete evidence pointing either way, we must be very cautious towards any information relying on anonymous and unquestioned “intelligence sources”, be they Israeli, Western or Syrian.
“This site says that Maariv, the Israeli Hebrew-language daily, has an article saying Israeli intelligence thinks Hizbullah did it.”
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART/870/687.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite%3Fpagename%3DJPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid%3D1108437732785
Meanwhile, an IDF intelligence officer on Tuesday accused Syria of being the “logical” perpetrator of Monday’s assassination. According to the official, Syria might have targeted Hariri in advance of the May elections as he opposed Syrian occupation. Hariri also backed UN resolution 1559, which called on Syria to pull out of Lebanon. The officer predicted that the international community would blame Syria and initiate a confrontation with it.
At the same time, the intelligence officer did not rule out the idea that Hizbullah was responsible, noting that it had been willing to take bigger risks and had unfinished business with Hariri. Another possible suspect was the “world jihad,” which might have carried out the act as part of its campaign against corruption, he said.
[Israel "belives", but has no information ... they want to share with us.]
well far from the cliche zionist line here advocated by shual, I thing one must lanswer the question ” who did it” by answering first “who is benefiting from it?” my answer is that the only benefiting parties are The opposition ( opportunist Jumblat+ fascist political maromism) and Israel that is seeking to disarm Hizbollah, criminalize syria and destabilize lebanon and the whole region in order to sabotage the talks with the palestinians.
as a lebanese citizen, I can not at all relate to the anti-syrian frenzy in lebanon, and eventhough i am aware of the abuses by the syrian and the lebanese government of the limits of a healthy relationships between two countries, I still have an impression that the balance of that relationship is more positive than negative.
one must also not forget that lebanon is divided along secterian lines for themoments, and the Shia who constitute the majority in the country are expresively pro-syrian. just to bring some perspective
another interesting angle that was also discussed at the arab revolution blog is Hariri’s involvement in an active lobbying process in Paris and Brussels to counter the Israel efforts of puting hizbollah on the list of terrorist organisation of the EU. and with succes. I dont think the Isrealis appreciated that, and taking out such an asset odf arab public relations in the west is very useful wont you say?
the FT on the financial situation in Lebanon and market speculation.
Sam,
I did not advocate something. Issandr asked for “articles elsewhere in the Hebrew press” … where an Israeli intelligence officer was cited and thats what I showed.
I showed it because after reading the short english version of Issandr, one could think that Israeli agencies have evidences. And thats not the case.
For me, the scale of possible delinquents is extremly wide, so every speculation is useless until the independent enquiry is finish [hahaha].
@ Kate
Please change your link: html — not html/ at the end.
is there a way to edit posts? this is what i meant to link to. i hope it works now!
Kate, thanks for the link and insight. I definitely think there’s a lot of Syrian money in Lebanon. But I also suspect that whatever arrangement is made will take that into consideration, and in fact there are many people in Lebanon who would have an interest in keeping similar economic relations with Syria. Syria has vastly cheaper labor, electricity, etc… than Lebanon and many Lebanese have been building factories there (even as they complained that the Syrians competed unfairly.) I think that even after a withdrawal relations between the two have a chance of continuing more or less as before on a business level, but hopefully without the kleptomania that has practiced by some Syrians. Characters like Rami Makhlouf, a Syrian relative of Assad, have too many good busienss partners in Lebanon.
Shual,
Thanks for the links and translations. Sam, I think Shual was just letting us know what the press said, he wasn’t saying he agreed with it.
got an insightful text on the site of the Arab European League, very interesting analysis must read:
http://www.arabeuropean.org/live/index.php/federal/