Home >> Middle East >> Syria & Lebanon

     Email   Print 

Syrian Foreign Policy is To Avoid Being Ignored

Manuela Paraipan - 4/9/2005

The attacks of September 11, 2001 served as a wake up call for the United States and the world. The main priorities of various US administrations in the Middle East for a long time was oil and opposition to communism. As long as oil prices were low, the US turned a blind eye to religious intolerance, preaching of hatred toward the US, Israel and Europe, Islamic terrorist actions and everything else. Saudi Arabia was allowed to treat their women as it chose and the Syrian army and intelligence in Lebanon became a friendly presence protecting the country from Israel, rather than an occupying force.

After 9/11, the policy exploded in flames, and the Bush administration realized that "everything else" could no longer be ignored. Has the US made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course it did. But by intervening in Arab or Muslim countries, the region is now on the verge of social and political uprising and in two or three decades, the Middle East may be a much better place because of the Afghanistan and Iraq intervention.

The revolution began outside the Middle East with the Afghan elections. That was followed by Iraqi elections. In between, came free Palestinian elections that produced a moderate, reform-oriented leadership. Demonstrations for democracy led President Hosni Mubarak to call for the amendment of the Constitution. He declared his intention "to give the opportunity to political parties to enter the presidential elections and provide guarantees that allow more than one candidate to be put forward to the presidency." And now, the Lebanese peaceful Intifada in Lebanon, where the assassination of opposition leader Rafiq al-Hariri fuelled an explosion of people power in the streets that brought down the pro-Syrian government in Beirut.

The opposition lead by the Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt intends to:

· Form a neutral transitional government which will be in charge of:
· Find out who killed former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri on 14 February
· Pave the way for free parliamentary elections in May
· Negotiate a timetable for a full Syrian withdrawal.

Traditionally, a new Prime Minister who can form the transitional government is chosen as a result of consultations between the President and the MPs. The current Lebanese President, Emile Lahoud, is deeply unpopular because of his close ties to Syria. Although, both he and the opposition shown readiness to start consultations, President Lahoud. The Lebanese opposition need to stand united and to attract the Shiites. While Christian, Druze and Sunni Muslim groups have all united to demand an end to Damascus interference, there is little Shia representation in their ranks. Hezbollah is Lebanon's largest Shia political movement, while the other major force is the staunchly pro-Syrian Amal party headed by the parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri.

Both Amal and Hezbollah have yet failed to say if they will join the opposition or not. While it is likely that Hezbollah would get its orders on how to behave from Tehran, which probably means standing fast in its backing for Syria, as Sheikh Nasralalh proved with his latest pro-Syria and pro-Assad rally in Beirut, it is difficult to predict what Nabih Berri will chose for Amal. Amal's political creed is Shiite nationalist but not Islamist, therefore has generally advocated reform rather than abolition of the confessionalism existing system. On the other hand we have Hezbollah, the more religious Shiit party. Hezbollah is the perfect symbol of a state within a state. Unlike the other militias, Hezbollah didn't disarm after the 1989 Taef Acoord, and refused to do so even after the IDF quit southern Lebanon in 2000. Its guerrilla is virtually autonomous in South Lebanon and has been used in the past by Syria and Iran to enforce their regional policies and interests. The former Sunni Prime Minister, Salim Hoss announced the formation of a new political party, under the banner of "The Third Force"; this independent coalition will bring together the Arab nationalists, the communists, the socialists and others eager to take a stand on the Lebanese political stage.


International Reaction to Damascus Reluctance to obey the UN 1559

While the pressure from the Arab leaders is veiled, Western governments have become increasingly blunt. US officials said Washington and European allies wanted to be ready to act quickly, perhaps with sanctions and a tougher United Nations resolution, if Syria failed to pull out its army troops and intelligence before the May Parliamentary elections.

US President George W. Bush warned nothing short of a full withdrawal would satisfy Washington. "When we say withdraw we mean complete withdrawal - no half-hearted measures," Bush warned President Bashar Assad. "Syrian troops, and the Syrian intelligence services must get out of Lebanon now."

Saudi Arabia and Egypt have also called for Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon. So have France and Russia, long-time allies and patrons of Damascus. Talks between Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad about his country's withdrawal from Lebanon were "fruitful", as Prince Abdullah declared afterwards. However, if Assad will not start soon a complete withdrawal and not a redeployment of the troops in the Bekaa Valley, the Syrian/Saudi relations will suffer.


What is Syria accused of?

The Lebanese opposition is accusing Syria of flagrantly interfering in the Lebanese domestic affairs and of being behind the former PM Rafik Al Hariri's assassinate. Syria handpicked the Maronite President Emile Lahoud, and in November 2003 it prolonged his mandate with three more years although the Lebanese people asked for fair and democratic Presidential elections. Syria denies any connection with Hariri's assassination. Syria probably assumed that no one would say it was Damascus action, since it looks so foolish to shot itself in the foot. Following this assumption, Syria had nothing to lose. By killing Harriri, someone else would be blamed, they would prove that Lebanon is not stable and further more they would have been able to say that their presence in Lebanon is needed.

It is also plausible to assume that there might have been internal power struggles in Syria at Lebanon's expense. But, if the assassination has not been plotted in Damascus, then how come the Lebanese government through its secret service did not react to such a plan? Where were the Lebanese protection forces when Hariri's assassination was being planned?

If the Lebanese government cannot assure the safety of its people, then it should sep down, as it did as the increasing internal pressure to do so. That is valid for Syria, as well. No matter why they are in Lebanon, by flagrantly trespassing the Lebanese sovereignty, if the Syrians are worthless in terms of security, then they should get out as soon as possible.

Syria is thought of supporting various Palestinian terrorist organizations headquartered in Damascus that give orders for acts of murder in Israel and the undermining of the political process with the Palestinians, dispatches terrorists to Iraq, supplies Syrian rockets to Hezbollah and integrates the terror group into the Syrian army network - all these, in addition to its negative cooperation with Iran, are undermining the already fragile regional stability. At the recent Arab League meeting in Cairo, the Arab nations overwhelmingly called on Syria to fulfil the 1989 Taef Accord that ended Lebanon's 15-year civil war. The accord, which spells out the special relationship between Beirut and Damascus, also provides a framework for the beginning of a complete withdrawal of Syrian forces.

"We have to contain, with all our capabilities, the existing big problems and to shift the current situation into a safer position," said the Arab League Secretary General, Amr Moussa. Although, the international community and the Arab regimes are pressuring Damascus to change its policy in regard to Lebanon, there is no sign yet that the Syrian government understands the depth of the crisis. Even if it did, it is hard to give up at Lebanon, because a defeat in Beirut could be the end of Assad's regime at home.

President Assad Speech Raises Suspicion

In a rare address to parliament, Syrian President Bashar Assad announced Damascus plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Lebanon, while still maintaining a 3,000 garrison in the Bekaa Valley. However, he failed to include a timeline for the removal of all troops and the intelligence services.

The Lebanese opposition members, the French government and Washington have made clear that a timetable for a complete Syrian withdrawal is absolutely necessary to end the anti-Syrian uprising that has broken out on the streets of Beirut and that no less will be accepted.

Chibli Mallat, a well-known Lebanese lawyer and political analyst declared that Assad's speech is disappointing and that the Lebanese street is angered by Damascus insistence to dictate in Lebanon. President Assad declared, "We would not stay one day if there was Lebanese consensus on the departure of Syria," failing to state that what happens in Lebanon still very much depends on Damascus influence.

In an attempt of showing the world that Syria is not willing to bow in front of the US pressure, President Assad emphasized that Syria's two-stage pullout in accordance with the Taef Accord, does not mean the end of the Syrian role in Lebanon. "What was good 15 years ago, under a scenario that included the
occupation of Southern Lebanon, is not good enough today," said Nayla Mouawad, a Maronite Christian member of parliament. Assad's "promises must include a clear timeline to leave Lebanon completely. Otherwise, we will not trust Syria." The key question now is whether his speech will satisfy President Bush demands who has warned Damascus that he expects nothing less than a full, quick pullout from Lebanon. And, if Assad's move is not enough, what will US do next? Syria has long argued that it needs to retain troops in Lebanon because of Israel's continued occupation of the Golan Heights, seized from Damascus in the 1967 Middle East war. President Assad preferred mantra is that peace in Middle East is not possible without the return by Israel of the Golan Heights to Syria.

"Peace in our region will never be achieved unless our land that is occupied is returned to us," he said. Previously, President Assad in an interview with the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica linked the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon to guarantees of an Israeli-Syrian peace deal.

Sharon has brushed aside Assad's recent peace overtures, apparently because he is unwilling to pay the territorial price - relinquishing the Golan Heights, at a time when he is set to leave the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. In the context of the present Lebanese/Syrian tensions, Foreign Minister Shalom emphasized Israel's interest to have a good, neighbourly relation with Lebanon. He said "I hope freedom from Syrian occupation will give them freedom and independence and the possibility of maybe holding a dialogue with the State of Israel."

Reacting to President Assad address to the Parliament, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom declared: "Israel demands a full implementation of U.N. Resolution 1559, meaning a complete withdrawal of all Syrian troops from Lebanon." Israel is
therefore supporting the democratic move in Lebanon, hoping that an international pressure in Damascus will decrease Assad's regime cooperation with the terror organizations that put in danger the Sharm Al Sheikh agreement between Abbas and PM Sharon to cease all hostilities.

The Jordanian Foreign Minister Hani al-Mulqi also called on Syria to withdraw. "Implementation of the resolution should result in a stronger and undivided Lebanon." Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of the US House of Representatives, issued a stern warning to Assad: "Barra Syria Barra", meaning "Out Syria,Out." She urged the Lebanese people to continue exerting their rights and let their voices be heard. As, for the statement of President Assad, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen characterized it as a "classic double-speak by Assad and a transparent attempt to delay the inevitable."

She further said "We will fail the Lebanese people if the US does not increase the pressure on the Syrian regime by applying all remaining sanctions prescribed in US law. The United Nations would have failed the Lebanese people and its own mandate, if steps are not taken to ensure Syrian compliance with the UNSC Resolution 1559."

At the Arab Summit that will take place in Algiers, later this month Syria and Lebanon are on the top of the agenda. The Arab regimes are mindful that the UN 1559, the France or US pressure will not go away, thus Syria must pay attention to the community around it. On the other hand, some fear that the compliance with the UN resolution will merely be the prelude of a political regime change in Damascus. Although, the feelings are mixed among the Arab leaders they are fully aware that the international community's repeated warning to Syria may have serious repercussions if President Assad will continue to ignore them.