Subject: Informative article on Syria Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:45:10 -0600 Message-ID: <B14120EE5C432443B21102F7925DAD02014205E9@COKE.uwec.edu> From: "Grossman, Zoltan C." <GROSSMZC@uwec.edu>
ALL SET FOR WAR WITH SYRIA
by Stephen Zunes, March 2, 2005
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0502hariri.html
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=5017
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of
the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University
of San Francisco. He is Middle East editor for Foreign
Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) and the author of
Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of
Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
The broader implications of the Feb. 14 assassination
of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was
seen by many as the embodiment of the Lebanese people's
efforts to rebuild their country in the aftermath of
its 15-year civil war, are yet to unfold. A Sunni
Muslim, Hariri reached out to all of Lebanon's ethnic
and religious communities in an effort to unite the
country after decades of violence waged by heavily
armed militias and foreign invaders.
The assassination took place against the backdrop of a
growing political crisis in Lebanon. This began in
September 2004, when Syria successfully pressured the
Lebanese parliament, in an act of dubious
constitutionality, to extend the term of the unpopular
pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, a move roundly
condemned by the international community. Washington
was particularly virulent in its criticism, which can
only be considered ironic, given that the United States
attempted a similar maneuver back in 1958 to extend the
term of the pro-American president Camille Chamoun. The
result was a popular uprising suppressed only when
President Dwight Eisenhower sent in U.S. Marines.
Hariri had his critics, particularly among the
country's poor majority, whose situation deteriorated
under the former prime minister's adoption of a number
of controversial neoliberal economic policies. A multi-
billionaire businessman prior to becoming prime
minister, there were widespread charges of corruption
in the awarding of contracts, many of which went to a
company largely owned by Hariri himself. A number of
treasured historic buildings relatively undamaged from
war were demolished to make room for grandiose
construction projects.
The size and sophistication of the explosion that
killed Hariri, his bodyguards, and several bystanders
have led many to speculate that foreign intelligence
units may have been involved. Initial speculation has
focused on the Syrians, who had previously worked
closely with Hariri as prime minister. That
relationship was broken by the Syrians' successful
effort to extend the term of President Lahoud, with
whom Hariri had frequently clashed as prime minister.
As a result, Hariri was poised to lead an anti-Syrian
front in the upcoming parliamentary elections in May.
Hariri made lots of other enemies as well, however,
including rival Lebanese groups, the Israeli
government, Islamic extremists, and powerful financiers
with interests in his multi-billion dollar
reconstruction efforts. A previously-unknown group
calling itself "Victory and Jihad in Syria and Lebanon"
claimed responsibility for the attack, citing Hariri's
close ties to the repressive Saudi monarchy. As of this
writing, there is no confirmation that they were
responsible for the blast or if such a group even
exists.
While Syria remains the primary suspect, no evidence
has been presented to support the charge. Damascus has
publicly condemned the killings and denied
responsibility. Syria's regime, while certainly
ruthless enough to do such a thing, is usually not so
brazen. They would have little to gain from uniting the
Lebanese opposition against them or for provoking the
United States and other Western nations to further
isolate their government.
The United States, however, has indirectly implicated
Syria in the attack and has withdrawn its ambassador
from Damascus.
Syria's Role in Lebanon
Syrian forces first entered Lebanon in 1976 at the
invitation of the Lebanese president as the primary
component of an international peacekeeping force
authorized by the Arab League to try to end Lebanon's
civil war. The United States quietly supported the
Syrian intervention as a means of blocking the likely
victory by the leftist Lebanese National Movement and
its Palestinian allies. As the civil war continued in
varying manifestations in subsequent years, the Syrians
would often play one faction off against another in an
effort to maintain their influence. Despite this, they
were unable to defend the country from the U.S.-backed
Israeli invasion in 1982, the installation of the
Phalangist Amin Gemayel as president, and the U.S.
military intervention to help prop up Gemayel's
rightist government against a popular uprising.
Finally, in late 1990, Syrian forces helped the
Lebanese oust the unpopular interim Prime Minister
General Michel Aoun, which proved instrumental in
ending the 15-year civil war. (Given that General
Aoun's primary outside supporter was Iraq's Saddam
Hussein, the United States quietly backed this Syrian
action as well.)
The end of the civil war did not result in the end of
the Syrian role in Lebanon, however. Most Lebanese at
this point resent the ongoing presence of Syrian troops
and Syria's overbearing influence on their government.
The Bush administration, Congressional leaders of both
parties, and prominent media commentators have
increasingly made reference to "the Syrian occupation
of Lebanon." Strictly speaking, however, this is not an
occupation in the legal sense of the word, such as in
the case of Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara or
Israel's occupation of Syria's Golan region and much of
the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank (including
East Jerusalem), all of which are recognized by the
United Nations and international legal authorities as
non-self-governing territories. Lebanon has experienced
direct foreign military occupation, however: from 1978
to 2000, Israel occupied a large section of southern
Lebanon and n from June 1982 through May 1984 n much of
central Lebanon as well, resulting in the deaths of
thousands of Lebanese civilians.
A more accurate analogy to the current Syrian role
would be that of the Soviets in the Warsaw Pact
countries of Eastern Europe during much of the Cold
War, in which these nations were effectively client
states. They were allowed to maintain their
independence and distinct national institutions yet
were denied their right to pursue an autonomous course
in their foreign and domestic policies.
Currently, Syria has only 14,000 troops in Lebanon,
mostly in the Bekaa Valley in the eastern part of the
country, a substantial reduction from the 40,000 Syrian
troops present in earlier years. This does not mean
that calls for an immediate withdrawal of Syrian forces
and an end to Syrian interference in Lebanon's
political affairs are not morally and legally
justified. However, the use of the term "occupation" by
American political leaders is an exaggeration and may
be designed in part to divert attention from the
continuing U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial
support of the real ongoing military occupations by
Israel and Morocco.
In September of last year, the United States n along
with France and Great Britain n sponsored a resolution
before the UN Security Council that, among other
things, called upon "all remaining foreign forces to
withdraw from Lebanon." UN Security Council resolution
1559 was adopted with six abstentions and no negative
votes and builds upon UN Security Council resolution
520, adopted in 1982, which similarly calls for the
withdrawal of foreign forces.
The Bush administration, with widespread bipartisan
Congressional support, has cited Syria's ongoing
violation of these resolutions in placing sanctions
upon Syria. Ironically, however, no such pressure was
placed upon Israel for violating UNSC resolution 520
and nine other resolutions (the first being adopted in
1978) calling on Israel to withdraw its forces from
Lebanon. In fact, during the Clinton administration,
the U.S. openly called on Israel to not unilaterally
withdraw from Lebanon as required, even as public
opinion polls in Israel showed that a sizable majority
of Israelis supported an end to the Israeli occupation,
during which hundreds of Israeli soldiers were killed.
Today, many of the most outspoken supporters of a
strict enforcement of UNSC resolution 1559 n such as
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California n were
also among the most prominent opponents of enforcing
similar resolutions when they were directed at Israel.
In short, both Republicans and Democrats agree that
Lebanese sovereignty and international law must be
defended only if the government challenging these
principles is not a U.S. ally.
(Israel was finally forced out of Lebanon in May 2000
as a result of attacks by the militant Lebanese Shi'ite
group Hezbollah. Four months later, the Palestinian
uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West
Bank and Gaza Strip began. Militant Palestinians claim
they were inspired by the fact that Israel ended its
22-year occupation not because of the U.S.-led peace
process and not because of the United Nations n which
was blocked by the United States from enforcing its
resolutions n but because of armed struggle by radical
Islamists. Though, for a number of reasons, such
tactics are unlikely to succeed in the occupied
Palestinian territories, the support of extremist
Islamist groups and the use of violence by large
sectors of the Palestinian population under Israeli
occupation can for the most part be attributed to the
United States refusing to support an Israeli withdrawal
from southern Lebanon through diplomatic means.)
What Next?
Whether or not the Syrians played a role in Hariri's
assassination, his death will likely escalate pressure
by the Lebanese to challenge Syria's domination of
their government. Once centered primarily in the
country's Maronite Christian community, anti-Syrian
sentiment is growing among Lebanese from across the
ethnic and ideological spectrum. Ultimately, the
country's fate will be determined by the Lebanese
themselves. If the United States presses the issue too
strongly, however, it risks hardening Syria's position
and allowing Damascus to defend its ongoing domination
of Lebanon behind anti-imperialist rhetoric.
While there are many areas in which the Syrian regime
of Bashar al-Assad should indeed be challenged, such as
its overbearing influence in Lebanon and its poor human
rights record, there is a genuine fear that increased
U.S. efforts to isolate the regime and the concomitant
threats of military action against Syria will undermine
the efforts of Lebanese and Syrians demanding change.
One major problem is that most charges against the
Syrian government by the Bush administration and the
Congressional leadership of both parties are rife with
hyperbole and double standards.
For example, the United States has demanded that Syria
eliminate its long-range and medium-range missiles,
while not insisting that pro-Western neighbors like
Turkey and Israel n with far more numerous and
sophisticated missiles on their territory n similarly
disarm. The United States has also insisted that Syria
unilaterally eliminate its chemical weapons stockpiles,
while not making similar demands on U.S. allies Israel
and Egypt n which have far larger chemical weapons
stockpiles n to do the same. The United States has
demanded an end to political repression and for free
and fair elections in Syria while not making similar
demands of even more repressive and autocratic regimes
in allied countries like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.
Contrary to U.S. charges that Syria is a major state
supporter of international terrorism, Syria is at most
a very minor player. The U.S. State Department has
noted how Syria has played a critical role in efforts
to combat al-Qaeda and that the Syrian government has
not been linked to any acts of international terrorism
for nearly 20 years. The radical Palestinian Islamist
groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have political offices
in Damascus, as they do in a number of Arab capitals,
but they are not allowed to conduct any military
activities. A number of left-wing Palestinian factions
also maintain offices in Syria, but these groups are
now largely defunct and have not engaged in terrorist
operations for many years.
Much has been made of Syrian support for the radical
Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah. However, not only has
Syrian support for the group been quite minimal in
recent years, the group is now a legally recognized
Lebanese political party and serves in the Lebanese
parliament. During the past decade, its militia have
largely restricted their use of violence to Israeli
occupation forces in southern Lebanon and in disputed
border regions of Israeli-occupied Syria, not against
civilians, thereby raising serious questions as to
whether it can actually still be legally considered a
terrorist group.
Currently, the Bush administration has expressed its
dismay at Russia's decision to sell Syria anti-aircraft
missiles, claiming that it raises questions in regard
to President Vladimir Putin's commitment against
terrorism. The administration has been unable to
explain, however, how selling defensive weapons to an
internationally recognized government aids terrorists.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Congressional
leaders have also accused Syria of threatening the
Arab-Israeli peace process. However, Syria has pledged
to provide Israel with internationally enforced
security guarantees and full diplomatic relations in
return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Syrian
territory seized in the 1967 war, in concordance with
UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, long
recognized as the basis for peace. They have also
called for a renewal of peace talks with Israel, which
came very close to a permanent peace agreement in early
2000. However, the right-wing U.S.-backed Israeli
government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has refused
to resume negotiations and pledges it will never
withdraw from the Golan, thereby raising questions as
to whether it is really Syria that is primarily at
fault.
Another questionable anti-Syrian charge is in regard to
their alleged support of Saddam Hussein and ongoing
support of anti-American insurgents in Iraq. In
reality, though both ruled by the Ba'ath Party, Syria
had broken diplomatic relations with Baghdad back in
the 1970s and was the home of a number of anti-Saddam
exile groups. Syria and Iraq backed rival factions in
Lebanon's civil war. Syria was the only country to side
with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and contributed
troops to the U.S.-led Operation Desert Shield in
reaction to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Syria, as a non-
permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2002,
supported the U.S.-backed resolution 1441 demanding
that Iraq cooperate with UN inspectors or else face
"severe consequences." The Syrian government has
substantially beefed up security along its borders with
Iraq, and U.S. military officials have acknowledged
that relatively few foreign fighters have actually
entered Iraq via Syria. Most critically, there is no
reason that Syria would want the insurgents to succeed,
given that the primary insurgent groups are either
supporters of the old anti-Syrian regime in Baghdad or
are Islamist extremists similar to those who seriously
challenged the Syrian government in 1982 before being
brutally suppressed. Given that Assad's regime is
dominated by Syria's Alawite minority, which has much
closer ties to Iraq's Shi'ites than with the Sunnis who
dominate the Arab and Islamic world, and that the
Shi'ite-dominated slate that won the recent Iraqi
elections shares their skepticism about the U.S. role
in the Middle East, they would have every reason to
want to see the newly elected Iraqi government succeed
so U.S. troops could leave.
Despite the highly questionable assertions that form
the basis of the Bush administration's antipathy toward
Syria, there have essentially been no serious
challenges to the Bush administration's policy on
Capitol Hill. Indeed, Democratic House leader Nancy
Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid have
strongly defended President George W. Bush's policies
toward Iraq and Lebanon and helped push through strict
sanctions against Syria based upon these same
exaggerations and double standards. (See my article
"The Syria Accountability Act and the Triumph of
Hegemony," Oct. 27, 2003
http://www.fpif.org/papers/syriaact2003.html) During
the 2004 election campaign, Senator John Kerry, the
Democratic presidential nominee, criticized President
Bush for not being anti-Syrian enough.
Among the few dissenters is Senator Robert Byrd of West
Virginia, who expressed his concern to Secretary of
State Rice during recent hearings on Capitol Hill that
the tough talk against Syria was remarkably similar to
what was heard in regard to Iraq a few years earlier.
One of only eight members of Congress to vote against
the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act in the fall of 2003, he warned his
fellow senators that the language was broad enough that
the administration might later claim it authorized
military action against Syria.
As long as the vast majority of Democrats are afraid to
appear "soft" toward the Syrian dictatorship and as
long as so few progressive voices are willing to
challenge the Democrats, President Bush appears to have
few obstacles in his way should he once again choose to
lead the country to war.