Opinion-editorials decyphered - 22 November 2005
Hariri Assassination: No more need for evidence against Syria?

Voltaire Network

22 November 2005

Tools

Print
Send

All the versions of this article:

français
Español
русский

Countries
Lebanon
Syria

Themes
Global war on "terrorism"
Covert Action: government overthrows, psychological warfare...
Control of the "Great Middle East"

Authors and Sources of Op-Eds Decyphered

“The Syrian equation”

Author Alexandre Adler

Former colalborator of LeMonde, Libération, Point and L’Express, and former editorial director of Courrier international, Alexandre Adler is a reporter with Le Figaro and Proche-Orient.Info. Known for his pro-Israel and Atlantist positions, he described as “Jewish traitors” several Jewish personalities who opposed Ariel Sharon’s policies. He is the author of J’ai vu finir le monde ancien ("I witnessed the end of the old world").

Source Le Figaro (France)
Reference “L’équation syrienne”, by Alexandre Adler, Le Figaro, October 27, 2005.

Summary After Iraq, comes Syria. Nobody imagined that the solid dictatorship of Hafez El Assad would show such brutality and impotence. Contrary to his successor, the founder of the Syrian regime knew how to mix uncommon brutality with an irrefutable diplomatic cover.
However, today, the list of Damascus’ traditional adversaries – Israel and the Palestinian Authority – adds new ones: Turkey, very close to the former Lebanese Prime Minister; Saudi Arabia, for the same reasons; Iraq, where the Shiites fight the insurrection backed by Syria and Jordan, which at the same time fights the Iraqi jihadists and Palestinian extremists that walk the streets of Damascus. For a while, it hoped to take advantage of Ahmadineyad’s victory in Iran but Tehran wants to eliminate the Iraqi jihadists, which would facilitate Shiite control in the country. Washington, Paris, Riad, and Moscow had betted on the stabilization of Lebanon with Syria’s approval but, today, they feel deceived by Damascus and they will not help a cornered regime.Moscow had resumed the delivery of weapons to Syria some months ago but Damascus is not a priority for them. For Russia, it is necessary to create an alliance with Egypt and Iran maintaining good relations with Israel and the United States.
However, the biggest threat for the current Syrian regime is the reformist and technocratic party that has taken control in Damascus little by little under the unfortunate and inefficient protection of Bachar Assad. This party mainly supports the complete normalization of diplomatic relations, and consequently the withdrawal from Lebanon, the shutting down of bases of the Iraqi jihad and the gradual withdrawal of Hamas in Palestine. The circle close to Bachar Assad still hopes to open the country and to reconcile with the United States and with France under the sponsorship of Putin’s Russia and of Rafsanyani in Iran. We are not far from a conflict between the Syrian factions and the hard liners could attempt to stage a coup d’état against the reformists.

“Accountability for Syria”

Author

Source Washington Post (United States)
Reference “Accountability for Syria”, by the editorial team of the Washington Post, Washington Post, October 22, 2005.

Summary The Bush administration was right when it quickly reacted to the UN report that links Syria to the assassination of Rafic Hariri. The United States and France would work today in the drafting of two resolutions that demand the Bachar El Assad government justify its actions. Washington has many reasons to pressure Damascus, considering its support of foreign terrorists and the Sunni uprising in Iraq. But the very same Mehlis report demands urgent reaction.
Syria must be forced to cooperate and the crimes ordered by the state should be punished in the Middle East. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the only regime supporting terrorism is Assad’s. Some affirm he is a victim of the supporters Syria’s hard liners, but the Mehlis report says the opposite. We should do with Syria the same as we did with Libya in 1988.

“Punishing Syria will boomerang”

Author Amir Taheri

Amir Taheri is an Iranian journalist and editor of the French newspaper Politique Internationale. He is an expert at the Benador Associates department in New York. He recently co-authored Irak: Le Dessous des Cartes together with Patrick Wajsman.

Source Gulf News
Reference “Punishing Syria will boomerang”, by Amir Taheri, Gulf News, October 26, 2005.

Summary While the Security Council discusses the Mehlis report, thinking about the best and the worst of all possible scenarios is convenient. At the very best, the Security Council would ask Syria to cooperate and it will agree. Therefore, inspectors will be allowed to question the suspects. In the worst case, Syria would be condemned by the Security Council and Damascus will face this organization. Consequently, it will be punished. None of the scenarios is good.
We should recall that Hariri’s assassination is the inevitable result of a political model created by Syria that has made killings a normal practice. Syria has founded a system based on violence and repression. As long as the system lasts, crimes and violations will persist, no matter if Syria was responsible for the assassination of Hariri or not. However, if the Damascus regime “cooperates”, it could save time, paradoxically. Meanwhile, the pro-Syria Lebanese leaders will continue their work in Lebanon; Syria will maintain its support to the Hezbollah and the Iraqi terrorists whereas opponents will remain in jail. Likewise, if sanctions are imposed, the regime will not be destroyed and its attitude won’t change.
The only possible way out is a change of government.

“Silence on Syria”

Author Natan Sharansky

Former Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky is president and founder of the Yisrael B’Alyia Anglos Party , which has joined the Likud. Former Minister of the Diaspora and Jerusalem in the government of Ariel Sharon, he resigned to show his opposition to the Retreat from Gaza Plan.

Source Jerusalem Post (Israel)
Reference “Silence on Syria”, by Natan Sharansky, Jerusalem Post, October 27, 2005.

Summary Ties between the United States and Israel are based on common interests and values that they both share. In view of these strong ties, we can disagree sometimes. But, there is a point in which our disagreement turns difficult. The core of the Bush administration policy in the region is democratization. It is the only possibility of having peace in the region. However, Jerusalem’s political leaders reject this approach and this makes the opposition of the department of State to George W. Bush’s policy worse and allows it to better resist Condoleezza Rice’s reform efforts.
George W. Bush’s policy, however, has brought about democratization in Lebanon as well as the development of democratic movements in Egypt or Kuwait. Nowadays, the United States accuses Syria. Damascus is the main bastion of terrorism in the region and the Mehlis report proves its involvement in the assassination of Rafic Hariri. So, this is a great opportunity to change the regime in the country. Unfortunately, Israel does not support this for it prefers a soft dictatorship and not a democracy. Assad’s regime is rotten inside; the coup de grâce should be a shot and the search for strong men in the Arab world should be stopped. Israel should collaborate with the United States.

“Only fundamentalist Islamists can defeat Jihadism”

Author Reuel Marc Gerecht

Reuel Marc Gerecht is a former CIA officer. He has published several works against the Iranian ayatollahs under the pseudonym of Edward Shirley. He is a member of the American Enterprise Institue and the Project for a New American Century.

Source Die Welt (Germany)
Reference “Die Demokratisierung im Irak macht Fortschritte”, by Reuel Marc Gerecht, Die Welt, October 20, 2005.

Summary What are the interests of the United States in encouraging democracy in the Middle East? It would be good for the Muslims to decide by themselves what their future will be. To debate together, to discuss, to shout at themselves...is the only way to undermine and destroy Jihad. .
The liberal and secular side in the West accuses us of taking the risk of seeing the arrival in power of the Muslim Brothers or other Islamist parties. However, it should be known that the Muslim Brothers are fundamentalists and not Jihadists. The Muslims’ cultural traditions, the importance they give to shariah, do not mean they automatically favour dictatorships more than others. Since WWII, they have suffered extremely painful experiences for they have been submitted to different dictatorships and such repression has helped them to understand that they must find another form of political government. But liberals and progressives like us do not have many chances to destroy binladenism in a philosophical arena. We can not win people’s feelings or will, we do not have enough influence on the majority of the population in the Middle East, an influence which is being defined more and more on the basis of religious criteria. All that is secular here has a bad reputation for it’s too linked to dictatorships supported by the West and the dissolute customs of western society. The only ones who can defeat the Jihad ideology are the fundamentalist Islamists.

“Has Syria been blixed?”

Author Linda S. Heard

Political analyst and journalist, Linda S. Heard is a specialist of the Middle East. Her articles are published in Gulf News, Dar Al-Hayat, Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor.

Source Gulf News
Reference “Has Syria been ’blixed’?”, by Linda S. Heard, Gulf News, October 21, 2005.

Summary Detlev Mehlis, head of the UN Commission investigating the assassination of Rafic Hariri, told Der Stern magazine that he knew his report would make the campaign against Syria easier and that he understood what Hans Blix has felt. However, contrary to Blix who has admitted he suffered pressure, Detlev Mehlis says he acted freely.
Let’s analyze this report to judge its impartiality.
In paragraph 8 of the report, he said there’re some convergent elements that indicated the responsibility of the Lebanese and Syrian leaders in an action described as terrorist. This observation is interesting in two ways. First, the American and British leaders have always prevented the involvement of the Lebanese. Second, John Bolton has always been against presenting the action of a state as “terrorist”. Paragraph 9 asks for the investigation to go on while Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw demand immediate actions. The report does not rule out either the fact that Rafic Hariri might have been killed for motives related to the mafia.
Mehlis, likewise, acted in an admirable way when he decided not to reveal the names of the suspects, but the “leak” to the press of the names of these suspects was less admirable. Because of that, witnesses remained anonymous, but not the accused. What a convenient situation! The report affirms that Syrians always knew where Hariri was. But, if this were the case, why carry out a bomb attack that leaves so many compromising elements covering a zone wide enough to affect somebody in the wrong position, instead of using a sniper? Using a sniper is more discreet, leaves less evidences and it would have been more favorable for Syria that knew it was being threatened by the United States.
After the lies about Iraq and in view of the place that Syria occupies on the list of the neoconservatives’ targets, one must be extremely distrustful. Especially when questioning this international investigation. This was not done when Arafat, Sadat, Nasser, and Allende died. It was not done either when Yushchenko was poisoned. Why? Because these investigations did not favour the interests of the West. So, let’s not follow this suspicious political game.

“The main witness in favour of the Mehlis report is a known fraudster who has boasted about being paid for his statements”

Author Ghaith Abdul-Ahad

Ghait Abdul-Ahad is a journalist and a press photographer of Jordanian origin. He is a Guardian correspondent for the Middle East. He resides in Baghdad.

Source Der Spiegel (Germany)
Reference “Zentraler Zeuge in Mehlis-Report ist verurteilter Betrüger”, by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad , Der Spiegel, October 26, 2005.

Summary There are serious doubts about the credibility of the statements of the main witness upon which the Detlev Mehlis’ investigation was based on. Detlev Mehlis is the UN special investigator of the assassination of Hariri. Suheir al-Sadik and is, in fact, a known con man who has been convicted several times. al-Sadik, 42 years old, who claims to be a member of the Syrian secret services, is the key witness who has helped to involve the services of the Syrian state in this assassination. However, he was sentenced several times for embezzlement and fraud in the past. Even the members of the investigative commission have serious doubts about the veracity of his statement.
Different members of this commission said that Sadik lied to them several times. For instance, Sadik initially told them he had left Beirut a month before the attack. But last September, he changed his statement and said he was one of the organizers of the attack. His apartment in the outskirts of Beirut had served as general headquarters for preparation of the attack and high-ranking officers of the Syrian secret services had stayed there. Being paid for his testimony wouldn’t be strange. According to his brothers, Sadik contacted them from Paris to tell them: “I’m a millionaire.”
Skepticism is also based on the fact that Sadik got in touch with Mehlis thanks to Syrian dissident Rifaat El Assad, president Bachar El Assad’s uncle and well-known enemy. Several weeks ago, the Syrian government sent several chanceries a file full of documents accusing Sadik with the purpose of proving that Mehlis was deceived by a notorious liar, a specialist in organizing tall stories.

“The Dangerously Incomplete Hariri Report”

Author Robert Parry

Journalist for the Associated Press and Newsweek, Robert Parry was one of the main investigators of the case known as Irangate during Reagan’s administration. Disappointed in the triviality and negligence of the Anglo-Saxon press journalists, he founded in 1995, together with Robert Solomon, the investigation magazine Consortium News and made documentaries about the secret negociations pertaining to the release of hostages in Iran (October Surprise), political drug dealers supported by the U.S. government (Contra-Coca), the growing influence of the Moon sect in Washington, and revelations about the Bush family and electoral manipulations in 2000. He is the author of Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ’Project Truth’."

Source Consortium News (United States)
Reference “The Dangerously Incomplete Hariri Report”, by Robert Parry , Consortium News, October 23, 2005.

Summary The U.N. report on the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, has given a lift to George W. Bush, who demands a “change of regime” in Damascus. The investigation, however, has many holes.
The report concludes that the bomb that killed Hariri and another 22 people, which was likely activated in a Mitsubishi van, was detonated by a kamikaze. While the driver’s identity remains a mystery, a Japanese expert team identified the specific vehicle. The chain of possession for that van thus would seem to be a crucial lead in identifying the killers. But on that central point, the U.N. investigation made little headway, devoting only a few paragraphs to how the van ended up in Beirut.
In order to back uncertain conclusions fingering Syria, the U.N. investigation also relies on witnesses of uncertain credibility who implicated Syrian security officials, with accounts that are partially contradictory. For instance, the two supposed witnesses differed on the fate of the Lebanese youth, Ahmad Abu Adass, who claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing in a videotape released to al-Jazeera television. But Mehlis relied on those supposed witnesses to dismiss the videotape as part of a misinformation campaign to deflect suspicion from Syria.
One witness – described in the U.N. report as “of Syrian origin but resident in Lebanon who claims to have worked for the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon” – said Abu Adass “played no role in the crime except as a decoy,” who was detained “in Syria and forced at gunpoint to record the videotape” before being killed. Another alleged witness, Zuhir Ibn Mohamed Said Saddik, claimed he saw Abu Adass at a camp in Zabadani, Syria, where, Saddik said, the Mitsubishi van was filled with explosives. Saddik said Abu Adass planned to carry out the assassination but changed his mind and was then killed by Syrians who put his body in the vehicle carrying the bomb.
One of the problems with such “witnesses” is that they can be unreliable for a variety of reasons, including the possibility they are paid or otherwise induced to present false stories to help achieve a result favored by powerful political figures or countries. The United States – and the New York Times – learned this lesson during the run-up to the war in Iraq when Iraqi exile groups arranged for supposed witnesses to approach U.S. officials and journalists with information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Similar questions are already being raised about the key Hariri-case witness Saddik.
This risk of investigators accepting questionable testimony from dubious sources is highest when the allegations are directed against countries whose leaders are already held in disdain – as was the case with Iraq and is now the case with Syria. With almost everyone ready to believe the worst, few investigators or journalists are willing to endanger their reputations and careers by demanding a high level of proof. It’s easier to go with the flow. In the Hariri case, the chief U.N. investigator, German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, found himself under intense international pressure that some observers compared to those of Hans Blix in early 2003.

“The Mehlis report is a political game”

Author Abdellah Assanaoui

Egyptian writer and editor in chief of the newspaper Al Arab, Abdellah Assanaoui is also member of the Arab People’s Council.

Source Arabrenewal (Arabia Saudita)
Reference “تقرير ميليس لعبة سياسية”, by Abdellah Assanaoui, Arabrenewal, October 28, 2005.

Summary The credibility of the Mehlis report has been compromised just a few hours after the distribution of some of its copies to the press. It has been shown that there are two copies of the said report. One was sent to the UN Secretary General, and the other one had been rectified and sent to the press.
This means the report that is to decide the region’s fate is subject to political considerations. In other words, the German judge is accountable to the authority of Kofi Annan. Mehlis, who was appointed by the UN to investigate Hariri’s death, should only make reference to his professional spirit. But the investigation would enable the commission in charge of it to make some political arrangements, by appointing, without any objectivity, the most convenient people.
The credibility of such a commission and perhaps even its respect have been already tarnished when it granted the Lebanese press access to the report’s outcome, even before it was released. In other words, it did not take security measures to guarantee the professional secret.
From the beginning, the investigation assumed a political dimension. It even seemed the preparatory stage of a sentence letter on Damascus to immediately jump into the second phase, which will be imposing a political and economic embargo on Syria, which would eventually lead to the fall of Assad’s regime.
There is a big difference between an international investigation based on law and transparency, and a political investigation whose objectives have already been mentioned. Within this framework, Mehlis still raises questions and accusations from several sources, especially the Palestinian. The investigation has been based on information and statements from the worst enemies of the Syrian government, which is not fair.
Probably this report has certain confirmed information, maybe even serious mistakes made by the Lebanese and Syrian security services, but they are not enough to accuse them. Furthermore, the statement given by the UN Secretary in which he suppresses names like Maher Assad from the list, may lead to several interpretations. The first one would be to enable the United States and western countries to put more pressure on Bachar to marginalize him peacefully, or to give Egypt more time to convince El Assad to unconditionally adopt the U.S. agenda. Or finally, to allow the UN envoy, Larson, to present his new suggestions in order to implement Resolution 1559.
It is a dangerous game that may cause terrible consequences.

“Syria in an awkward situation”

Author Abdel Bari Atouan

Abdel Bari Atouan was editor in chief of the Asharq Alaousat newspaper from 1984 to 1988, then he became editor in chief of the Palestine paper Al qods Al arabi, published in London. He is known for his position of support of the Arab countries, which he does not quit defending publicly during his interviews broadcast by CNN, BBC…etc.

Source Al Quds Al Arabi (United Kingdom)
Reference “المأزق السوري الأخطر”, by Abdel Bari Atouan, Alquds al-Arabi , October 22, 2005.

Summary The difficult situation of the Syrian government after Mehlis’s accusations requires a very precise and reasonable strategic move to avoid possible sanctions.
Syria has two options regarding Mehlis’s report. The first one is Saddam’s, that is, to refuse collaborating effectively with the UN and Mehlis, which means, not to hand over the seven suspects mentioned in the report. The second choice is that of Gadhaffi. In other words, to be unconditionally subjected to U.S. pressures, which are translated into the handing over of all suspects, dismantling all chemical and nuclear programs, unlimited collaboration with the U.S. policies and services, and a radical change of policies of the regime and their orientation.
The question is that Syria’s problem, with its geographical situation and senior officers accused in the report, is very much different to that of Libya. The Bush administration will take advantage of such a report to sanction El Assad’s government, especially, because it has refused to serve the interests of the United States in the region, while neoconservatives demand full submission from the Arab leaders. The Syrian president will only be facing U.S. pressures. His friends and those of his father will not abandon him and be subjected to U.S. dictates that would ensure that he will remain in power.
Mehlis’s report leads to three main conclusions. The first one refers to Ghazi Kanan, whose name is not included on the black list. Such absence makes the hypothesis that a suicide would be doubtful, and gives more credibility to the versions of an alleged assassination in order to prevent him from taking power and representing the U.S. government after the fall of the regime in Damascus. The second conclusion confirms that no Arab leader has a higher status compared to others. Mehlis’s report has shown that all telephone calls from President Lahoud and other senior Lebanese officers have been recorded somewhere in Washington or Tel-Aviv. The third and last conclusion is about the attempt to involve directly or indirectly Palestinians who are responsible for the assassination of Hariri. This, in future, would be useful for political maneuvers in Lebanon or Syria.
Collaborating or not with Mehlis would not change the situation at all. Besides, the Iraqi and Libyan experience has taught us where the U.S. demands begin and where they stop, that is, humiliation and loss of national and personal dignity. However, counting on Russia or China’s intervention is not certain just because the Arabs deserve no credibility or respect.

“Attack Syria? Invade Iran? By what Constitution?”

Authors Jeremy Brecher, Brendan Smith

Jeremy Brecher, former adviser to the U.S. Congressman Bernie Sanders, is a historian of the labor movement and researcher of economic and social sciences. He is the author of a number of books and documentaries about social and trade union movements, especially the renowned ones called Strike! and Global Village or Global Pillage.

Brendan Smith is a jurist and wrote, together with Jeremy Brecher and Jill Cutler, the work “In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond”.

Source ZMag (United States)
Reference “Attack Syria? Invade Iran? By what Constitution?”, by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith, ZMag, October 20, 2005.

Summary History has taught us that governments which go through a difficult situation in the military field tend to expand their field of operations. Nixon, who was immersed in the Vietnam bottleneck, expanded the war into Cambodia. But the same delusions that took us to Iraq are being manipulated in Iran and Syria. Military confrontations along the border have increased and on October 1st, in a meeting held in the White House, the “options” against Syria including “special operations” were assessed. Government agents are already preparing the propaganda machinery to justify an attack.
The Bush administration seems to believe that the U.S. President has the power to launch a war on anybody it chooses without even having to consult with Congress. During the speech given by State Secretary Condoleezza Rice to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, Senator Chafee observed: “Under the Iraq war resolution, we restricted any military action to Iraq. So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?”. Rice’s reply? “Senator, I don’t want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you’ll fully understand that the President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war on Iraq, since his options remain open”.
The provisions of the Constitution are wisely designed to protect the people of our country from just the kind of dubious war that the Bush administration conducted against Iraq - and which the great majority of Americans now believe was a mistake. Similarly, the UN Charter protects not only countries that might be attacked, but also the people of countries whose leaders may be tempted to conduct such attacks. Nothing could do more for national security today than a reinvigoration of these constraints on military adventurism. The Congress and the American people need to make one thing perfectly clear to the President: Any military action undertaken without the explicit endorsement of the U.S. Congress and the UN is not an “option”.
As the President himself said at the end of Fahrenheit 911: “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!” The Congress and the American people allowed President Bush to fool us into war with Iraq. Shame on us if we allow him to do it again in Syria, Iran, or anywhere else.