Here is an excerpt from the UN report on the murder conspiracy of Hariri:
New York Times
The situation remains "volatile," the report warned, citing "a number of worrying developments affecting the stability of Lebanon, particularly in the form of terrorist acts and the illegal transfer of arms and people across the borders into Lebanon."
While couched in diplomatic language, the report's clear implication that the Palestinian groups were acting at the behest of Syria appeared certain to increase pressure building against Damascus in the Security Council. The Council's special investigator issued a report last week saying the slaying of Mr. Hariri had been plotted by top-ranking Syrian and Lebanese intelligence officers, including the powerful brother-in-law of President Bashar al-Assad.
Mr. Assad has denied that he or his aides had anything to do with the assassination. He sent a letter to France, Britain and the United States early this week promising to prosecute any Syrian implicated by "concrete evidence."
Many have compared the US response to Syria as similar to the run up to the war in Iraq. Clearly, the US has no immediate military responses to Syria except from the air. Bombing would not likely have much more effect than creating chaos in the already volatile country. Josh Landis in his SyriaComment.com talks about prospects for Assad in coming weeks.
A number of fine American journalists have assured me that Washington is determined that its diplomats are going to do things differently in Syria. "It's going to be different this time around," Deborah Amos of National Republic Radio told me yesterday. She just flew in from London, where she is now based for several months. "The neocons are not in charge any more."
Others have given me the same reassurance. The only fly in the ointment, they say, is John Bolton, who is perched at the UN. "But he will be constrained," they insist, knitting their brows. The French are worried. "It is a big test for him. Ann Patterson is no longer at UN to back him up." Paris fears he will be Samson in the temple.
[...]
But this evening when I got back from iftar, al-Jazeera was running a clip of Bolton saying, "We want a resolution saying that every Syrian will testify if called by the investigation. - even President Asad." Bingo! The improvised explosive devise. (Have I mixed my metaphors enough?)
It was clear. America is still thinking of how to take down the Asad family. No door is going to be left open for a political solution.
I would tend to agree with Landis, the neo-cons are still in charge. In fact, I believe Bush has led the neo-con take over of foreign policy. So what are the propects for regime change in Syria? Is there hope for another "Arab Spring" like the overhaul of the Syrian dominated Lebanese government?
SyriaComment.com
The man seen as the de facto leader of Syria's opposition took a few rapid puffs on a cigarette as he considered the question: Are the country's democrats ready to challenge President Bashar Assad's hold on power if international pressure succeeds in weakening it?
"No," came the one-word confession from Riad al-Turk, the 75-year-old former political prisoner who is Syria's most broadly respected opposition politician.
He acknowledged that the country's democrats, persecuted by the regime and divided until recently into myriad factions, are in no position to stage the sort of mass demonstrations that took place in Lebanon earlier this year, which sparked talk of an "Arab Spring" that optimists hoped might eventually reach Damascus.
But Mr. al-Turk was quick to add that if the United Nations Security Council decides to put even more heat on the Syrian government at its meeting tomorrow, the pendulum could rapidly swing in the opposition's favour for the first time since Mr. Assad's father, Hafez, seized power in 1970.
Landis quote of a prominent leadere in Lebanon repeats a theme we've heard from all of the leaders in the Middle East since Bush started rattling sabers against Saddam.
Adib Farha, a political analyst and former adviser to Lebanon's finance minister, wrote this for the Globe and Mail:Not that we are or should be enamoured of the Syrian leadership -- but until and unless a viable alternative is ready to replace the Assad dynasty, anything other than a soft landing for the rapidly faltering regime would have severe repercussions on the stability of the entire region. Should the Syrian leadership implode or, worse yet, if the United States and its allies should launch military strikes against it, the ensuing anarchy and the possibilities of a sectarian/tribal civil war or the emergence of a Sunni fundamentalist-led regime would be catastrophic for all the region's countries, friend and foe alike.
We should continue to use every peaceful means to steer the Syrian leadership toward changing its evil ways. The goal should be behavioural change, not regime change. A premature fall of the Assad regime could "open up the gates of hell" (to borrow a phrase the Syrian Prime Minister recently used to threaten the U.S.), and everyone would be in deep trouble.
Yet it would seem that Bush is contining his drive for regime change in Syria, bedamned all the indications that fundamentalist Sunnis with similar views of the world as bin Ladin will be a strong counter force in a destabilized Syria. Syria will lose what little control they have of the border with Iraq as the family ties strengthen the bond with the Iraqi insurgency and towards a regional war.
Could this be Bush's agenda all along? Is he a fundamentalist Christian who wants to bring on the Rapture with global war in the Middle East against the anti-Christ bin Ladin?
No comments:
Post a Comment