Terrorist activities are on the rise again in Lebanon. The U.N. investigation led by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, implicated Syria in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and former General Secretary of the "Lebanese Front" Gebran Ghassan Tueni was assassinated in Beirut. Some political analysts expect the fall of Syrian President Bashar Asad's regime, while others expect the fall of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud's regime. Gamal A. Gawad Soltan, Syria-Lebanon issues expert at Cairo's Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies (ACPSS), expressed his views on the current situation and the future of Lebanon and Syria in his interview with World Peace Herald.

Q: The killing of Lebanese MP Gebran Tueni was the latest slain in a spate of explosions and terror blasts, particularly targeting the Christian community, that have taken place since the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri. How do you view this upsurge in violence?

A: Gebran Ghassan Tueni was a Lebanese editor and politician who campaigned courageously to end the Syrian occupation of his country. Therefore, it is clear that whoever did it, I believe, has strong ties to Syria. This is a political analysis because I do not have evidence as yet. But Mehlis and his commission do. On political grounds, since Syria's intervention in Lebanon in 1976--and in particular following the Taef agreement [in 1989 ending the Lebanese civil war] and the removal of Michel Aoun from the presidency of Lebanon--Syria has been in control of Lebanon. During this period Syria gained strong leverage in Lebanon and especially its security apparatus. Certainly Syria was capable of establishing an efficient security apparatus and a brutal one as well. Thus, it is very unlikely for any terrorist group or even organization to function on that professional a level [without Syrian support].

Though Syrian figures were officially ejected from Lebanon, they have maintained a veiled intelligence presence. They still have some significant influence within the Lebanese security apparatus. Since 1976, Syria has managed to plant the right people, who are loyal to Syria, within the security organizations in Lebanon so they will not be easily recognized. They can take over many things that no other Lebanese organization can do. Even if Lebanese President Lahoud is involved in these organizations, it is very unlikely from a political point of view for Lahoud to function independent from Syrian guidance. That is because his fate and interest became highly associated with Syria. In other words, his actions must be coordinated with them, or he will lose his power.

This is a political analysis for the recent situation, and a historical background of Lebanon-Syria relations. I believe these killings have much to do with Syria, and the killing of Gebran Tueni is linked to Rafik Hariri's. Perhaps, it is [the work of] the same organization still working hard to achieve the same purposes that are certainly related with Syrian control over Lebanon. Meanwhile, these organizations are aimed at putting some sort of a ceiling (some kind of limitation and control) on Lebanese politicians and the political system, in order to prevent them from promoting anti-Syrian activities beyond that ceiling. Therefore, what Syria is trying to do is to control activities hostile to Syria.

Since the 1950s, Lebanon had been dominated by anti-Syrian figures, or come under control of international actors who were mainly against Syria. Since that time, Syria had traditionally been concerned about Lebanese anti-Syrian tendencies. However, in 1967, Syria began to gain a solid footing in Lebanon, establishing a pro-Syrian foundation.

Even though Syrian control is diminishing in Lebanon, Syria is trying to set new rules for the political game. Thus, Lebanese politicians will be obliged to abide by certain rules and forced to maintain their relationship with Syria and not be hostile to it.

Q: In his final report of Rafik Hariri's assassination, Mehlis concluded that Syria was involved and criticized its non-cooperation with the investigation committee. What do you think about this?

A: Syria was doing the minimum in terms of cooperation. Though being explicitly blamed by international community, Syria did not intend total non-cooperation. To avoid being labeled as completely refusing to cooperate, Syria presented the lowest level of cooperation. With its quiet reaction, Syria intended to buy time as much as it could so that Syrians who have been target of the probe would get enough time for consultations. Thus they went through a lengthy process of negotiations, so that they could gain time as much as they could. Syria has hoped that time will create a new reality or cool down enthusiasm within international community for these investigations. In other words, they hoped that a longer time of non-action would enable them to cut a deal with the responsible actors. At the same time, Syria tried to avoid being labeled as uncooperative. So it is a political game rather than a judiciary process.

Though manipulating the time element is a risky strategy for Syria to pursue, Syria sees it is safer since they are sure that Bush administration will not repeat Iraqi's disastrous scenario in Syria. The difficulty that the Americans are facing in Syria, and the low level of support that the Bush administration is receiving for the war in Iraq, will not permit the United States to repeat this experiment again. In other words, they feel they can go as far as they can in this manipulative strategy without being concerned about any major American strike or military action.

On the other hand, Syria has the capacity to escalate instability in the region to intolerable levels. They can always use that card as a threat. What they are doing in Lebanon now, including slaying and assassinating politicians, is a sample of what they can do. Therefore, Lebanon is as vulnerable to Syrian intervention as is Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Syrians believe that they have the capacity to mobilize the Arab world against the United States, if they come under attack. I think that they will gain the sympathy of all Arab countries if that occurs. The Arab masses were angry when the United States invaded Iraq, but they did not stop the military action. So Syria should keep in mind that point as well. However, no one knows the reaction of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, if there will be any military clashes between Syria and the United States. I think if there would be any confrontations between Syria and the United States, terrorist might attack the West causing and aggravating instability.

Syria interprets the recent Security Council resolution as a kind of victory. The Security Council resolution was stated in soft, non-judgmental language. It does not accept full Lebanese independence from an international tribunal, nor it does it contain harsh criticism for Syrian policies. This was a kind of a victory for Syria because it created the appearance that Syrian policies were working. Therefore, we have to expect that Syria will stick to the same strategies practiced before, and that more assassinations will take place in Lebanon, particularly in the context of the current political situation.

Q: In your political point of view, is there a possibility that Asad government will collapse or that President Lahoud will resign?

A: I do not think that President Lahoud will step down unless his resignation will be a part of a larger deal within a Syrian arrangement. In other words, if it happens, it will not be a single decision. It will happen in a way that it will not be perceived as a victory for anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon. Moreover, I doubt that Syria will allow Lahoud to make such a decision. Perhaps it will be a part of a larger understanding of the political future of Lebanon in general, as well as the position of Hezbollah and its armed wing, and Lebanese policies regarding Syria in particular. Syria will make use of whatever remaining time in Lahoud's regime to realize their goals.

As for Bashar Asad, his regime is weaker, as he neither achieved any of his promises nor his presidential programs. However, it does not seem that Syria has an alternative to the Ba'ath regime. Regarding Syria, the more the regime is pressured, the more its different factions come together strongly with a greater sense of solidarity. Therefore, it is very unlikely to see cracks in the Syrian system that could permit the opposition to lead a movement against the Syrian regime. Essentially, because of the weakness of the opposition, Asad is likely to continue and stay for a long time. Moreover, Asad has been successful in taking advantage of the pressures from the Mehlis investigation committee and the United States to mobilize Syrians' support for his regime. Therefore, Syrians stuck together against a potential fall of Asad's regime. Thus, he has used these pressures to consolidate his regime rather than be weakened by them.

To summarize, I think Bashar Asad will be there for a while. The only thing that can eliminate him is a palace call for him to step down. Perhaps, the ruling family could find that Bashar's policies have cost so much and that decide to sacrifice Bashar Asad to save the country. This is a theoretical possibility that depends upon whether a conspiracy could be carried out. Syrians who now support his regime actually do not like the way he handles his policies. He brought many troubles to Syria. Certainly, Syrians prefer a better leadership that is more open and flexible. If we look back at Syria few years ago, we find that Bashar's regime executed very risky policies. This caused Syria's interior minister, Ghazi Kanaan, to commit suicide. A couple of years ago, another Syrian prime minister also committed suicide. Therefore, it seems that Syria's regime is brutal. Immediately after the party congress, former foreign minister and Syrian Vice President Abdul Al-Halim Ibn Said Khaddam left Syria. Though he was considered to be a part of a faction within the regime, I think he was concerned about his life. Three figures were working cooperatively between Syria and Lebanon. They were Ghazi Kanaan, Rafik Hariri and Abdul Al-Halim Khaddam. Kanaan committed suicide mysteriously. Hariri was killed and Khadam fled. This demonstrates that Syrian regime is brutal and risk-taking.

Artcle Url: http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051226-023904-2331r