I. Introduction:

On September 11, 2001, the United States and the world were irreversibly changed by the terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington D.C. and the plane crash in Pennsylvania. On this horrific day, the tragic acts of terror and devastation, that were usually observed on televisions and that occurred in faraway places, occurred in our own neighborhoods. It became clear that there was no super power that was immune to terror. With this realization, President George W. Bush declared a war on terrorism; focusing US foreign and domestic policies on this objective. Regardless of the means, either through diplomacy if possible or by military means if necessary, President George W. Bush stressed that this war against terrorism would be won. Hence, the President initiated his doctrine to spread democracy around the world, especially in the greater Middle East region. Consequently, all politics have become local. What happens in London, Beirut, or in any remote area i.e. Tora Bora concerns Washington DC. The White House and the US Congress recognizes that they can no longer afford to ignore what a local cleric in a small mosque is preaching or what a teacher in a remote town madrassa (school) is instructing young kids, for the next terrorist attack may be planned and carried out by that same radical cleric and fanatic student. Similarly, decisions and policies made in Washington DC echoes around the world including the most remote areas. Therefore, the Presidents or the Bedwin tribal leaders in Yemen, Somalia, or Iran can no longer ignore the policies of the US Administration since their own survival may depend on these policies. This is political globalism catching up with economic globalism.

The United States war on terrorism today is comparable to its Strategy of Containment against the former Soviet Union and the spread of Communism during the Cold War era, in a sense that any victory or defeat to democracy anywhere is a victory or defeat to the free world everywhere. In this regard, the US has achieved numerous victories around the globe, both diplomatically and by force. Most notable are the Orange Revolution of Ukraine in 2004-2005, the Rose Revolution of Georgia that displaced President Eduard Shevardnadze in 2003, and the Tulip revolution in Bishkek. The elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon in 2005.

II. The Cedars Revolution:

In the case of the Cedar Revolution, which was sparked by the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri on February 14, 2005, we witnessed a semi-victory. It is a semi-successful revolution due to the fact that while the Lebanese succeeded in liberating Lebanon from the Syrian troops, they failed to attain peace and security. Thus, the main question remains: why did the Cedar Revolution fall short from achieving a complete victory?

Similar to other parts of the world, what happens in Lebanon echoes in DC, Paris, and London. However, the situation in Lebanon is more complex than other countries. This is due to the number of different political and terrorist enemies, which are trying to undermine the progress of the Cedar Revolution. Some of these enemies are barbaric, as in the case of Syria’s Ba’ath regime who frequently utilizes methods of terror to silence its critics within the Cedar Revolution. For example, since the illegal extension of President Emile Lahoud’s term and the passage of the UNSCR 1559, the Syrian Ba’ath regime have managed to assassinate five Lebanese leaders (Rafiq Hariri, Bassel Flayhan, Samir Qassir, George Hawi, and Gebran Tueini) killing many innocent bystanders in the process. There were also three failed attempts (MP Marwan Hamadeh, Minister of Defense Elias Mur and media icon May Chadiac.) There were also five bombings in mainly Christian areas which killed a number of innocent citizens. These horrific events have created an atmosphere of chaos and terror in the country. This has been Syria’s method to prevent Lebanese unity and to thwart Lebanon from reaching complete independence since 1975. Especially, since President Assad of Syria is aware, that he can only win against the international community if the Cedar Revolution fails to achieve independence. Therefore, Assad is determined to destroy the Cedar Revolution leaders, even if he has to “destroy all of Lebanon over their heads,” just as he promised PM Rafiq Hariri in their last meeting in August 2004 before the Syrian coerced extension of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud.

Meanwhile, Syria and Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and in the Middle East, Hizbullah and AMAL movement, and to a lesser extent the smaller groups as the Lebanese Ba’ath Party, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) and the Marada of Suleiman Frangieh, remain loyal to their founders despite the possibility of grave consequences of their misconducts in the region and the dangerous ramifications of these actions on Lebanon. Their loyalty to Syria and Iran at the expense of Lebanon and the Lebanese stems from their determination to establish a Shiite state in Lebanon run by the Mullah in Iran, and/or from a more selfish reason, which is their determination not to lose the illegal privileges and leverages which they obtained during the period of Syrian occupation of Lebanon. These illegal activities stretch, from over-staffing of Shiites in government institutions and the misuse of public funds, to the illegal import/export of drugs and weapons, money laundering and the counterfeiting of foreign currencies and credit cards. Furthermore, it has been evident that Hizbullah is involved in transferring Jihadists to Iraq via Syria, as well as funding, training, and planning terrorists’ attacks in Iraq and in the Palestinian territories.

III. The Aoun Effects:

Retired General Michael Aoun poses another hindrance to the progress of the Cedar Revolution. In a situation similar to 1988, Aoun’s interest today coincides with that of Syria. At that time, Aoun’s desire to become a president was not possible due to constitutional law which prohibits the Army General from running for the presidency. Meanwhile, Syria wanted to prevent the presidential elections in order to create a constitutional void, which would have facilitated the completion of its grip over Lebanon. As a result, Aoun was appointed an interim Prime Minister with the main responsibility of facilitating the presidential election. Instead, he launched a war of “liberation” against Syria followed by a war of elimination against the Lebanese Forces. The results of Aoun’s wars, combined with fierce opposition against the US policy in the region, mainly in Iraq, resulted in the defeat of the Lebanese resistance and total Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Today, Aoun does not have the same influence in the Lebanese political life the way he did in 1988-1990. However, he has just enough strength to cause disturbance to the fragile and incomplete independence of Lebanon. How so? His election to the Parliament in 2005 gave him considerable power as head of a bloc comprised of 21 deputies, which makes up 26.8 % (21*128=26.88) of votes in Parliament. In order to use his parliamentary bloc effectively, which is composed of 1/5 of the deputies, Aoun situated himself on the fence of political life in the country. Basically, he crippled the majority in parliament who fears that any blowing of wind towards him will tip him further towards Syria’s proxies, especially President Lahoud and the Hizbullah/Amal bloc that control 29 deputies (29*128= 37% of votes.) Together, with Syria’s allies will bring 56 pro-Syrian deputies against 72 for the Cedar Revolution. However, if Aoun returns to the Cedar Revolution, together they will have 93 predicted votes; a clear majority to make a substantial change.

Aoun’s defection to the Syrian camp has proved very damaging to the Cedar Revolution. He has literally halted the advancement of Lebanon’s full independence by refusing to topple the head of the Syrian/Lebanese security regime represented by President Lahoud after denying the Cedar Revolution the 2/3 majority required to annul the extension law that renewed Lahoud’s term. Furthermore, he refused its call for demonstrations in order to force Lahoud to resign, similar to the toppling of Omar Karameh’s government. According to his logic, the presidency is more important than Lebanon’s independence, peace, and security. Therefore, Aoun and whoever is helping or backing Lahoud is morally responsible for all the death and destruction which have occurred after the launching of the Cedar Revolution on March 14, 2005.

In addition, Aoun’s alliance with pro-Syrian parties has brought back to power Syria’s most loyal agent Speaker of the House, Nabieh Berri. The March 14th movement feared that refusing Berri would push Hizbullah/Amal alliance to form a formal bloc with Aoun. As a result, Sunni leader MP Saad Hariri and Druze leader MP Walid Jumblat created the so-called “quadripartite-Alliance,” with the Hizbullah and AMAL movement which resulted in the re-election of Berri at the expense of real change. Furthermore, Aoun’s action forced MP Hariri to acknowledge the Muslim brotherhoods in Lebanon after he tried to marginalize them for so long. Hariri simply feared that ignoring them will push them towards the Syrian/Lahoud/Aoun camp that will use them to further weaken the Cedar Revolution group by dividing the Sunni street.

Besides, Aoun appears to be augmenting the weakening of the Cedar Revolution by coordinating with the Syrian Ba’ath regime and elaborating on their allegations, but in his own style. For example, The Syrian controlled media has been attacking the March 14th movement daily; so has Aoun. The Ba’ath press has been attacking the Lebanese anti-Syrian press especially LBC, FTV, and Annahar; so has Aoun. The Syrian regime has been trying to weaken the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Sanioura and his cabinet; so has Aoun. He has been condemning the cabinet for failing to stop the assassinations of its own deputies and allies. Meanwhile, Aoun does not only avoid accusing Syria and President Lahoud of any crime, but he also rejects others’ accusations of them. In addition, Aoun’s action is essentially providing aid and comfort to the Syrian intelligence agents in Lebanon by giving the Lebanese people a false sense of security when announcing that “there are no more Syrian agents in Lebanon.”

Furthermore, Aoun’s present stance strengthens Syria’s position against the international community. By prolonging the current chaotic security situation in Lebanon, his actions are working in the best interest of the Ba’ath regime. This has triggered anti-Syria Lebanese officials to charge that Syria allowed Aoun to recently return to Lebanon under the condition that he will dispose of the March 14th movement and halt its progress. They allege that President Lahoud’s son, Emile, along with Karim Pakradoni worked the deal with Aoun, on behalf of Syria and the puppet regime in Beirut. Others believe that Aoun was in direct negotiations with the Syrian regime through his followers in Washington DC, mainly Gaby Issa who also traveled to Syria prior to Aoun’s return to Lebanon under the pretext of inviting Syria for a round table national dialogue. Such claims were not taken seriously by observers who believe that Aoun was conducting secret negotiations with the Ba’ath regime. Aoun’s “propaganda” group made Mr. Issa’s visit to Syria public only after it was exposed by the media. Aoun denies these allegations claiming that the March 14th leadership, especially Jumblat, tried to block his return from France. A Lebanese Army intelligence source, however, contradicts Aoun’s accusations by affirming that Jumblat’s visit to Aoun in Paris was actually to strike a deal with him by offering him the entire Christian parliamentary seats in the Ba’abda-Alley district. Aoun rejected the deal. However, the signs of a deal between him and Syria/Lahoud became evident when the judicial court in Beirut postponed a court appearance for Aoun only two days before his scheduled return to Beirut on May 7, 05. Had Aoun returned without an arrangement with the General Prosecutor Adnan Addoum, a Lebanese from Syrian origin and a faithful agent to the security regime, he would have been arrested at the airport due to a pending arrest warrant that was issued earlier by the Lebanese court. Technically speaking, Addoum only postponed the court date until after the parliamentary election when Aoun was a deputy. In reality, however, Addoum dropped the charges against Aoun since after being elected to Parliament Aoun cannot be prosecuted due to the immunity such position offered him. Thus, technically speaking, the Syrian/Lebanese regimes only postponed Aoun’s court date, but in reality, they closed his case. As a result, Aoun switched loyalties.

Furthermore, while Aoun’s support to Hizbullah and Lahoud has been emboldening Hizbullah stance vis-à-vis UNSCR 1559, they should realize that there is no way around this or any other UN resolutions. However, he is the result of a democratic election, which means that unlike Hizbullah and the Palestinian groups, he cannot be dealt with through UN resolutions. However, those who voted him into parliament must hold him accountable for his actions. Furthermore, Aoun hindrances of US policy in the Middle East today, may lead to the same results of his similar misdeeds back in 1990. Back then, while the US was trying to curb Saddam Hussein’s influence and threats to the region by attempting to contain him, his dealing with Hussein came in direct conflict with the policy of the USA. Moreover, when the US needed a calming of other conflicts in the ME i.e. in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories in order to focus on Iraq, Aoun launched his war of rhetoric and Liberation against Syria. This came at a time when the US was looking for the largest coalition, especially in the Muslim and Arab world to fight the Ba’ath regime in Iraq. As a result, the US struck a deal with Syria to eliminate Aoun, in which it did on October 13, 1990. In addition, Aoun must understand that he cannot adopt SALSRA and the UNSCR 1559 one day, and participate in the Yom El-Quds (Jerusalem Day) parade of Hizbullah the next. He should realize that his last visit to the USA was a complete failure due to the fact that the US Administration, similar to the French government, is aware of his schemes and games of manipulations. Therefore, he should rethink his stances on all issues, especially regarding his relationship with the Syrian Ba’ath regime and Hizbullah. Aoun should understand that Assad will never have another chance to control Lebanon’s internal affairs.

Furthermore, while Aoun’s support to Hizbullah and Lahoud has been emboldening Hizbullah stance vis-à-vis UNSCR 1559, they should realize that there is no way around this or any other UN resolutions. Regarding Aoun, he is the result of democratic elections, which means that unlike Hizbullah and the Palestinian groups, he cannot be dealt with through UN resolutions. However, those who voted him into parliament must hold him accountable for his actions. Maybe a recall of the elections is necessary. Furthermore, Aoun should realize that his hindrance of US policy in the Middle East today, may lead to the same results of his similar misdeeds back in 1990. Back then, while the US was trying to curb Saddam Hussein’s influence and threats to the region by attempting to contain him, Aoun’s dealing with Hussein came in direct conflict with the policy of the USA. Moreover, when the US needed a calming of other conflicts in the ME i.e. in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories in order to focus on Iraq, Aoun launched his war of rhetoric and Liberation against Syria. This came at a time when the US was looking for the largest coalition, especially in the Muslim and Arab world to fight the Ba’ath regime in Iraq. As a result, the US struck a deal with Syria to eliminate Aoun, in which it did on October 13, 1990. In addition, Aoun must understand that he cannot adopt SALSRA and the UNSCR 1559 one day, and participate in the Yom El-Quds (Jerusalem Day) parade of Hizbullah the next. He should realize that his last visit to the USA was a complete failure due to the fact that the US Administration, similar to the French government, is aware of his schemes and games of manipulations. Therefore, he should rethink his stances on all issues, especially regarding his relationship with the Syrian Ba’ath regime and Hizbullah. Aoun should understand that Assad will never have another chance to control Lebanon’s internal affairs.

During his 15 years of exile in Paris, Aoun condemned the Syrian occupation of Lebanon on a daily basis. However, only one week after the withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon, Aoun abandoned the idea of resisting and opposing Syria’s meddling in Lebanon’s affairs. He announced from Paris that the opposition no longer existed and that Syria is no longer an occupying force since its troops have left the country. He immediately began distancing himself from the March 14th movement moving closer and closer to the remnants of Syria and Lahoud’s proxies in Lebanon. Furthermore, he portrays the conflict in Lebanon between the Cedar Revolution movement and the Hizbulla/AMAL groups as a Shiite -Sunni one claiming that he wants to keep the same distance from both parties. His position, which is a fallacy, is also irresponsible for he is harming the pro-independence group and helping the pro- Syrian/Iranian one. It has been evident that Syria has brought Aoun back from France to destroy the Cedar Revolution. Thus, he has been attacking anyone and everyone who opposes Syria and its Ba’ath leader Bashar Assad. Aoun is simply the Syrian version of Elie Cohen, the Israeli spy who almost became Syria’s Prime Minister in the 1960s. The Syrians, however, put an end to Mr. Cohen’s ambitions; can the Cedar Revolution do the same?

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS TO REMEDY THE QUAGMIRE:

As a result of President Assad Ba’ath’s crimes against Lebanon, the United Nations passed UNSCR 1559, 1595, 1636, and 1644 aimed at curbing Syria’s meddling in Lebanon by bringing to justice the perpetrators of these heinous crimes. Thus, an investigation committee, headed by German Prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, was established for this purpose. After six months into the investigations, Mehlis concluded in his first and second reports to the UN Security Council that Syrian authorities are implicated in the crime of PM Hariri and that Syria failed to cooperate with the investigations, which is another violation to UNSCR. Adding insult to injury, the Ba’ath regime tried to derail the investigation by creating double-witnesses such as Hussam Hussam who was a Syrian Mukhabarat agent who was kidnapped from Lebanon taken to Syria to reverse his testimony, in order to save itself from a certain guilty verdict. Syria’s hindrance of the UN investigation is sheer attempts to buy itself more time hoping that Hizbullah’s escalation of tension with Israel may lead to war, or that internal Lebanese strife may require a different approach from the UN to resolving Lebanon’s problems. The Syrians are even counting on the US anti-war movement which they believe may pressure the US to pull its troops out of Iraq similar to what happened during the Vietnam War. However, what the Syrian regime is overlooking is that the Civil Rights Movement which the anti-war activists used to their advantage does not exist today. Therefore, the anti-war movement will have very little, if any, effect on the US Administration’s decision vis-à-vis the war in Iraq.

Regarding the current state of affairs in Syria, the Ba’ath regime has been partially crippled, but not dead. International sanctions may be effective on the long run. However, the fast pace in which the Ba’ath regime is assassinating the leaders of the Cedar Revolution makes time of the essence. Accordingly, it is time that the US and the UN start offering more than lip service to Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution. Moral support is greatly appreciated but there is a need for tangible evidence that the international community is willing to hold Syria accountable for its crimes against Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere in the region. In fact, the US must make it clear that in the new world order there will be no place for terrorist entities i.e. Hamas and Hizbullah or for rogue states that sponsor terrorism i. e. Syria and Iran who are threatening peace and security in the whole region. Thus, the US should seek quick regime change in Syria and Iran. This can happen by increasing the international pressures in removing all the allies Ambassadors from Syria, preparing the ambiance for Syrian nationals to rise up within Syria or by encouraging the people to rebel against their oppressors and to take control of their countries. Thereafter, free and democratic systems will be established to bring the region into the 21st century. Only then the US can claim victory over terrorism.

Regarding the Hizbullah and AMAL leaderships, they should not count on intimidating the Lebanese cabinet in order to keep their arms, especially since the UNSCR 1559 is the responsibility of the UN to implement and not that of the Lebanese government. It was generous and courteous of the international community to give the Lebanese cabinet the chance to resolve the issue internally. However, if such peaceful attempt fails, the UN should and will deal with the issue appropriately-by force.

There are many other necessary measures, which only the March 14th group may undertake in order to contain Syria’s proxies in Lebanon and to achieve the required progress sought by the people of the Cedar Revolution, which holds the majority in parliament, they must take bold, yet necessary decisions and put them to vote. Let each deputy be responsible for his/her choices and let the people judge them accordingly.

A) Name immediately new Lebanese Ambassadors to Washington, France, England, Beijing, Moscow and the United Nations. B) They must annul the illegal citizenships given to hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Palestinians of origins. C) Immediate disarmaments of Hizbullah and other militants group in Lebanon by implementing the Taef Accord. D) Give the Lebanese expatriates the right to vote in their respective embassies overseas. E) They must remove President Lahoud by a majority vote in parliament and elect a new President who will uphold the hopes and spirit of the March 14th movement.

Regarding the Lebanese people, mainly the Christians, they should understand that the right to vote comes with the responsibility to use their vote appropriately and to the best interest of the community. Thus, if they failed to do so, the consequences could be grave. They must realize that the success of the Cedar revolution in Lebanon is essential to the spread of freedom and democracy in the region. This victory is also crucial to the Bush Administration’s plan for the Broader Middle East as well as to the war on terrorism. Therefore, rumors regarding a US/Syrian deal at the expense of Lebanon are sheer fabrications of the Syrian Mukhabarat aimed at spreading fear in the hearts of the March 14th order to deter them from pressing forward with their demands for reform as well as to learn the truth about who has been terrorizing and destabilizing Lebanon by assassinating the Lebanese officials. In his prepared speech at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, November 17, 05, the Director of Public Diplomacy for Middle Eastern and MEPI Affairs at USAID the Honorable Walid Maalouf clearly reflected the attitude of the US government towards Syria by demanding regime change in Syria. This was an unprecedented yet straightforward demand by any US official regarding Syria. Therefore, to push on with President Bush’s policy in the region, the international community should move fast in removing the Assad regime for there crucial reasons: A) they are keeping Iraq a quagmire and killing our boys; B) stagnating the road map through Hamas and Islamic Jihad from Damascus; C) keep killing the opposition leaders of Syria’s policy in Lebanon. For the sake of security, stability, freedom and democracy in the whole region this regime must go and go now.

Pierre A. Maroun, Secretary General, American Lebanese Coordination Council,
Web: alcc-research.com, Email:  marounpierre@alcc-research.com, Tel:   727-641-9764

Copyright © 1999-2005 Lebanonwire^®.com. All rights reserved.