When will the world learn?

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, NOW Contributor , September 26, 200

What does it take for the world to understand that no amount of engagement with the Syrian regime will ever yield positive results?

Over the past two years, several US Congressional delegations, six senior American civilian and military missions (since January alone), countless French and British envoys, the Arab League Secretary General, and several Saudi and Egyptian officials have visited Damascus.

And yet Syria is still having its Lebanese allies obstruct the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, disgruntled Iraqi officials are seeking the creation of their own special tribunal to put an end to Syria’s bad behavior, the Egyptians are angry over Syria’s sabotaging of Palestinian national-unity talks, peace negotiations between Damascus and Israel have stalled, bombings in Iraq continue and Syria has kept interfering in Lebanese affairs.

For those who have been arguing that luring Syria away from Iran is possible, the alliance between the two rogue states appears as strong as ever. Though Syrian officials and journalists at state-run papers are not suggesting that Western countries might be trying such a tactic, they have repeatedly assured that a Western-friendly Syria can use its ties with Iran for mediation purposes, positioning Damascus as the world’s only channel to Tehran.

Syria’s disruptive powers has made proponents of engagement argue that courting President Bashar al-Assad has to be done at some point. According to their logic, without Syrian cooperation, no stability is possible anywhere in the region.

But besides engagement die-hards, Western officials who are new to the region also insist that courting Syria is inevitable if peace is to be achieved.

US Senator John Kerry, the former presidential candidate, for instance, made several trips to Syria with his wife Theresa Heinz. On each one of their visits, they were courted by Bashar al-Assad and his stylish and worldly wife Asma. No one knows what Theresa Heinz expected to see in Syria, but clearly the class and style on display by her Syrian hosts surprised her and had her exclaiming in Washington that they are not “who everybody thinks they are.” Heinz and Kerry in fact became among the biggest proponents for engaging Syria.

The same display has also worked on French officials who have visited Damascus. Prior to restoring ties with Syria, France had demanded that Damascus exchange diplomatic missions with Beirut, accept the demarcation of the Syrian-Lebanese border, and take other measures proving Syria’s respect for Lebanese sovereignty, such as abolishing treaties signed during the Syrian occupation of Lebanon and disbanding the Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council.

Syria granted the French one of their demands by opening a Syrian embassy in Beirut, but only after doing their best to undermine whatever significance it had; it took them the better part of the year for the Syrians to appoint an ambassador.

But the French have boasted of their success, and have accordingly rewarded Damascus by restoring normal relations, even though the Syrian-Lebanese borders have yet to be demarcated, treaties have yet to be reconsidered and the Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council is still alive and kicking.

Despite what the French might say, their diplomatic overtures in Damascus have failed to alter the troublesome behavior of the Assad regime, as is made clear by the numerous conflict zones in the region fed by Syrian intervention.

But even more troublesome than the naiveté of Kerry or Sarkozy on Syria is the fact that the West, led by the United States, has prepared no alternative plan to engaging Syria.

But coming up with one is easy.

By observing past Syrian behavior, one cannot but conclude that Damascus cooperates only under pressure. Remember in the late 1990s when Turkey demanded that Syria hand over wanted Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan? Damascus refused and only changed its stance once Turkey began deploying brigades along its border with Syria.

Then-President Hafez Assad, the father of the current Syrian head of state, not only handed over Ocalan, but caved on an old Turkish demand to demarcate a disputed strip of the border around the Antioch area. Since then, the Syrians have been handing over Kurds, wanted or not, to Turkish authorities.

Another example of Syrian cooperation happened in 2005, when Damascus ended its 30-year occupation of Lebanon, only after world powers had formed a large and unbreakable alliance against Syria.

History teaches us that Syria cooperates little during times of engagement and much more when facing boycotts and international pressure, a lesson, we must hope, is not lost on the administration of Barack Obama, the pleas of John Kerry and Theresa Heinz, notwithstanding.

Click here to read the article in NOW Lebanon

Who’s afraid of the Special Tribunal on Lebanon

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, Special to NOW , September 14, 2009

The Special Tribunal (STL) for Lebanon, the legal entity charged with finding out who killed former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri and 21 others on February 14, 2005 – and a over a dozen others subsequently – is alive and well and haunting the Syrian regime and its Lebanese allies. One only has to look at the extent to which they lose no opportunity to discredit it at every turn.

For its part, the tribunal might be silent about its proceedings, but it has been nonetheless tenacious as it seeks to fulfill its somber remit.

Initially, the STL filed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to be approved by the Lebanese cabinet. The main purpose of the memorandum was to establish a mechanism through which the STL could summon either suspects or witnesses for questioning.

The attorney general would have interrogated suspects, released some, kept others as witnesses and maybe made some charges. Such interrogations were to be the prerequisite for indictment, which would have been the basis for the tribunal and which the defense would try to refute.

However, in 2008, Hezbollah and its allies used their blocking third in the cabinet to scrap the MoU. Without the ability to interrogate suspects and witnesses, a source familiar with the trial told NOW that the STL moved to the second-best option and instructed Lebanese security personnel to arrest suspects in the same manner the International Independent Investigation Commission (IIIC) arrested four generals on suspicion of connection with the Hariri murder years ago.

But Lebanon’s security services told the STL that they had no power over the southern suburbs of Beirut, the South or the Bekaa, areas all controlled by Hezbollah.
Then, when all else failed, the STL inked an agreement with INTERPOL, which already has agreements with Lebanon to arrest suspects. The STL hopes that once people are brought before it using this channel, indictments can be issued and the tribunal can start.

So it is hardly surprising that Syria’s Lebanese proxies have claimed that the STL is going nowhere. It is a situation that they themselves created.

But to really understand the extent of the success of the STL, one must examine the jittery behavior of Hezbollah and Damascus. Even though the two allies have said that the tribunal means little to them, the truth of the matter is that it has been dictating their political behavior since February 2005, first and foremost their constant demand for a blocking third inside the cabinet to sabotage MoUs with the STL, among other tribunal requests.

Syria and Hezbollah know best who killed Hariri, at least thanks to the extensive reach of their intelligence networks at the time of the crime. They also know that global intelligence communities have successfully sketched out how the murder was planned and executed. The only missing part is adding meat to the skeleton in the form of evidence, witnesses and suspects. This is where the two allies’ nervousness comes in, and amid this anxiety, Syria and Hezbollah have produced arguments that have proven to be more implicating than vindicating.

Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah recently threatened the STL, saying it should not “commit a crime” by pointing fingers at Hezbollah. Nasrallah suggested that none of his party’s members would answer a subpoena. Under any law, Nasrallah’s statement would be considered an obstruction of justice.

In the past, the Hezbollah leader suggested that Israel stands behind the Hariri murder. Volunteering such a scenario makes a de-facto witness of Nasrallah and gives the tribunal the right to summon him. However, Nasrallah believes that neither he nor anyone from his party will ever cooperate with the STL, which allows him to say whatever he pleases, regardless of the legal implications of his statements.

For his part, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad linked internal security in Lebanon with the Special Tribunal in a speech last year. Months after Assad’s statements, a German journalist – Eric Follath – who has repeatedly boasted about his exceptional friendly links with the Syrian president, published an article in the German Der Spiegel, alleging that it was Hezbollah behind the Hariri murder. Like Nasrallah, perhaps Assad was hoping the STL would shy away if the suspect were a well-armed bully like the Party of God.

Whether it is the STL trying to find ways around the weakness of its partner, the Lebanese cabinet, or whether it is Nasrallah and Assad threatening the Lebanese with grave consequences should justice prevail, an observer cannot but conclude that the tribunal is progressing and keeping the Syrian regime and its Lebanese allies on their toes. At least this is what common sense suggests.

For the moment at least the STL appears to be holdings its nerve.

Click here to read the story on the NOW Lebanon website

Obama informs Mubarak that he relies on Egypt being “a cornerstone of the region”

Hussain Abdul Hussain, Al-Ra’i , September 2, 2009


Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is still being met with positive reactions among political circles since his visit to Washington DC.

Well-informed sources reported that US President Barack Obama informed Mubarak that he regards Egypt “as a cornerstone of the peace process in the region, for confronting the possibility of the spread of nuclear weapons and combating the dangers of fundamentalism.”

For its part, the Egyptian delegation, headed by Mubarak, presented to their US counterparts their opposition to some US policies in the region, particularly those with regard to Iran and its allies.

Members of the Egyptian delegation, according to US officials, said that Egypt does not believe that a settlement is possible with Iran, as “even if a solution were reached regarding the nuclear issue, Iran would continue to make threats against neighboring countries in accordance with the doctrine of its extremist regime.”

They added that the Egyptian delegation presented evidence to US officials proving the involvement of Iranian intelligence in planting Hezbollah cells in Egypt to disrupt security and that Cairo will not deal lightly with such a breach of conventions between states in the region which had previously never undertaken intelligence wars with each other.

US officials said that the Egyptian delegation had advised them to find a long-term plan, along the lines of the Cold War, for containing the Iranian threat. However, some US officials assured that “Cairo does not support directing a destructive military strike [against Iran]. Confronting the Iranian threat is more difficult while [there exists such] clamoring for war. It is easier in times of calm since the Iranian regime thrives off of war and inciting the masses.”

Furthermore, US officials said that the Egyptian delegation had advised Washington against counting on the Syrian regime. They added that Egypt has a long history with the Syrian regime and that President Bashar al-Assad is much different than his father [former Syrian President Hafez al-Assad]. The Egyptian delegation said that “President Mubarak was the first to reach out to the Syrian regime in the wake of the assassination of [former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik] Hariri when Damascus was forced to withdraw its army from Lebanon.”

They added that “the Syrian regime does not honor its promises...Egyptian experience with Syria has been bitter...the US should not try what has previously been tried and what has proven to fail.”

US sources said that the current administration’s impression of the Syrian regime has shifted greatly since first coming to power. Since Washington [began] sending delegations to Damascus, it has not yet received a response worthy of note “as bombings in Iraq have not receded while Syrian hindrance of the formation of the Lebanese government still goes on.”

According to these sources, the Egyptian delegation confirmed US fears regarding Syria’s lack of response. Al-Ra’i asked US sources about any evidence that suggested Syria was involved in bombings in Iraq or in disrupting political life in Lebanon and about France’s continuing praise of Syria’s role [in the region], to which they answered: “This is for the media, but in reality, the Syrians are aware that we know that they are not cooperating at all… France is trying to justify the failure of its policies to convince Syria to cooperate; as such we see the French burying their heads in the sand, pretending that everything is just right with Damascus.”

Similarly we asked the US sources about the possibility of a meeting between Obama and Assad on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York next month, to which they answered: “It is still early to discuss the subject. If President Obama was to happen upon [President] Assad in the corridor or in the General Assembly Hall, he would certainly exchange greetings. This is a matter of common decency. However, at this time the decision is not to hold any meeting with the Syrian president.”

The American sources say that with Egypt’s growing role in the region, “the [Obama] administration, which has been disappointed with Syria’s performance day after day, will not abandon its ally Egypt; rather it will continue to take its input. And this most recent input has not presented an entirely positive image of Damascus, which will delay the US and Saudi Arabia opening up to it.”

Story in Now Lebanon