Thursday, 17 February 2005View: Jihad Al Khazen
White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Al Hariri: "The President was shocked and angered to learn of the terrorist attack in Beirut today that murdered former Prime Minister Hariri and killed and injured several others. Mr. Hariri was a fervent supporter of Lebanese independence and worked tirelessly to rebuild a free, independent and prosperous Lebanon following its brutal civil war and despite its continued foreign occupation. His murder is an attempt to stifle these efforts to build an independent, sovereign Lebanon, free of foreign domination. The people of Lebanon deserve the freedom to choose their leaders free of intimidation, terror and foreign occupation, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559. The United States will consult with other governments in the region and on the Security Council today, about measures that can be taken to punish those responsible for this terrorist attack, to end the use of violence and intimidation against the Lebanese people, and to restore Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and democracy by freeing it from foreign occupation."
What could we understand from this? Before discussing its indications, I would like to say that we all condemn this monstrous attack with stronger statements than the ones adopted by the Americans, as the assassination of Hariri was a personal loss for every Lebanese who loves his country.
McClellan and the other American officials did not accuse Syria directly; however, in a single sentence, the White House spokesman linked between Syria and the assassination, condemned it, and asked for the end of the Syrian 'occupation.'
It was barely the next morning when the American and European officials started saying that the U.S. administration and its Security Council allies would do their best to issue a statement that condemns the continued Syrian 'occupation,' and pushes for a quick implementation of Resolution 1559.
I understand why Member of Parliament (MP) Marwan Hamadeh, a close friend who went through an assassination attempt which he miraculously survived, said at the moment of the incident: "it is a hideous crime, and the responsible for it is well-known; it starts in Damascus, passes through Baabda, the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese intelligence apparatchiks." I also understand the statement that the Lebanese opposition issued from Qoraytem, and which contained the same meaning; however, I do not understand how the U.S. could precede the investigations, as the least that could be said about such a stance is that it would throw the shadows of suspicion on the results of the investigation, if it condemns Syria.
I do not condemn Syria, and do not consider it to be innocent; I would rather wait for the results of the investigation, and what I know now is that the criminal or the criminals would eventually be uncovered, since the crime goes beyond Lebanon due to the international dimension of the late former PM, which was reflected through the Arab and international reactions to the hideous attack.
What I also know is that President Bashar Al Assad, whom I know well, cannot possibly agree to such a crime, or to any assassination operation of any kind. Saddam Hussein kills, and Ariel Sharon kills, but Bashar Al Assad does not kill and does not agree to killing.
This does not deny the possibility of a rogue operative having carried out the operation, and if this is the case, there would be a chance for saving Lebanon and Syria from the intelligence, and nothing would remain of this other than what is justified, and what is in the best interest of the two peoples.
It is purely logical to search for the beneficiary from such a crime, and to suspect him of carrying it out in order to achieve his interests. Syria benefits from the absence of Hariri, who was one of the most prominent members of the Lebanese opposition and its central pillar; thus, it would be logical for the fingers of accusations to be directed towards Syria. However, this logic is followed by yet another logic of the same relevance, which is that if all the accusations would be pointed at Syria, and the latter could be condemned and be subject to sanctions even prior the end of the investigation, who would be the beneficiary from this? The only answer would be Israel.
I do not accuse Israel of committing this crime, in order for Syria to be accused of it; I also do not accuse Syria of carrying it out in order to eradicate one of the pillars of the Lebanese opposition. The other logic requires us to wait for the results of the investigation, and to avoid suspecting it even prior to its start. Although I would prefer if the Lebanese accept international assistance in this investigation, even if this would be a 'contradiction' to the sovereignty of the country; however, it is a temporary contradiction, until the end of the investigation; whereas a false investigation would endlessly humiliate Lebanon.
The Lebanese government is currently facing a challenge; as its capacity and credibility, and even legitimacy, has been under suspicion from the beginning; these doubts would be justified if the government carries out a superficial investigation which would not uncover the sides of the crimes, or who thought of it, arranged it, and carried it out. However, if it comes up with a professional investigation, and certified and clear results, then it would put an end to the suspicions which accompanied it ever since the beginning.
The Lebanese government finds itself in a hard situation, which seems quite impossible to get out of, as there are presumptions from all sides, and while the Lebanese opposition is accusing Syria, the supporters of the government are accusing Israel. This means that whatever the result of the investigation would be, it would be opposed by this and that side.
An American interference would only add up to the chaos; it would have been acceptable as one of the guarantees to uncover the truth, however, the U.S. is not moderate or objective vis-+á-vis Syria, and it has applied sanctions against it last May, after accusing it of not countering the armed resistance against the Israeli occupation, and not stopping the funding of Iraqi insurgents, or rebels, through its territories.
The translation of the first part of this talk is that the U.S. is against Syria because Syria is against Israel; this is why it quickly linked Damascus to the assassination of Rafiq Al Hariri, as if it was part of the opposition which was astonished by the crime, so it emotionally expressed what was inside its heart. I personally support the French stance, and have great trust in it.
In respect of the memory of this Lebanese man, who was lost by his country, the Arabs, the world, and his family first and foremost, I demand an honest investigation, which would end in the only acceptable way, which is by uncovering the perpetrators and taking them to justice.
The Lebanese opposition is required to remain rational and to rise above its pain in respect of the memory of its principal symbol; and the government supporters are required to moderate their support, in order not to lose their credibility. As for the foreign interference, it is required to adopt objectivity, in order for it not to be accused of settling old conflicts. Rafiq Al Hariri deserves this and much more. |
Thursday, 17 February 2005
Al Hayat
|
|
