| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| The truth about Syria's interference in Lebanon |
| 2007-06-26 |
| Contrary to what the Syrian leadership is trying to publicize about its current 'neutral' stances and its 'non-interference' in the details of Lebanese internal divergences, the latest declarations made by Syrian Vice President Farouk el-Shara in a meeting alleged to have been held with the media, showed another aspect of this orientation and unveiled Damascus's clear and constant stance. These declarations were published when the initiative of Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa was at its peak in Beirut among an Arab mission to revive the interrupted dialogue among Lebanese leaders. Therefore, these declarations appeared to be addressed to this very initiative and also to its curators, especially because they expressed Syria's opinion about a group of thorny points representing the core of Lebanese disputes. Some of these points are the National Unity Government, the relations between Beirut and Damascus, and the legitimacy of the Fouad Siniora government and of the parliamentary majority. With regard to the government, the Syrian Vice President believes that it is not possible to achieve anything different than the idea based on creating a national unity government and that without this, Lebanon will not stabilize. The idea of a national unity government is optimal in principle, and was proposed before independent ministers were asked to withdraw from the government. Likewise, the majority team in Lebanon is not opposed to this government. It has affirmed this many times and repeated it during Amr Moussa's Lebanese mission. Considering the non-formation of the government to be a gateway to Lebanon's 'instability' is, at least, an example of interference in an internal affair, a matter unacceptable to the norms of international relations. At most, and specifically with respect to Syria, this opinion means 'inciting' to link the current instability and the continuous assassinations in Lebanon to the opposition's request concerning the government. Respectively, Shara does not conceal his clear 'estimation' of the size of the majority in the government and parliament, although the overwhelming majority of Arab and foreign countries have acknowledged it. He believes that 'a bunch of politicians' in Lebanon cannot bring Syria to cut its relations (what relations?), close its borders and enter into an armed conflict, even if these politicians had a 'portion of the Lebanese masses'(!). He added, "In Lebanon we have stronger allies than others, if they wanted to use this power." The Syrian Vice President was certainly referring to military power, since the political one is not in the hands of Syria's allies, as he complains. In fact, no national unity government has been formed so far. When speaking of the military power of Syria's allies, what crops into one's mind is not the team led by General Michel Aoun, for instance, or Talal Arsalan. Indeed, what one immediately thinks of is Hezbollah, the strongest team - militarily speaking - in the Lebanese arena as a result of its intense armament used previously to carry out resistance and currently to remain in a state of readiness! Therefore, one must at this point consider Hezbollah leadership's opinion about this issue. Does it think that the party's 'military power' has now become something to be used based on the request of the Syrian 'ally'? There is one positive point left that one must refer to and thank the Syrian Vice President for raising: Lebanon has matured and become capable of solving its own problems with no Syrian or Arab military interference. We hope that this position truly expresses Syria's political intentions in this stage and that it is not only a way to inhibit any other Arab role in Lebanon aimed at rescuing the country from the standstill in which it is now stuck and preventing it from emerging among all other countries for its political and security situation. In front of these Syrian positions, which have become sincere and clear, it is now politically naïve to believe that the dispute among the Lebanese people is contained within Lebanon itself and that a solution can be found through a meeting of a group of leaders representing the two contending parties. As Amr Moussa has found out at the end of the mission, which has failed to achieve its goal, the decision of a team of the opposition comes from abroad. This is proved by the remarkable contradiction between the opposition's acceptance of the settlement projects that it itself had partially proposed and that is backing down on after a short while, under the shadow, or the pressure, of foreign stances. |
| Posted by:Fred |