The Politics
Of Hariri's Assassination
By Naseer H Aruri
23 February, 2005
Counterpunch
The
tragic assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri,
in Beirut on Monday, February 14, 2005, reverberated across the region,
as it evoked vivid memories from Lebanon's 14-year civil war. In itself,
the act is a political earthquake, the fall- out from which will have
profound local, regional and international implications. Hariri was
not an ordinary Lebanese politician. Inside Lebanon he symbolized a
fragile economic recovery reflected in the economic and political rebuilding
of a shattered society. Moreover, he was a new breed of Lebanese politician,
one who would cast his net fairly wide across a broad political spectrum.
Unlike the days
of the civil war, the realignment after Hariri's death now reflects
a novel political divide where the fault lines are no longer religious
but national. The opposition to the Lahoud/Karame pro-Syrian government
is no longer focused on Maronite centrality; today the Maronite Patriarch
Sfeir walks hand in hand with Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, and an undifferentiated
slew of Sunni politicians. Druze and Sunnis were of course pillars of
the Lebanese Nationalist Movement of the 70s and 80s, which allied itself
with the Palestinians against a Syrian/ Maronite thrust united in the
need to thwart the emergence of a Lebanese " communist Cuba"
on Syria's strategic periphery.
At the regional level, Hariri was a major player who enjoyed a close
relationship with Saudi Arabia, a working relationship with Syria (despite
his resignation over Syrian backing for a renewal of Lahoud's presidency),
and solid contacts with the Palestinians. At the international level,
few Arab politicians have acquired his stature among the great power
leaders, such as the French President Chirac, Malaysian leader, Mahattir,
and even George Bush. To some Lebanese, he was a symbol of globalization,
reconstruction and philanthropy; to others, his company Solidere, stood
for corruption, a staggering debt, and even forcible eviction. Nevertheless,
among the majority of Lebanese, he is seen broadly as a benefactor,
and a nation-builder in the political and economic sense.The liquidation
of Hariri was thus an act directed against the stability of Lebanon
and the new political map that was shaped by his 14 years in power as
Prime Minister since 1990.
There is no shortage
of potential perpetrators, considering that numerous actors, including
Syria, Israel, the United States, Libya and Palestinian militias have
all tried their hands at political assassinations in Lebanon through
the use of bombing. Although the identity of the assassins may never
be known and indeed may prove less important than the consequences,
the important questions are, what the crime will lead to in geo-political
terms, and who the greatest beneficiaries are? What is the likely impact
of this heinous crime on the Lebanese political landscape and the regional
map? We might even add the global dimension.
Despite the fact
that most fingers are pointed at Syria and the Government of Lebanon,
Syria has the most to lose by the revival of sectarian strife. Given
the Bush administration's pressure on Syria, and its declared intent
to effect regime change in various Middle Eastern countries, Syria would
be shooting itself in the foot by taking any action that invites chaos
in Lebanon.
Syria's presence in Lebanon has become totally unacceptable to the US-President
and Congress during the past four years. The Syria Accountability Act
of 2003 and Security Council resolution 1559 of October 2004 impose
sanctions on Syria and require Syria's exit from Lebanon. Thus, Syria
has been behaving cautiously.
Syria's situation
today is not different from that of Iraq in 2002. Both were accused
and/or suspected of supporting terrorism, building weapons of mass destruction,
pursuing a policy of strategic deterrence vis-a-vis Israel, and undermining
the growing US hegemony in the region. Once the United Nations, under
pressure from the US ordered Syria to quit Lebanon, the Iraq scenario
came back alive. The only difference is that 1559 was more firm in its
demands on Syria than were the resolutions which preceded the unlawful
US invasion of Iraq in April 2003. Syria is requested to abandon its
armed allies in Lebanon, to accommodate the Sharon agenda of evicting
Palestinian organizations, even though they are mere press offices,
and withdraw its 14000 troops( already reduced from 40000) inside its
own borders. No such expectations are made of Israel even though it
sits on top of the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967 and has a nuclear
capacity without a shred of regional deterrence.
Simply put, Syria
has been under the gun since September 11 and all its overtures to curry
favor with Washington- be that of delivering suspected al-Qaeda people
and cooperating in various ways with the US endeavor in Iraq-have failed
to sway Bush's neo-conservatives from their strategic goal of balkanizing
the Arab world in pursuit of a common US/Israeli agenda whose first
phase has already been implemented in Iraq. None of Syria's favors have
deterred the ongoing extension of the American empire in the Middle
East.
There is an enormous
contrast between US policy regarding Syria's regional role in the mid-seventies
and the present. A sea change has occurred during the past three decades.
When Syrian forces entered Lebanon to support the right-wing Maronite
forces, and to act as arbiter between the warring sectarian groups in
1976, there were blessings from Israel, Washington and certain Arab
capitals. King Hussein brokered the deal on behalf of the strange bed
fellows in the conviction that Syria's Arab nationalist credentials
would make it a more appropriate "peace keeper" in that area
than Israel. Other state actors with a vested interest in regional stability
would bestow legitimacy on Syria's anomalous mission later on by obtaining
an Arab cover for its unwritten Israeli/American endorsed project on
behalf of a strategic equilibrium.
The US-Israeli sanction
of a Syrian role in Lebanon, however, was short-lived.
The grandiose ambitions
of Begin and Sharon in the Levant were spelled out in 1982, when Israel
invaded Lebanon in order to achieve three goals: 1) to dislodged Syria's
presence in Lebanon and reduce Syria to manageable proportions. 2) to
expel the PLO from Lebanon and thus pre-empt a Palestinian state-in-waiting.
3) to alter the political map of Lebanon in such a manner that Maronite
hegemony would be assured at the expense of Sunnis, Shi'a, Druze and
the Palestinians. Bashir Jumayyil, leader of the Phalanges was Israel's
chosen president/viceroy, but he was assassinated before taking the
oath of office.
When the Lebanese
resistance foiled Israel's plans for the Lebanese political map, and
Syria stayed put, US President Reagan sent the marines to replace the
Israelis who withdrew to South Lebanon, where they stayed until ejected
by Hizbollah in May, 2000. Neither Israel nor the United States had
forgotten the humiliation of abrupt withdrawal-The Americans after the
disastrous bombing of the US Marine Barracks in 1983; the Israelis after
their inability to stand firm in the face of Hizbollah's sophisticated
resistance. Syria's presence in Lebanon was reaffirmed by the Arab league,
and at Taif, where the agreement became a symbol of that presence.
The equation arranged
by Washington for Syria and Lebanon in 1976 has been withering away
since the 1980s. Hafez Assad's strategic power play during the 1991
Iraq war may have kept it on resuscitation, but the raison d'etre is
no longer there. Hafez Assad is no longer on the scene, and Washington
has no more need for Syrian cooperation in the containment of Saddam
Hussein, who languishes in a US jail in Iraq.
Moreover, with US
Middle East policy now consigned to the likes of David Wurmser, Edward
Feit, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and other Sharon
operatives in the think tanks, media and the administration, Syria's
regional role will not be seen in the same context employed by Bush
I and Baker. It should be recalled that David Wurmser helped draft a
document entitled "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: the US
Role?" in 2000, which called for a confrontation with Syria, which
it accused of developing "weapons of mass destruction. According
to Charles Glass ("Bashar Assad: The Syrian Sphinx," Independent,
February 19, 2005) "Washington's neoconservatives were sharpening
their knives for Syria long before they assumed office courtesy of George
Bush. Many of them have already been advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu
during his brief tenure as prime minister of Israel." Glass adds:
"the American advisers, including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle,
counseled Israel in 1996 that it can shape its strategic environment...
by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria,.an effort that
can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling
Syria's regional ambitions."
These operative's
push for an invasion of Iraq in 2002/03 is now being renewed against
Syria and Iran, while a new formula for a Lebanon minus Hizbullah is
being geared up. Such a formula would enable Israel to achieve two of
the strategic goals of its 1982 invasion, which had been foiled by the
Lebanese resistance. That is why Lebanon without Syrian troops and impotent
Hizbullah is now a US and Israeli declared objective. A greatly weakened
Syria is crucial as long as both Israel and the US are determined to
see a nuclear-free Iran. We are a great distance away from Bush and
Baker's "Dual Containment" of Iran and Iraq. Washington's
various operatives make no secret about the need to attack Iran's nuclear
facilities. President Bush himself pledged to back Israel in the event
it launched an aerial strike against Iran. Thus a liquidation of Hizbullah
is seen as a necessary step for subduing Iran as well as Syria.
Hariri's death,
no matter who arranged it, is the perfect opportunity to implement the
Israeli/US strategy, and revisit Israel's frustrated plans of 1982.
What better circumstances could enable Israel to reap the benefits of
Hariri's murder? Unlike 1982, Maronites, Druze, and Sunnis are all lined
up against Syria, and once Syria is weakened, they would line up against
Hizbullah too.
Not only would this
scenario serve the interests of Israel, by helping it achieve unfulfilled
aspirations, but it also paves the way for an extension of the American
empire without the kind of European opposition encountered in the 2003
invasion of Iraq. It would be a contiguous American empire stretching
between the oil of the Caspian Sea and the bountiful wells of Saudi
Arabia.
Thus the tragic death of Rafiq Hariri is inextricably linked to the
ongoing remapping which lies at the crossroads after the war in Afghanistan,
followed by Sharon's war on the Palestinians, and the invasion of Iraq.
It was like fuel poured on the fire of these conflicts conveniently
classified as wars against terror.
Should the grand
strategy succeed in the way conceived by the Washington neo-conservatives
and Tel Aviv's Likudists, the old pillars, which kept a semblance of
an Arab world going, will have been dealt a severe blow. The formulae
affecting Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and the Gulf
will have been shattered.
The only salvation
for an Arab world on its way to becoming a new Middle East, is to recalculate
the real cost of dependency, fragmentation, misuse of strategic resources,
and the tenacious clinging to autocracy as they face an onslaught which
reminds us of 1258. That, however, is an entirely separate subject,
which requires its own examination.
Naseer Aruri is
Chancellor Professor (Emeritus) at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.
His latest book is Dishonest Broker: the US Roles in Israel and Palestine,
Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2003