220
While the war in Iraq divided the United States and “Old Europe,” the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri helped bring about a rapprochement of the trans-Atlantic alliance with Brussels, Paris and Washington joining the Lebanese opposition in demanding the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon.
Indeed, France, which had bore the brunt of the American’s reaction to Europe’s anti-war stance, has seen a thawing of what until now were icy relations between French President Jacques Chirac and the Bush administration. The dictum “punish France, ignore Germany and reward Russia,” which Condoleezza Rice was reported to have said while national security adviser, is now a policy of the past.
The administration of Bush’s second term in the White House appears to have had an epiphany - or to use its own terminology -- a change of heart and mind - moving away from the first term unilateralist views espoused by the president.
The second Bush administration seems to have realized that it needs all the help it can get in promoting the president’s vision of expanding democracy and freedom to the world, as Bush outlined in his State of the Union address.
It has realized that the cooperation of the Europeans remains vital when dealing with the burning issues of the day - the continuing threat of terrorism, convincing Syria to quit Lebanon, strong-arming Iran to renege on its nuclear ambitions, and finding a solution to the Iraq situation.
On terrorism, the United States needs the cooperation of the Europeans. First, the Europeans have more experience in dealing with terrorism and a number of terror groups are either based in Europe, or transit through there, and cooperation in that field is vital. At the same time the Europeans also realize they cannot fight terrorism alone.
On Syria, the Europeans and the U.S. are in complete agreement in calling for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon and for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty.
Washington and Paris are ready to apply pressure through the U.N. Resolution 1559 and the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. Working in tandem, with the support of Brussels with whom Damascus maintains good relations, will help influence Bashar Assad.
Iraq remains the sticking point in Euro-U.S.-relations with the Europeans still reluctant to become involved militarily in a war most Europeans are still very much opposed to. However, President Bush’s fence-mending Euro-tour resulted in a mixed bag of results. While none of the 26 NATO countries volunteered to dispatch forces to Iraq, Bush did obtain promises of European cooperation in training Iraqi forces and judges. The American president even succeeded in convincing the French - the most vociferous in opposing military intervention - to dispatch one symbolic officer to act as a liaison official. While the sole French officer offers little more than a symbol, it nevertheless allows Bush to claim that another country - France - is now part of the “Coalition of the Willing.” This represents an important milestone for Bush in his push for greater democracy.
Given the American president’s repeated calls for greater freedom and
transparency in government, Bush can hardly pass up on the call of Lebanon’s newly born “Red, White Revolution.”
Bush, who met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia, a country that went through its own “Velvet Revolution,” alluded to the need of freedom. The president referred to the Slovaks’ own uprising and to the Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. Bush’s repeated calls for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon can only encourage the country’s own “Red and White” revolt which was ignited from the fires of Hariri’s death.
Whoever is responsible for the killing of former prime minister miscalculated on three counts: first, they never expected the colossal reaction this crime would generate or the shock waves it would send around the world - particularly in Washington -- where Syria is already looked at with suspicion.
Second, those who consigned the killing never anticipated the grass-root movement Hariri’s death would create in Lebanon by uniting Lebanese of all confessional and social background.
And third, they didn’t calculate on the “enough” factor, that “tipping point” where a single event can trigger a reaction in the most unpredictable manner. This is what happened in Prague in December 1989; it happened in Kiev last December, and it could well be happening in Beirut in 2005.
The solidarity demonstrated at Hariri’s funeral - Muslims, Christian and Druze walking and weeping together, the ringing of church bells and the muezzin’s call to prayer -- spoke volumes about the current state of mind of the Lebanese today. A mood captured by mourners who scribbled a single word on makeshift posters; “Enough!” One simple word that projected the country’s emotion.
That word is being heard in Washington. President Bush and his new secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were quick to condemn Hariri’s killing, and although they stopped short of directly blaming Damascus, in an indirect manner most officials in Washington pointed accusing fingers at Syria. If it wasn’t said officially, it was certainly whispered surreptitiously inside the Washington halls of power. In any case the innuendo was certainly there. The recalling of United States Ambassador Margaret Scobey from Damascus stressed the seriousness
of Washington’s displeasure with the regime of Bashar Assad.
Commenting on the bombing of Hariri’s convoy, officials in the U.S.
intelligence community spoke of “signatures” and modus operandi that “followed patterns preferred by Syria or its agents in Lebanon.” Bush was also quick to demand that Syria complies with the demands of United Nations Resolution 1559 and withdraw its troops from Lebanon. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that Syrian claims that their military presence in Lebanon was meant to provide security no longer holds after the death of Hariri.
Everyone in Washington is now speculating on what the next move is likely to be. There is hardly any doubt that the president will do something, but what options are open to him, and what sort of timetable is he likely to keep to, remains unknown. Here is what is known:
Washington has been advocating regime change in Damascus for some time now. The Bush administration has consistently accused Damascus of facilitating the passage of insurgents to and form Iraq, and of abetting former Iraqi Baath officials. Washington continues to accuse Syria of supporting and harboring groups it considers terrorists.
The recent declaration by Tehran - which is considered part of Bush’s “Axis of Evil” - that it was forming a unified front with Damascus only helped raised the stakes, and renewed calls from American legislators that punitive action against Syria be taken.
Syria, meanwhile, has been working hard, denying they had any involvement in Hariri’ killing. Imad Mustapha, Syria’s ambassador to Washington has been making the rounds of television studios and newsrooms in an effort to convince the United States of his country’s innocence.
“It’s a catastrophe for Syria,” Mustapha told me a few hours after the killing of Hariri. “This will give fuel to our enemies around the world. It will not serve Syrian interests in Lebanon.”
But as far as Washington is concerned at this point it matters little if Syria is responsible of or not. Syria’s track record in support of terrorism, as accused by Washington, is such that even if they were not involved, this is a case where they appear guilty until proven otherwise. And short of complete change of policy, Damascus would have a very hard time proving otherwise.
Damascus now faces pressure from two fronts: Washington’s new drive for Syria to pull out its 14,000 troops stationed in Lebanon. And at the same time the ever-more vociferous grass root movement and opposition in Lebanon calling for the withdrawal of Syrian forces is gaining momentum and support in prominent Washington circles.
With the White House, the Congress, the Pentagon and the majority of the Lebanese calling for Syria to re-deploy out of Lebanon, Damascus is caught between having to know when enough is enough, or to raise the stakes in a game where the outcome is totally unpredictable and dangerous for the whole region.
