The Bush administration is leaving no stone unturned in focusing its wrath on the Damascus regime because of its long-held stance against US intervention in Iraq, support for Hizbollah in Lebanon, and serving as home for small but ineffectual Palestinian armed groups that are not linked to the Palestinian Authority.
Syria has taken the right step, as reaffirmed by its representative at the UN Security Council session on Tuesday, Fayssal Mekedad, by agreeing to extend the term of the controversial UN mission investigating the assassination last February of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
Hariri is best remembered, particularly in the Arab world, for his amazing generosity and down-to-earth leadership, especially for the facelift he gave Beirut, the once-again glittering Lebanese capital.
Syria needs to cooperate fully with the UN investigation, be it concerning compliance with the draft UN resolution submitted by the US and French governments at the end of the session or some other guiding principles. The stakes are too high for Damascus to do otherwise.
Syria may not have any choice but to work hand in hand with the UN investigators, despite the glaring shortcomings and the misgivings voiced by legal experts about the report detailing the initial investigation conducted by the German prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis.
Although the Syrian government has voiced serious reservations about the Mehlis findings, the alternatives may unwittingly give its foes, in the region and elsewhere, good enough reason to initiate “a palace coup;” the only possibility in the opinion of a key member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations since it would be hard to bring about “a regime change” in Damascus, as some officials in the Bush administration are reportedly advocating.
Steven A. Cook, described as an Arab affairs expert at the influential council, appears to have accepted, like many others here, the allegations in the preliminary report by the German prosecutor who implicated high-level Syrian and Lebanese officials in the assassination of the Lebanese leader. However, Cook agreed that the 55-page report described by one law professor as “legal heresy” would undermine the Syrian regime.
“(The report) may increase international pressure on the Syrians, but in terms of domestic political pressure, there is no coherent, unified, strong opposition in Syria. So if there is going to be any change in Syria, it's going to have to come from within.”
In other words, “a palace coup” concocted by elements who are close to Syrian President Bashar Al Assad.
From the legal standpoint, Daoud Khairallah, professor of law at Georgetown University, was critical of Mehlis' performance. In an interview, he said he was shocked that the statements of witnesses or other material information about the ongoing investigation were made public. “This would be considered obstruction of justice,” he said, “especially when the revealed information may be helpful to participants in a criminal act and who are still at large or who have not yet been identified by the investigator.”
He continued: “In this respect, the publication of the Mehlis report is a flagrant violation of the golden rule of confidentiality of the investigation process.”
The investigation stage in criminal procedures, he explained, “in all jurisdictions — Lebanese and American — is totally confidential and should remain so until a final indictment is issued.”
The reason for that, he continued, “is to secure an environment that would enable the investigator to collect all needed evidence that would lead to an indictment first, and then to conviction in a fair and open trial”. Moreover, “it is also to protect the reputation and interests of people who have been falsely accused”.
The release of the Mehlis report in two versions, the second reportedly the result of an unbelievable “computer glitch” which included barely deleted names of alleged high Syrian conspirators, has cast doubts on the intentions of some UN officials who seemed, through their sloppy action, only to give fodder to the American tirades against Syria. In fact, this brought to mind the case of Hans Blix, the unfortunate UN inspector who found himself in a corner while hopelessly looking for the weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but at the start eager not to challenge the Bush administration's claims.
The Bush administration is leaving no stone unturned in focusing its wrath on the Damascus regime because of its long-held stance against US intervention in Iraq, support for Hizbollah in Lebanon, and serving as home for small but ineffectual Palestinian armed groups that are not linked to the Palestinian Authority.
The UN investigation, extended until Dec. 15, should remain focused solely on the search for the culprits that killed the Lebanese ex-prime minister, and not a tool for destabilising the Damascus regime, a development which, if successful, could have far-reaching consequences in the region already stifled by the Iraqi quagmire and the Palestinian-Israeli impasse.
After all, a stitch in time could save nine.
Friday-Saturday, October 28-29, 2005