Monday, October 31, 2005

"To survive, Bashar Assad will have to fight his family," By Seale

To survive, Bashar Assad will have to fight his family

By Patrick Seale
Monday, October 31, 2005

The political storm caused by the Mehlis report into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has, paradoxically, provided Syria's President Bashar Assad with a golden opportunity. For the first time since he came to power in 2000, he has a unique chance to impose his authority on rival power centers and emerge as the real ruler of Syria.

In their different ways, both the international community and his own public are urging him to act. They are encouraging him to carry out a "corrective movement" against undisciplined barons of his regime, including men close to him, similar to the palace coup which brought his late father, Hafez Assad, to power in 1970. The choice before Assad is clear: either continue to claim that Syria is innocent of the murder of Hariri and that the charges in the Mehlis report are unsound and politically motivated or recognize that mistakes have been made and carry out a purge of the top security officials named in the report.

The first course would inevitably condemn the regime to international isolation and to wide-ranging sanctions, including the freezing of overseas assets of its leading members, a travel ban, and possibly even the issue of international arrest warrants. A destabilized Syria would then be vulnerable to attempts at "regime change" by its enemies.

In contrast, the second course would stabilize the country and the wider region, and win Assad immediate domestic and international support. But to manage a crisis of such unprecedented proportions, Assad would need to display unusual qualities of courage and political acumen. This is the most difficult moment in the president's career. Moreover, he is under pressure to act fast. It is likely that the window of opportunity will be open for only the next few weeks. The United Nations has given Mehlis until December 15 to complete his investigations and submit a more detailed report. Within this limited time-frame, Assad will enjoy a certain freedom of maneuver, largely for the following reasons:

First, although the Mehlis report confirmed his quarrel with Hariri, it did not suggest that he was personally implicated in the murder; second, members of the Security Council have asked Syria to conduct its own investigation into the murder, which Damascus has, in fact, now agreed to do so. This is a clear signal from the international community urging Assad to act; third, tens of thousands of people came out on the streets of Damascus, Aleppo and other cities last week in support of Assad. Although it was not clear whether the demonstrations were organized by the security services, the Baath Party or Assad's own men, the message was clear. The public wants the president to show strength to protect the country from enemies abroad and wild men at home; fourth, even the so-called "patriotic opposition" is ready to back the president against external, largely American, pressures, if he undertakes to clean up corruption and crime, rein in the security services, and give more space to civil rights activists; and fifth, by far the most important factor in Assad's favor is the support he appears to enjoy from the commanders of Syria's armored and mechanized divisions, and from the elite Republican Guard. Among staunch Assad loyalists, for example, is Manaf Tlass, a prominent officer in the Republican Guard, and the son of the former long-serving Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass.

The Syrian Army is a highly secretive organization. The names of the most influential and powerful officers are largely unknown. But the army remains the guardian of the state's legitimacy. Its chiefs were not implicated in the Mehlis report. They obeyed the political leadership in withdrawing from Lebanon. Today, they have a vital role in defending the country's institutions, including the presidency itself.

Observers of the Syrian scene believe that the backing of these men could allow Assad to face down his younger brother, Maher, who commands a powerful praetorian unit, the 4th Corps, which controls the immediate approaches to the capital. If a confrontation were to occur between the brothers, it would be a replay of the clash in 1984 between Assad and his younger brother Rifaat, who at the time also commanded a powerful unit known as the Defense Companies. That confrontation ended in Hafez Assad's triumph and Rifaat's eventual exile.

This is a moment of great fluidity in Syrian affairs. The present situation is untenable. The country is expecting some sort of a showdown between rival forces. In these difficult times, the inclination is to keep one's head down and not take sides. For example, leading luminaries of the Baath Party have not spoken. The new Regional Command formed after the party congress last summer has so far not issued a statement in support of Assad, who is the party's secretary-general.

Something of a mystery also surrounds the position of Foreign Minister Farouk Sharaa. Rumor has it that he has not been seen at the office recently. A meeting he was due to have in New York last week with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was cancelled. The Mehlis report accused him of providing false information.

It is also no secret that Syria's powerful security and intelligence services are deeply divided. They are at the center of the Hariri scandal. The president's brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, head of military intelligence, was named in the report. The recent suicide or killing of Minister of Interior Ghazi Kanaan points to a situation of extreme tension between the strongmen of the regime.

Assad may derive small comfort from the gap in American and French positions regarding Syria. The prime French interest would seem to be to arrive at the truth concerning Hariri's murder and to protect Lebanon from further Syrian interference. France is cautious about endorsing regime change, in spite of President Jacques Chirac's apparent personal animus against Assad. Nor does France share Washington's wider agenda use the Hariri murder to pressure Syria into changing its regional policies.

In particular, the Bush administration would like Syria to prevent any help reaching the Iraqi insurgents across its border. It would like to break Syria's alliance with both Iran and Hizbullah. And it would like Syria to end its support for radical Palestinian factions.

Looking beyond the outrage over the Hariri murder, most Syrians would argue that a grave injustice is being done to their country. Israel appears to enjoy complete immunity, while the United States and Britain are guilty of waging an illegal war in Iraq. Why is Syria alone in the dock? Is there a more flagrant example of international double standards than this?

Patrick Seale, a veteran Middle East analyst, wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Anthony Shadid on Alawites and the Regime

Anthony Shadid is cleaning up in the race to report from Syria. His deep knowledge of the region, ability to speak Arabic, and sensitivity to his informants means he is getting the real story, as his last two articles, copied below, make clear. He does not get bogged down in tired metaphors like "the mafia inc.," no matter how compelling they are or how useful in short-handing messages to the US audience. Most Middle Eastern states are variations on the Mafia structure. Wealth, jobs and influence are distributed through patronage networks. Syria is no exception to this rule. True democracy, the rule of law, and meritocracy should sweep away such political and economic structures. That is the theory, at least. Of course, this is the long-term outcome that Syrians hope for, but they know better than to expect anything like that in the short term. What will happen, should the Asad family and Alawi hierarchy be displaced, is that another patronage system will be established in its stead. What the pillars of that system are likely to be, or how long it will take before they can be established, no one knows.

The Kanaan story Shadid outlines for us is about what happens to one Alawite region when its main patron dies. Its people are cut off from jobs, money, and a direct connection to the state. In turn, the state loses the loyalty and backing or the region. The shift from the "old guard" to the "new guard" under President Bashar has meant a vast displacement of patronage networks throughout the Alawite coastal region. Hafiz al-Asad and his security chieftains all emerged from villages in the Alawi Mountains. They competed among themselves to deliver jobs and infrastructure to their own and neighboring villages. As the old guard has been removed from power by Bashar, these patronage networks have also been removed, one after another.

The members of the "new guard," Bashar's generation, are not attached to their village as their father's were. The "sons of power" were brought up in Latakia, Damascus and other cities, only visiting their father's villages from time to time. They do not know the names of all their cousins and relatives, nor do they feel obliged to help them in the same manor that their fathers did. The new generation spends its money in the cities not in the villages nor among the farmers that many of them look down on as city people have a want to do. Increasingly the mountain villages are feeling cut of from the state. They do not feel that Bashar is "ta'ifi" or sectarian as his father was. They accuse him of ignoring his people. One hears such Alawi complaints as, "Bashar might as well be a Druze or Kurd. We have been ignored." Bashar's effort to modernize Syria has meant dumping the old patronage system in an effort to build a new one. Some explain this new system in terms of "crony capitalism," but it is not yet well formed. No one knows what it means for the future of the state and the presidency. Can the shift between the old mafia and the new, between countryside and city, between security chieftains and crony capitalists be carried off? As the weight of the regime moves from the countryside to the city, can the Alawite leaders of Syria retain their authority and legitimacy, or will it evaporate along with their connection to their social base in the villages?

Bashar has only begun to oversee this transformation of power - or "modernization," as it is sometimes called. The body blow his regime is now taking from the United States and France may very well catch him at a time when he is between horses.

Death of Syrian Minister Leaves A Sect Adrift in Time of Strife

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 31, 2005; A01

BIHAMRA, Syria -- In this scenic village, along terraced hills of pine and palm trees, the body of Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan rests in a coffin draped in a Syrian flag, a leather-bound Koran at each corner. His death on Oct. 12 was certain. Less so are the shadowy circumstances that removed from the scene one of Syria's most powerful men, an interlocutor between the religious sect known as the Alawites, who have long ruled the country, and a government they controlled but increasingly see as distant and corrupt.

A suicide, officials said, closing the case the day after Kanaan died. A relative, Mazen Kanaan, smiled at the thought.

"He was a man of confrontation," he said. "Suicide is an escape. He wasn't a man to run away from something."

How did he die then? the relative was asked. "That is for you to figure out," he answered.

The timing of Kanaan's death has also raised suspicions. Only recently he had been questioned in a U.N. investigation that implicates senior officials in the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister.

In the sometimes brutal politics of Syria's elite, in which violence is intertwined with cunning, the 63-year-old Kanaan was a man of many faces: self-made Alawite strongman, ruthless politician and potential contender for power. In his village of Bihamra and the region that spills beyond it, he was something else: a feudal-like lord who tended to members of his Alawite minority, cultivating their support and defending their interests. To them, his death -- murder or suicide -- has become more than the passing of a figure who bordered on the iconic. It is an instance, writ small, of the growing frustration and fear in the religious sect that has served as the backbone of 35 years of Baath Party rule and is still viewed as the linchpin of President Bashar Assad's five years in power.

"No one can replace him. Maybe in a thousand years someone else like him will come," said Mazen Kanaan, sipping a small cup of bitter coffee in the courtyard of Ghazi Kanaan's now-shuttered mansion. "People need help but they have no one to go to."

These are difficult days for Syria's Alawites, and in their sentiments may be hints of the vulnerability of Assad's government as it faces a crisis over the U.N. investigation. In villages like Bihamra, across forbidding mountains that spring from the Mediterranean coast, there is deep anxiety that in a time of strife, Alawites will bear the brunt of vendettas dating to the decades when they provided the leadership of the government, military and feared security services.

That apprehension comes as frustration surges that the very state they are tied to has abandoned them. The military that ended their historic marginalization is neglected and disrespected, some of their villages remain without running water and, many say, the government, despite its Alawite cast, no longer defends them.

"It's like people don't know we live in the country," said Kharfan Khazin Ahmed, a 61-year-old retired government employee from the Alawite village of Qarir. "Every person sitting in the chair of power cares about money, not about the people."

Rise to the Top


Alawites are a small but pivotal community in Syria's tapestry of sect and ethnicity. Syria is predominantly Arab, with a Kurdish minority in the northeast. But among the Arabs are many Muslim sects: Sunni Muslims are the majority, along with minorities of Alawis, Druze and Ismailis, all of whom trace their origins back to Shiite Islam. The Alawites are the largest of those religious minorities, representing probably about 12 percent of Syria's 18 million people. They are centered in the region around Bihamra.

For centuries, Alawites faced withering discrimination, in part over the suspicions generated by their secretive, loosely Shiite religious traditions. Their secluded mountain villages are a relic of that ostracism, and they were some of the poorest, least educated and most rural of Syria's inhabitants. As with other religious minorities in the Middle East, many Alawites turned to the Baath Party, drawn to its pan-Arab, leftist and secular ideology, hoping it might dilute Syria's Sunni dominance and provide a more inclusive notion of identity. To escape grinding poverty, they joined the military, soon filling the ranks of its senior officer corps. In modern Syria, those two institutions -- party and military -- have ruled for 35 years.

Assad is an Alawite, and during the presidency of his father and predecessor, Hafez Assad, the sect emerged from behind the scenes to command the government's most sensitive positions in the military and security services. While the elder Assad was careful to give a Sunni face to portfolios such as the defense and foreign ministries and to forge alliances with other groups, his inner circle was drawn from his own community, often his own Qalbiyya tribe and family. In that sense, he was not only Syria's strongman, but also the leader of his sect, responsible for its fortunes.

"You will remain eternal in our hearts forever," reads a billboard with the elder Assad's portrait at the entrance to Qurdaha, his home town, about a mile along a winding road of ancient, rounded hills from Kanaan's village of Bihamra.

Under the younger Assad, to a remarkable degree, the circle of Alawite dominance has narrowed to his family. Gone are some of the sect's most powerful men -- former intelligence chiefs such as Ali Duba and Mohammed Khouli, for instance. Kanaan, Syria's point man in Lebanon for two decades and later the interior minister, was one of the last and most prominent. A product of the feared Mukhabarat, or Syrian intelligence, his reputation in much of the country was of a fearsome, hard man; in Bihamra, it was of a charitable one.

"He helped everyone in the village," said a doctor who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He was like a father for this entire place. Any help you needed as a citizen, you could go to him. His door was open to both the poor and princes."

The doctor, Kanaan's relative and others sat in the courtyard of his stucco, red-roofed villa on a cool morning. They snacked on bananas and apples, drank coffee and smoked cigarettes, ignoring the dawn-to-dusk fast of the holy month of Ramadan. The Alawite region is one of Syria's most secular, reflecting the imprint of a Baath Party that saw tribe and religion as barriers to modernization. The veil is hardly seen; missing are the most conservative Arab traditions that discourage interaction between men and women.

Bihamra itself shows the legacy of Kanaan's power and influence: He provided money to build the Jaafar Tayar mosque, opened a library with seven computers and built a community center named for his father, Mohammed Ali. While in Lebanon, he visited every month or two. On his return to Damascus in 2002, he visited at least once every two weeks, more often for funerals. As a young man, the story goes, in one of the myths that can overshadow life's excesses, he gave part of his first lieutenant's salary to villagers.

"The difference is that he would help someone and expect nothing in return," his relative said.

"They're going to feel the emptiness," he added.

An Ally Is Lost

Two weeks after his body was found, Kanaan's death remains the talk of Damascus. Most often heard is speculation that he faced disgrace on corruption charges and chose suicide instead. But many speculate that he represented one of the few potential rivals to Bashar Assad, giving rise to a slew of conspiracy theories: that he was forced to kill himself or that he was murdered, possibly poisoned. One well-informed Syrian said that the day after Kanaan died, all the coffee cups from his Interior Ministry office were seized to conceal evidence of foul play.

"They committed his suicide," said a Syrian dissident, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The talk in Bihamra, though, is more visceral and perhaps more telling. In the repercussions of Kanaan's death lies a truth about Syria and its government today: The younger Assad is viewed as less ta'ifi , or sectarian. His outlook is ostensibly more modern, possibly reformist; bucking tradition, he took for his wife a Sunni, not an Alawite. But as he struggles to put a more contemporary veneer on his rule, he faces a society still suffering deep cleavages that reflect unresolved questions of identity. The Baath Party offered one answer: The country is Arab. But other identities still compete -- Alawi, Sunni, Christian and so on -- in a zero-sum game of communal survival.

And in that question of survival, villagers say, Alawites lost one of their last, most prominent defenders in Kanaan. In his place, some Alawites say, is a government that cares about the military only to ensure it doesn't rebel; a ruling family most worried about its survival; and a state that promotes not the sect's interest, but networks bound by patronage and power that are growing richer. Even some Alawite intelligence officials are said to be disenchanted over the higher profile of Assad's family at their expense.

"Sadma," Kanaan's relative called his death, a shock or a blow. "Not just for the village, but for the entire region."

"He served the people. He transferred their words," said Shaalan Asad, a 51-year-old former teacher who runs a grocery store in Jobat Berghal, about a half-hour away. "He was a connection between the people and the government and their officials."

Asad, sitting on the porch of his shop, reflected on his village's story. In the 1970s, after the elder Assad took power, electricity finally arrived. The main road was paved, bringing cars where donkeys long trod over dirt paths along rocky ridges that spilled into verdant valleys of apples, cottonwoods and olives. Schools were opened in the 1980s, and the town had a sports club and a community center. Today, they are closed, unstaffed and in disrepair. He said villagers are still waiting for running water.

"We really need more," he said. "It's slow. They can't do two or three projects at the same time."

In Damascus and other Syrian cities, there is the perception that the Alawite roots of the Assad family have meant hamlets like Jobat Berghal have received favorable treatment. That view often inspires anger among the Alawite villagers here.

"The opposite! The opposite!" shouted Ahmed, the retired government employee, his face leathery from the sun.

"We're all Alawites here and when you come here, you can't find anything," he said.

As Ahmed spoke, years of grievances poured out. He ignored the coded language often employed in Syria's repressive climate. The courts? They are suffused with bribes and corruption, he said. The law? It protects the powerful and wealthy. He still pumps water into his home from a steel vat. He and other villagers have filed thousands of loan applications and still await an answer.

"President Hafez Assad said it was the right of any citizen to raise his voice if he sees injustice. You should speak out against it," Ahmed said. "Now they say it's not your right to talk. They say it's not your business, even if there's something wrong."

A Question of Identity

It is sometimes a joke among Alawites that, in the event of turmoil, they would flee to their villages near here, the same mountain redoubts that offered protection over centuries of ill will.

They laugh, but a hint of anxiety shadows the remarks. So does a sense of injustice: While some Alawites have profited under the Assads' rule, at times profligately, many have seen little benefit.

"They worry about the regime and about the accusations against the regime," said Tareq Abad, a 30-year-old sailor in the village of Shadaita, who belongs to another religious sect known as the Murshidis. (Numbering possibly 200,000, they are followers of a Syrian holy man and populist from the region who was executed in 1946.) "What would they do if the regime collapsed?"

He sat with two friends, who looked at the ground as he spoke, perhaps fearing his forthrightness. He sensed their unease.

"Let's face it," he said, shaking his head, "the government is Alawite."

Many Syrians take pride in the coexistence of the country's sects. Asking someone their identity is often seen as rude. But sectarian fault lines lurk beneath the surface. Some Syrians argue that the divisions were deepened by the battle between the government and the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni Muslim movement, in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Over more than a decade, the Sunni community itself has grown increasingly religious, with greater manifestations of piety such as the veil. This summer, a clash in the village of Qadmous, in the coastal province of Tartus, took a sectarian bent, pitting two minorities, Alawites and Ismailis, against each other.

In the village of Mzaraa, a 33-year-old grocer, Firas Deeb, dismissed the talk of sect. He was Syrian, he insisted. Still, he said he expected his relatives to return if there was conflict in the country. There was no other choice.

"That's certain," he said, nodding.

"The people in Damascus will return to the village, and they'll find protection with their people. You can hide here," Deeb said. "They're going to hide behind the rocks and the stones. In the city, there are no rocks and stones."

-------
Inner Circle in Syria Holds Power, and Perhaps Peril

By Anthony Shadid and Robin Wright
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 28, 2005; A01

DAMASCUS, Syria -- The brother is an impetuous officer, who wields control over the praetorian Republican Guard. The sister is nicknamed "the Iron Lady." Her husband is a burly general who rose methodically through the ranks of Syria's feared intelligence services. Presiding over them is Bashar Assad, the Syrian president who runs what some have called "a dictatorship without a dictator."

Diplomats and analysts say that together, the four represent the corporate leadership of Syria, a country facing its greatest crisis in decades following the release of a U.N. investigation that implicates senior officials in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. In this crisis, they say, the Assad family circle is a source of the president's strength. It may also be his weakness. If his relatives are directly linked to the killing, the scandal could bring down his government.

Both Assad's brother Maher and his brother-in-law, Asef Shawkat, were named in earlier versions of the report, although many diplomats here said the evidence was spotty. The Syrian government has repeatedly denied any role in the killing.

"It is about interests at the end of the day," said a Syrian intellectual familiar with members of the government but speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of harassment. "They say, 'We have to protect our own, otherwise we will all go down together.' "

As the U.N. Security Council debates a resolution demanding Syria's cooperation with the investigation, Assad's inner circle is the focus of attention in the country, where reading the Kremlin-like tea leaves is an intellectual pastime. Many here believe any change in the government would come from within. But as long as the circle remains unbroken, many also suspect the government can endure the short-term crisis, even if few can sketch out a scenario that would end Syria's isolation.

"As long as [the family members] are not trying to act against him, it will be hard to pull off a successful coup," said Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council staffer in the Bush administration who is now at the Brookings Institution. "That doesn't mean people may not try, but it'd be hard to pull off as long as they're in his corner."

The reliance of Syria's leadership on family is not unusual in the Middle East, where an array of authoritarian republics and monarchies have reserved strategic positions for sons, brothers and other relatives.

But interviews with Syrian analysts, diplomats, dissidents and intellectuals paint a picture of a tightknit circle that has dramatically narrowed over the five-year tenure of Assad, who succeeded his father, Hafez, in 2000. Most stalwarts of his father's rule have been forced out, many hailing from the minority Alawite clan that has buttressed the rule of the Baath Party in Syria for 35 years; one of the last, the powerful Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan, was said to have committed suicide this month in Damascus.

Divisions are said to abound. But many analysts say those differences were set aside this spring, after Hariri's assassination forced Syria to end its 29-year military presence in Lebanon and prompted the U.N. investigation. But some Syrians blame the circle's small size for a string of foreign policy decisions in Lebanon and Iraq that have left Syria as isolated as at any time in its history.

"Nobody listens, nobody reads," said Marwan Kabalan, a professor at Damascus University and analyst at its Center for Strategic Studies. "You have a very small circle of decision-makers in charge of decisions in the country. What do you expect?"

In style and structure, the Syrian government is distinctly the product of one man, Assad's father, whose cult of personality presided over an elaborate overlay of institutions and alliances built across a 30-year reign. While Assad's leadership today relies on an inner circle, it has inherited some of the durability of that past era: The government has cultivated support within the public sector, the military, the Baath Party and a merchant class, some of whose powerful members are sons of government officials.

For key security and military positions, Assad's father relied on his Alawite community, a long-underprivileged minority along Syria's northwest coast, and in particular his own Qalbiyya tribe. But some Alawites grumble that the younger Assad has shown less of an inclination to patronize the community, even families that long represented pillars of the government.

Feeding that resentment is the perception of high-level corruption, both within the government and the families of senior officials. The Makhloof family, related to Assad through his mother, has become one of the wealthiest in Syria, with interests that span banking, Syria's free-trade zones, duty-free shops and nascent mobile telecommunications.

"The father led not only the country but also the family, the sect and the army, while, with President Bashar Assad, this kind of strong leadership is not available," said Sadiq Azm, a Syrian writer teaching this year at Princeton University.

One of the most dynamic figures in the circle is Shawkat, a tall, husky general with black hair and a mustache. Since February, he has run Syrian military intelligence, the institution that keeps the closest eye on threats to the government. He is a natty dresser, known for expensive tastes. A diplomat recalled that at one function for Assad's father, he was the lone person not wearing a military uniform. He chose instead an expensive Italian suit, the diplomat said. Those who have met him describe him as confident, businesslike and security-conscious, imbued with street smarts that came from his rise through the intelligence ranks.

Hafez Assad's oldest son, Basil, opposed the marriage of the divorced Shawkat to Bushra, Assad's only daughter. He was fully welcomed into the family only after Basil's death in a car crash in 1994, Syrians say. Diplomats and Syrians recall an incident, though unconfirmed. In the late 1990s, the story goes, Bashar Assad's brother Maher shot Shawkat in the stomach after he insulted Maher's uncle. Relations between the two, though strained, have improved, Syrians say.

As a young operative, Shawkat earned a reputation in the confrontation with Islamic activists in the late 1970s and early 1980s that culminated with the brutal suppression of an uprising in Hama in 1982.

"Asef Shawkat is the man who's done the best job at consolidating power with his own resources and his own levers," another diplomat said. Added the Syrian intellectual: "He's ruthless and very ambitious, but he knows what he's doing. He's not stupid."

Maher is Assad's younger brother, born in 1968, shorter than the lanky Assad but more stoutly built and, many Syrians say, more thuggish. A colonel in the Republican Guard, he serves as an acting brigadier, a diplomat said. He commands the brigade in the region around Damascus, the elite force that would most likely be called on to suppress any coup attempt.

He is rarely seen in public and, by reputation, has an explosive temper, leaving those around him skittish.

Assad's older sister, Bushra, a doctor, is often described as a power behind the throne, promoting her husband's ambitions as well as her own. Strong-willed and tough, she might have been her father's choice as successor had she not been a woman, one Syrian said.

Five years into his reign, Assad himself remains liked in Syria, and people often make a distinction between him and the unpopular government. He has shorn his rule of the iconography so familiar to his father and goes out in public with his family. To many younger Syrians, he and his wife, Asma, the daughter of a renowned surgeon from a prominent Sunni Muslim family, represent a more modern vision of Syria. She was born, raised and educated in Britain, where she worked as an investment banker.

Bashar studied ophthalmology in Britain. Unlike his brothers, he never demonstrated an ambition for a military or political career. But his father began to groom him as his successor in the late 1990s after the death of Basil: He rejoined the military, spearheaded an anti-corruption drive and was given day-to-day control over Lebanese affairs.

The complaint often heard about Bashar Assad is not his personality but a lack of experience and forcefulness. Few doubt he is in charge, but diplomats say he seeks collective decisions and consensus.

"He's not a natural autocrat," one diplomat said. A Syrian dissident, who asked that his name not be used for fear of harassment, added: "Perhaps he's polite. Perhaps he's not as fierce as his brother and brother-in-law, but he's weak."

There's an adage in the Middle East: If the government survives a crisis, it can claim victory. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did so after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. So did the elder Assad's government after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Diplomats and Syrians say the Syrian government's working logic in this crisis is survival. But they said the diplomacy so far adopted -- making measured concessions -- may be outdated today and more in tune with a Cold War world, where Syria could rely on its Soviet ally and a more restrained U.S. policy.

"What pushes them together is their family ties but also the awareness that they have to stick by each other in order to perpetuate their power," said Murhaf Jouejati, director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Washington University.

Since the waning days of Assad's father, stalwarts of the old guard have fallen away, further focusing power in the hands of the inner circle. One Syrian intellectual said he had often heard complaints by senior intelligence officials that they were being marginalized. That the complaints come from Alawite officials is significant, diplomats say.

The death of Kanaan, the interior minister, was perhaps the most spectacular change. The Syrian government declared it a suicide; accounts differ in Damascus, but most often elaborated is the view that he was forced into suicide under threat of disgrace. His death Oct. 12 removed the sole figure that many analysts believe represented a potential alternative to Assad's rule.

To many analysts, the narrowing of the circle has played to the benefit of Shawkat, who is seen as having most successfully built his own networks of influence within the intelligence and military.

"Everything's happened to the advantage of Asef. He's pushed away all the strong men," said the Syrian intellectual familiar with figures in the government. "The field is empty now, and that will fit him more."

In that milieu, a U.N. investigation that directly implicates officials such as Shawkat would drive to the very heart of the regime's survival, diplomats and analysts say. Most see a decision by Assad to turn against the inner circle as a red line that cannot be crossed.

"He does not have the power," the Syrian intellectual said.

Wright reported from Washington.

Flynt Levertt, "Syria's Wobbly Godfather Jr."

Flynt Leverett writes an important opinion piece warning that Washington does not have a plan for the day after. Secretary Rice explained the other day that Washington would "let the chips fall where they may," in the struggle to bring Syria's regime principals to justice for the killing of PM Hariri. This policy toward Syria is proper conduct for a court of law, but it may be unwise foreign policy. As Leverett warns, "Policymakers are not just passive members of the audience in this drama. On the real world's stage, they share responsibility for what happens next, regardless of Bashar's fate."

Syria's Wobbly Godfather Jr.
Will the Hariri Affair Be a Turning Point in the Assad Family Saga?

By Flynt Leverett
Washington Post
Sunday, October 30, 2005; B01

The recently released United Nations report on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri reads, at least in places, like a script for a new installment of "The Godfather." In one passage, the second-generation head of Syria's ruling family, President Bashar Assad, is depicted barking orders to Hariri; in another, key Assad family lieutenants, including the president's brother-in-law and younger brother, allegedly order Hariri's murder in a meeting with Lebanese security chiefs.
One can easily draw out the analogy between the Assads and the Corleones. Bashar's father, Hafez Assad, takes the role of the Sicilian patriarch, Vito Corleone. Hafez's first son, Basil, a charismatic figure who died in 1994 when he crashed his speeding BMW on the road to Damascus International Airport, stands in for Santino Corleone, the Don's oldest son who also was killed through his own impetuousness. From this perspective, the great unknown in Syrian politics today is which Corleone son has taken over the Syria's ruling family. Is Bashar, with his medical degree and soft-spoken talk about reform, like Michael Corleone, who aspired to take the family business "completely legitimate" but failed? Alternatively, is Bashar more like the hapless Fredo, simply not up to the job of national leader? Or, is he a synthesis of the worst qualities of the two, a kind of evil idiot who combines ruthlessness with incompetence?

In looking at Bashar's tenure in office, it is important to remember that he is still relatively young, not only as a man (he turned 40 last month), but as a Middle Eastern leader. Bashar has been president of Syria for a little more than five years -- a fraction of the 30-year tenure of his father. In the United States, an elected president who has been in office for five years is facing lame duck status; in the Middle East, a national leader in office for five years is just beginning to be taken seriously because he hasn't been shot.

But just as Bashar might have expected to settle into life as a middle-aged autocrat, the U.N. International Independent Investigation Commission under Detlev Mehlis has come along and ripped open the lid on his regime and revealed just how seemly it is. And in doing so, the commission's report has helped bring the long, strange relationship between the Assads and the United States to a crisis point.

It would be easy to write off Bashar anyway because he's a pale imitation of his father, but his father achieved the personal authority he enjoyed in the last half of his rule only by first surmounting a series of defining challenges. In consolidating his political position during the 1970s, he turned Syria from a coup-ridden, volatile polity into a case study of authoritarian stability. He intervened in the Lebanese civil war in the late 1970s, establishing Syrian hegemony there, then defended that status in the early 1980s against military challenges from Israel and the United States. In 1982, the old man put down a Sunni fundamentalist insurgency -- in the process killing between 10,000 and 20,000 people -- and a year later fended off a bid by his own brother to take his job. The name "Assad" means lion in Arabic, and after all that, Hafez Assad was truly the lion of Damascus, but not before then.

For all of the upheavals of the last five years in the Middle East, Bashar has yet to negotiate anything like these challenges. Lacking his father's authority, he has had to share power with others to a greater extent than his father ever did. The most powerful men in Syria today, besides Bashar, are Asef Shawkat, the president's brother-in-law and head of military intelligence, and Maher Assad, the president's younger brother and effective commander of the Republican Guard -- the best equipped part of the Syrian military, with primary responsibility for regime protection.

These two have been implicated in Hariri's assassination, and thanks to an alleged computer glitch, their names were briefly published online even though they were deleted from the Mehlis report in the final round of editing. It remains an open question whether Bashar ordered Shawkat and Maher to carry out Hariri's assassination, or whether they overreacted to the president and his dislike of the Lebanese prime minister like modern-day versions of Henry II's henchmen who followed through on the king's plea, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

If the U.N. and the Western powers insist that Syria turn over these two to an international judicial process to answer charges over Hariri's murder, Bashar will face a difficult, but intriguing moment of truth because Shawkat and Maher are both crutches and rivals to him. On the one hand, as long as they're both working with Bashar, it would be difficult for anyone else in the country's power structure to mount a successful coup, which makes them useful to the president for now.

But Shawkat and Maher may have ambitions of their own. Shawkat's wife, Bashar's older sister Bushra, is by all accounts the most politically astute and ambitious of the Assad children, but because of her sex, she must pursue politics through her husband. Shawkat himself is no shrinking violet; he eloped with Bushra over her family's objections when Hafez Assad was at the height of his powers. Bashar's younger brother Maher has been described by an astute Western diplomat who knows him as a brutal and primitive man, possessing "all of Basil's appetites but none of his qualities." Maybe, just maybe, Bashar will treat the U.N. investigation as a chance to get rid of one or both of his most potent long-term rivals, and be the only man left standing at the end of the day.

This moment of truth comes amid a dramatic deterioration in U.S.-Syrian relations. For at least 25 years, Syria has displayed all the characteristics of so-called "rogue states" in the Middle East, such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein or the Islamic Republic of Iran, including state sponsorship of terrorism and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

But, until recently, American administrations have stopped short of treating Syria as a full-fledged rogue. Washington has consistently maintained diplomatic relations with Damascus, and never imposed comprehensive economic sanctions. The first Bush administration recruited Syria to the 1991 Gulf War coalition. Later, because of the Clinton administration's focus on Arab-Israeli peacemaking, including an active Syria track, Secretary of State Warren Christopher made more then 20 visits to Damascus, giving the Syrian regime a measure of political cover for its less-than-savory policies.

All of this has changed over the last five years. The Syria-Israel peace track collapsed in the spring of 2000. With the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada later that year and the election of Ariel Sharon as Israel's prime minister in early 2001, those negotiations were put on indefinite hold. The election of George W. Bush also altered U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Particularly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, it became clear that this was not his father's Bush administration. In the context of a U.S.-led global war on terror, Syria's status as a state sponsor of terrorism pursuing WMD capabilities became riskier.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Syria provided the United States with actionable intelligence on al Qaeda affiliates, as administration officials publicly acknowledge. While I was serving on the National Security Council, this information let U.S. and allied authorities thwart planned operations that, had they been carried out, would have resulted in the deaths of Americans.

Nonetheless, neoconservative theology prevented the Bush administration from using carrots and sticks to transform tactical cooperation with Syria against al Qaeda into a broader rapprochement. Some influential neoconservative administration members scorned past relations with Mideast autocrats. They argued that strategic accommodation, exchanging better relations for policy shifts in Damascus, would effectively reward Syria's support for terrorism. Following the Iraq war, with U.S. troops at Syria's doorstep, relations plummeted further over Syria's unwillingness, absent a broader strategic understanding with Washington, to stem the flow of people and supplies into Iraq in support of insurgent activity there.

Throughout this period, Bashar Assad has been climbing a slow learning curve as diplomat and strategist. He has been forced by changing circumstances to adapt the foreign policy script he inherited from his father -- with some dismal results. His overly aggressive handling of the Lebanon "file," documented in the U.N. report, alienated French President Jacques Chirac and set the stage for the passage of Security Council Resolution 1559 in 2004, which mandated the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. The draft resolution that the Security Council is debating, threatening sanctions if Syria does not cooperate with the U.N. investigation, is endorsed by the Bush administration -- but it is sponsored by France.

Yet it remains unclear what outcome France, Britain and the United States are ultimately seeking. If the international community imposes sanctions on Syria, the regime may be able to hunker down like Saddam did in the 1990s, an unsatisfactory outcome for the West as well as for the Syrian people. If, on the other hand, the regime implodes, that could pose even greater dangers. Ethnic and sectarian violence could feed into and off of instability in Iraq while an anti-American, heavily Islamist leadership could fill the political vacuum in Damascus. Even if Bashar did order Hariri's killing, do we want to treat him like a Milosevic-type criminal figure? Or do we want to offer him a way out as an inducement for Syria's strategic realignment, much as we made a deal with Libya's Moammar Gaddafi, whose regime killed not 22 people, but 270 people (mostly Americans) in the bombing of Pan Am 103?

It may be tempting to see Bashar as a Macbeth-like figure, driven to paralysis by his victim's ghost and doomed. But policymakers are not just passive members of the audience in this drama. On the real world's stage, they share responsibility for what happens next, regardless of Bashar's fate.

Author's e-mail:

fleverett@brookings.edu

Flynt Leverett, author of "Inheriting Syria: Bashar's Trial by Fire," is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He served as senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2002 to 2003 and as a senior CIA Middle East analyst from 1992 to 2001.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Yasin Haj Salih, "Sn Appeal for Salvation"

Yassin al-Haj Saleh is a Syrian journalist who writes for, among other publications, Al-Mulhaq, the literary supplement of Lebanon's Al-Nahar, and Al-Hayat. He is also one of the most articulate spokesmen of the Syrian opposition and lays out in this article the challenge faced by the Syrian opposition as it tries to present itself as a viable actor in mapping out Syria's future. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

From Damascus, an appeal for salvation

By Yassin Al-Haj Saleh
Commentary by
Friday, October 28, 2005

On October 16, four days after the violent death of Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kenaan and five days before Detlev Mehlis released his report to the United Nations on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, several Syrian parties and individuals signed a historic document titled the Damascus Declaration for Democratic and National Change. The timing was one reason why the document is important; two others were its contents and those who signed it.

The Damascus Declaration spoke about the necessity for radical change in Syria, which has been ruled by a military-Baath Party complex for more than four decades. The signatories held the regime responsible for the terrible situation inside the country as well as Syria's appalling regional status. They called on all Syrian parties aspiring for democracy - "people of the regime" not excluded - to engage in "a salvation task of change that takes the country from being a security state to a civil state." They also called for democracy, and though the signatories refused "change coming from the outside" and expressed an aspiration for the independence and unity of the country, they also refused, and in a way that was unusual for the Syrian opposition, "isolation, political adventurism and irresponsible attitudes."

The signatories also promised to "work together to put an end to despotism, and [declared] their readiness to make the required sacrifices to achieve this aim and to do whatever is necessary to launch a process of democratic change in the country."

However, the main importance of the declaration derived from the identity of the parties that signed it. The original document was signed by five parties and gatherings, namely the Democratic National Gathering (composed of five parties with leftist and nationalist roots), the Committees for Civil Society Revival, the Democratic Kurdish Alliance in Syria, the Democratic Kurdish Front in Syria, and the Future (Al-Mustaqbal) Party. Also, nine prominent figures co-signed the document, of whom Riad Seif, a jailed parliamentarian, was the most prominent.

No sooner had the declaration been issued than the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood also joined in and called on others to sign it. The Brotherhood described it as a starting point for a new national consensus. Soon other smaller groups and individuals, both within Syria and outside, joined - the most problematic of them being the Reform Party of Syria headed by Farid Ghadry, which is based in the United States.

The Damascus Declaration was a historic initiative. For the first time since the Baath Party seized power in 1963, a broad understanding was reached between the main body of the Syrian opposition and a majority of Kurdish parties, between secular parties and the Muslim Brotherhood. Groups and individuals from across Syria's social spectrum, whether religious, ethnic or sectarian, agreed to join their efforts in a struggle for democratic change at a critical moment of Syrian history. How coherent this "alliance" will prove to be is unclear, but it is a strong expression of large sections of society.

The Damascus Declaration could be seen as an early Syrian reaction to the Mehlis report. The intention of the signatories was to propose an option different than what the Syrian regime has been offering: either the regime on the one hand or chaos or extremist Islamism on the other. The signatories sought to say that there would not be a vacuum of power should the doors of the country be opened to the unknown, and should the regime collapse under international pressure.

As George Sabra, a speaker from the Syrian People Democratic Party, put it, the document was intended to show that "Syria is not politically an empty shell." He underlined that there do exist popular forces in the country, with a long history of democratic struggle - trustworthy groups that can be dealt with. These forces are united in their support for democratic and national change, and have a program that dovetails with the spirit of modernity in this era of world history.

So far the Assad regime has shown tolerance for the declaration and those who signed it. However, it used some of its proxies to wage a campaign accusing those behind the declaration of betrayal and sectarianism. One cannot be sure that the nervous regime will not soon use other weapons against Syrian democrats who are building up their courage and experience.

Now that the Mehlis report is out, it is becoming increasingly clear that it will be difficult, perhaps impossible, for both Syria and its regime to be saved together. The Damascus Declaration, in calling for change, has the aim of separating the fate of Syria from that of its regime. This is the great challenge that the Syrian opposition will have to face up to in the coming months. The stronger and more united and active the democratic opposition is, the less grim the future of the country will be.
--------

The gathering storm
by Massoud Derhally
Arabian Business
30 October 2005

When it finally came, the findings of Detlev Mehlis's report unleashed all the pent-up frustration the Lebanese people developed in the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. The reaction on the streets in Beirut was foreseeable — as were the demonstrations in the streets of Damascus. Syrian officials stuck to their guns and lambasted the Mehlis Report as being politicised — coincidentally, they directed similar criticism at the first UN probe into Hariri's killing.

Though from a legal perspective the findings of the Mehlis report may not be conclusive and are circumstantial, they nonetheless have had a political impact as far as Syria is concerned.

"Building on the findings of the Commission and Lebanese investigations to date, and on the basis of the material and documentary evidence collected, and the leads pursued until now, there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act," said Mehlis in his report. "It is a well-known fact that Syrian Military Intelligence had a pervasive presence in Lebanon at the least until the withdrawal of the Syrian forces pursuant to resolution 1559. The former senior security officials of Lebanon were their appointees. Given the infiltration of Lebanese institutions and society by the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services working in tandem, it would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination plot could have been carried out without their knowledge."

The fact that Syria has not fully cooperated with the investigative team puts Damascus in a precarious position. According to the Mehlis report, Syria had refused to have some witnesses questioned beyond Syrian borders, nor allowed taped conversations and testimony from witnesses that implicates Syria or its apparatus in the killing of Hariri outside the country.

The death of Ghazi Kanaan — Syria's interior minister, who ruled Lebanon for decades — just days before the Mehlis report was released was also indicative of uneasiness within the Assad regime.

Kanaan's death "points to very serious tensions at the very top of the regime", Patrick Seale, an eminent writer on the Middle East and the only biographer of former Syrian president Hafez Al Assad, told Arabian Business. "It would be surprising if under such intense pressure there was not a very fierce debate going on about what to do, who was responsible, and how they reached this stage."

Inevitably, the onus now is on Syria to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that it did not have a hand in the killing of Hariri, as most Lebanese suspect and as the Mehlis report alludes it did. This largely is a result of a history of complicity of the Lebanese security apparatus with the Syrian intelligence services that ruled Lebanon for 30 years. Syria will also have to comply and hand over or try anyone culpable in the killing of Hariri. This may mean turning over or trying Maher Al Assad, the brother of the Syrian president, Assef Shawkat, the brother-in-law of Assad, Hassan Khalil a former Syrian interior minister and Bahjat Suleyman, the Syrian Internal Security Forces chief in the General Intelligence Department.

"There are question marks over several important elements of the Mehlis Report. But, nevertheless, one has to say that the massive evidence is fairly convincing, even if it wouldn't necessarily in its present state, stand up in a court of law," says Seale.

But the report is not over yet and the German investigator will now have until December 15 to continue his investigation, with the full backing of the United Nations Security Council. It is currently engaged in the drafting of a resolution, likely to be tabled for October 31.

Syria must cooperate with Mehlis and his team of 30 investigators from 17 countries, allowing access to officials and other personalities or else risk isolation, and, as the text of a draft resolution indicates, the onset of "further measures".

Ostensibly, this means the possibility of sanctions or worse, a military option — something that US president George W. Bush continues to say is on the table.

"We can safely say that the Assad regime is in a very unenviable situation," says Ammar Abdulhamid, a Syrian novelist and social analyst at the Brookings Institute in Washington, who was recently in Damascus.

Still, for their part, the Syrians have largely been quite nonchalant and, to an extent, in denial. In the run up to the release of the Mehlis Report, there was an air of ambivalence in Syria. By the same token, there was a systematic message repeated by Syrian officials that the investigation has largely been orchestrated as part of a political agenda to increase pressure on Damascus because it was standing up for Arab rights.

"It's a tactic, I think," says Seale of Syria's indifference to the Mehlis report. "They don't want to recognise that the situation is very grave. On the other hand, an important issue is that a lot of Syrians feel that they are facing an injustice. There is a sort of patriotic fervour there and when they feel under attack they respond in this way."

Though it was not on the scale of the demonstrations of the Lebanese Cedar Revolution, the protests in Damascus in the wake of the Mehlis report certainly illuminated the sense that Syrians were being victimised. Protesters carried signs that read "No to the Mehlis Report" and others that read "Yes to Bashar Al Assad."

There was also a reaction in some corners of the Arab world that the report was an instrument that was part and parcel of a Western-Zionist agenda to carve up the Arab world.

In Beirut, Lebanese took to the streets and Martyrs' Square, bearing T-shirts and placards that said, "I love you Mehlis". Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora visited the grave of Hariri flanked by several ministers in his government and waved the victory sign, but was very measured in his words and urged Syria to cooperate with the UN investigation committee. Saad Hariri, the son of the slain premier hailed the report's findings in a speech televised from Jeddah and called for an international tribunal to try those involved in the assassination of his father.

"Without justice we don't have hope," Hariri said after meeting Britain's foreign secretary Jack Straw. "This would be a strong message in the Middle East to bring those (killers) to justice ... because if you commit a crime and you get away with it, it will be like a jungle tomorrow in the Middle East.

"The crime was not committed against a family, it was committed against a system, a government in Lebanon."

"Undoubtedly there are mistakes in the handling of relations with Lebanon of course," Seale says, when describing the frame of mind of the Syrian regime. "But on the other hand, Syrians feel that the pressure on them is not really about the Hariri assassination. It's about their regional role," he adds.

To the Americans, that role comes down to the thousands who continue to infiltrate Iraq from Syria, who have strengthened the insurgency that has unleashed an unabated stream of bloodshed there. This, coupled with the presence of some of its intelligence services in Lebanon, the continued support of Hezbollah, and its alliance with Iran has angered Washington as well as France and Britain a great deal.

"The whole Tehran-Damascus-South Lebanon axis, after all, is the only opposition to American and Israeli hegemony. Syrians feel that they are being targeted for that reason. It is important to separate the two issues; the Hariri murder on the one hand and the geopolitical struggle on the other in the region," explains Seale.

The path before Syria is clearly a prickly one. The Assad regime will have to make some difficult choices, but as Seale says it is still very dangerous to make predictions. Changes of some form or another will have to take place in Syria. However, "this doesn't necessarily mean a change of regime," says Seale, adding that it does certainly mean, "some purges of bad apples will need to take place".

Ammar Abdul Hamid of Brookings believes it is the beginning of the end for Damascus. "This is a regime that has almost intentionally moved to weaken its own hand over the last few years, paving the way to this current predicament. As such, it is highly likely that we are witnessing the impending collapse of the regime," he says.

Likely scenarios, according to Abdul Hamid, include the Syrian people led by opposition figures orchestrating a velvet revolution, forcing the Baathist regime which has ruled Syria since 1963 to resign.

Another possible outcome, he says, is the abdication of Bashar Al Assad, which could result in an internal power struggle among the periphery of the present regime. In such an event, Abdul Hamid says "whoever wins will have to present a reform agenda and a few scapegoats to legitimise their position with the international community and the Syrian people". There is then the unlikely event that Assad could turn against his own family, and try to appeal to the Syrian people for support as he tries to launch a "new corrective movement", says Abdul Hamid.

"Assad could be deposed in a coup and accused of plotting the act himself in cooperation with others. The names involved will depend on the identity of those leading the coup, but they [would] most likely include Rustom Ghazali."

In all likelihood though, Assad will remain in power with Syria being isolated internationally and suffering from sanctions. In such an eventuality, according to Abdul Hamid, the regime is likely to strengthen its grip on power initially, but the move will essentially "take a drastic toll not only on the Syrian people, but on the regime itself, due to the lack of resources".
-------

Also see this commentary by Tony Badran:
Syria: Après Assad Le Deluge?

Saturday, October 29, 2005

What Washington is Thinking about Syria

NOTE: I will be on al-Jazeera tomorrow (Saturday) night at 10:00 pm Lebanon time and 9:00 Syria time on with Riyad Muhsin Agha and Michel Kilo. The moderator will be Riyad Ben Jiddou - Hiwar Maftuh. I will be speaking in Arabic!! A first for me. I am nervous.

Here is a letter from a friend who is a well plugged in Washington analyst. He asked that I not use his name if I posted this. This is a shame because he is smart. This is the best overview of dominant themes being discussed in Washington. The big question is will there be violent chaos in Syria should the regime collapse. I hope my readers will respond in the comment section so we can get a good cross-section of opinion. Let us know if you are actually a Syrian, who has lived in the country during the last few years. Lebanese perspective is always welcome as well, as they probably know more about the probability and dynamics of violence than others. All views always welcome.

1/ My conclusion is that Washington prefers a weak Syria at the moment

- No insult intended – I have an utmost respect for those in the opposition in Syria – but the alternatives are not yet credible, and opposition figures themselves acknowledge that they are not ready to govern yet. The Damascus Declaration is a good platform, but probably not enough to precipitate change anytime soon. The good news is that Syria is not seen anymore as only a hard security problem in Washington policy circles: thanks to Syrian opposition members inside and outside Syria, and to mediums like your blog, the debate has qualitatively moved forward.

- Washington cannot pull off a new military adventure
The maximum it can do is something along what the Turks did in 1998: use the threat of force to get the Syrians to comply. But it would have a hard time convincing the US military that this will not lead to a new military adventure and contrary to Turkey which had a very specific demand that Syria could meet (and smartly met), the US is embroiled in a major conflict and its list is much longer. Even the hot pursuit option will be carefully examined: its implications could be such (think Laos and Cambodia) that the US military will say no. Where do you draw a line?

The key questions that derive from this conclusion are the following:

- Will Washington consider a Libya-type deal? Maybe, but not anytime soon. The London Times report may or may not have been on target. It does not really matter: it contains the essence of what the US wants short of regime change. If Syria had accepted something along these lines before the Mehlis report (something highly improbable), it would have been called a deal. It did not, and now it will take a new form: UN-sanctioned demands that will be presented by the Syrian government as unacceptable diktats.

Syria lost many opportunities to shape the outcome in previous years: it could have left Lebanon on its own terms, it could have toned down its anti-US rhetoric, it could have better managed its relations with France and the EU, and it could have granted citizenship to the Kurds… The list is long, but Syria did not seize these opportunities and that’s mainly Syria’s own doing.

- Does this strengthen the position of the opposition in Syria? I don’t know. A weak regime vis-à-vis the international community does not necessarily mean that the Syrian opposition will benefit from the new dynamic. A tough sanctions regime would hurt the Syrian people more than the regime (something US officials are aware of), and could bring the people closer to the regime. If the regime were smart, it would try to initiate a rapprochement with opposition figures, but the Damascus Declaration clearly says that the regime is part of the problem, not the solution. And in any case, who honestly believes that this regime can be that smart? We have been hearing rumors about reconsidering the status of the Kurds for the past several years. Today, the news surfaced again. Same for the legal framework regarding political parties. Typical of this regime. But does it have any credibility left with its own people?

- Does this default policy meet Washington’s other needs (i.e. secure borders with Iraq)? Probably not entirely, but under the current conditions, a weak, contained Syria might not be as risk-taking as it currently is.

2/ Examining all the options does not mean that a policy of regime change has been adopted

- Meeting with Ghadry or drawing up lists of names of potential alternatives to Assad does not mean that the policy has been set. A good bureaucrat will always consider all the alternatives: that is the essence of working in a foreign policy or national security bureaucracy. Of course, this administration has clear preferences, but preferences do not always translate into policy, especially in the current conditions. It has moved a long way in recent months.

- People at State and especially the NSC are not the stubborn ideologues one might suspect. And they seem to acknowledge that they don’t know everything about Syria. So far, they have proven very smart, especially on the Lebanon file. And Bolton (not a big fan of his – see D. Ignatius today) does not set the policy! He is a negotiator, not a policymaker. He can say tough things, but those who call the shots are in Washington.

- They also realize that the US is not the only country with leverage over Syria: the role of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states is key. Every time Bashar or Sharaa meets with an Arab head of state, he pretends that all went well even though he has been scolded once again (are Amr Moussa and Ahmadinejad helpful allies?). And France is moderating the US position. A US-French rift would probably jeopardize much of what has been achieved so far.

In short, US officials are playing their hand very astutely. So far, and despite reservations many might have, the Lebanon-Syria file is this Administration’s real success story in the Middle East (along with Libya, for more complex reasons that it acknowledges). The US government will make its best that it remains so.

3/ Damascus is finally coming around the fact that the Mehlis investigation and UNSCR 1559 have become the substance of US policy toward Syria (and also of French and UN policy toward Syria). Or has it?

Syrian officials have long operated under the assumption that both tools were only pretexts to pressure Syria. Once again, they were wrong. Why? Because there are no strategists or foreign policy thinkers in this regime.

Essentially, many agree with Young and Perthes regarding their assessments of Bashar (not always their conclusions): he is no reformer, he has proven immature when it comes to both foreign policy and domestic policy, he seems to be a real believer while his father was a shrewd realist, he has managed to convince some that he has introduced reforms when all he did was to dismantle the business interests of the regime’s older barons to the benefit of his inner circle, that the June Baath conference would jumpstart a new cycle of reform when it actually served as a venue for a non-violent purge to further consolidate power etc…

My (open and speculative, I admit) question for those of you living in Syria and who know Syrian society better than us is the following: what is the potential for violence in Syria?

Recently, there have been many instances of communal, ethnic and religious, violence. My questions are - no insult intended: how violent is Syrian society? Was it brutalized by the regime to a point that it has integrated violence and sees it as a normal tool, or did state violence (Hama, political prisoners etc.) and previous experiences (MB in the 70s and 80s) lead to an intense dislike of violence? Did the regime use coercion smartly? Where do people in the opposition stand? What does Iraq tell us about fractured societies? How fractured is Syrian society?

Friday, October 28, 2005

Tabler and Young on Syria's Future

Here are two editorial from the IH Tribune. Both journalists know that that Syria is unlike to cooperate with the international investigation so long as all the leaders of the regime are targets. Andrew Table, a Syrian based journalist, proposes that America offer Bashar al-Asad a way out by refraining to target him personally and by offering to open the oil pipeline between Iraq and Syria as a sweetener. Michael Young, a Lebanese journalist, suggest that the Syrian opposition take maters into its own hands, become a more effective force, and overthrow the regime.

Addendum: Michael Young just sent me this correction. He is right, of course. Sorry Michael:

Josh,

Thanks for highlighting my IHT piece, but can I ask you to write a correction on your blog. You write: "Michael Young, a Lebanese journalist, suggests that the Syrian opposition take maters into its own hands, become a more effective force, and overthrow the regime." In fact I didn't say that at all, and am far more ambiguous about the issue than you make it sound. All I did, as you can clearly read in the last paragraph, is say that persistent uncertainty in Syria might lead to that outcome. I wasn't advocating anything here, and I'm surprised you should state this since the paragraph is quite clear.

Best regards,
Michael
America should test who's in charge in Damascus
Andrew Tabler, International Herald Tribune
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2005

DAMASCUS The UN investigator Detlev Mehlis's implication of "senior Lebanese and Syrian officials" in the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri is sure to set off a firestorm of debate on how to pressure Damascus to comply with the ongoing investigation. As all eyes turn to President Bashar al-Assad and what he will do next, it is imperative that Washington not miss an opportunity to determine who is worth dealing with in Damascus.

For nearly five years, I have worked as a journalist and researcher in Syria covering the country's reform process. Over dinner with diplomats and other foreign visitors in Damascus, one question arises more frequently every year: Is Assad in control of Syria?

CNN even asked Assad himself the question last week. Assad answered, "You cannot be a dictator and not be in control." Or can you? Since Assad came to power in July 2000, everything from the slow pace of reform to Damascus's reticence to pull its troops out of Lebanon has been blamed on Assad's weakness vis-à-vis the "old guard" -regime members who remain from the 30-year rule of Bashar's father, Hafez.

When this belief began to affect relations with America - most notably U.S. demands on Syria concerning Iraq - Washington changed its Syria policy from one of "constructive engagement" to "constructive instability." This has included increased sanctions, public threats and even reported cross-border skirmishes along the Iraqi-Syrian frontier. And most notably, there has been a conspicuous lack of incentives for good behavior.

Then last week, out of the blue, with the Mehlis report looming, a high-ranking U.S. official confirmed rumors that Washington had offered Damascus a deal to get it off the hook in Lebanon for its accused involvement in Hariri's assassination in exchange for halting its alleged support for the Iraqi insurgency, ending all interference in Lebanese affairs and cutting off support for Hezbollah and Palestinian rejectionist groups. Damascus has reportedly turned down the offer.

It is perhaps understandable that such a proposal went nowhere, since it is unclear that there is anyone in Syria with enough authority to rewrite its foreign policy of the last 30 years. The penultimate version of the Mehlis report that was accidentally released, which names names, indicates just how fragmented this regime might actually be. The possibility that the president's brother and brother-in-law took it upon themselves to organize the assassination of a Middle Eastern statesman shows that, at the very least, Syria might be ruled by committee.

We need to find out if someone on this committee is in a position to negotiate with the United States, even as the sanctions process rumbles forward. Sanctions by themselves could be disastrous, creating chaos when the last thing we need is chaos in another Middle Eastern country. Multilateral pressure will only increase nationalist sentiments and regime paranoia that will hamstring an already troubled reform process.

Damascus's reform program is heavily assisted, if not sustained, by UN and European Union projects. Increased multilateral pressure on the regime could politicize Syria's already limited reform space, grinding progress to a halt. Such a situation needs to be avoided at all costs. Syria's high population growth rate of 2.85 percent, combined with pitifully low labor and capital productivity, means that current unemployment levels of 11 percent to 20 percent would only increase rapidly - something that could serve to fuel Islamic radicalism in Syria and the region.

So instead of just using the Hariri investigation to push Damascus to the brink through sanctions and watch Syria sink into the abyss, Washington should give Assad a chance to prove he is in charge. America could offer him a very special carrot to go along with the sanctions stick.

Allowing the reopening of the oil pipeline between Kirkuk in Iraq and the Syrian port of Banias, to see if Assad can keep it operating without acts of sabotage, would be a good first step in determining the degree to which he controls Syria. This would also alleviate U.S. troubles in exporting Iraqi oil and give Assad and the Syrian people a material incentive to help stabilize their neighbor. And, perhaps most important, this would open the door to a peaceful solution to what is looming as the next big crisis for the United States in the region.

There are some signs that Assad could be in a position to make good on such a deal. After the Hariri assassination in February, it appears that Assad has been consolidating power. Several high-ranking officials were retired during the Baath Party conference in June. Interior Minister Ghazi Kanan, a possible rival to Assad, died last week in what officials are calling a suicide.

At least for now, America needs someone inside the Assad regime it can deal with. But the Assad regime does not necessarily need America. The regime has plenty of experience surviving sieges, however chaotic. Damascus has been under U.S. sanctions since 1979, and it has become skilled at sneaking around them. It also has about $18 billion in cash reserves, the equivalent of about three years of current imports. Syria's Baathists are masters of the waiting game: Even if Bashar can't outwit or outplay George W. Bush, history shows that an Assad is capable of outlasting two-term U.S. presidents.

(Andrew Tabler is a fellow with the Institute of Current World Affairs based in Damascus and Beirut, and consulting editor for Syria Today magazine.)

Assad's dilemma
Michael Young, International Herald Tribune
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2005

BEIRUT The release last week of a United Nations report on the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon threatens to create a perfect storm of adversity for the regime of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. By satisfying the international community's call that Syria cooperate with the inquiry of the UN prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis, Assad would undermine his domestic hold on power; by avoiding this, Assad would ensure Syria's almost total isolation and perhaps the imposition of international sanctions.

On Tuesday, the UN Security Council began discussing the Mehlis report. This came after Assad wrote a letter to the council, dated Sunday, in which he affirmed that while Syria was "innocent" of Hariri's Feb. 14 assassination, he was "ready to follow up action to bring to trial any Syrian who could be proved by concrete evidence to have had connection with this crime." The question now is how will Assad interpret his pledge.

In his report, Mehlis stated that his "investigation is not complete," and the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, subsequently extended the inquiry until Dec. 15. But the prosecutor had enough confidence in the information he had garnered to add that there is "converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act." The investigators further underlined that the Hariri assassination was prepared over several months, and was "carried out by a group with an extensive organization and considerable resources and capabilities."

Most damning, the report offered a context in which to interpret the findings, implying that individuals at the top of the Syrian and Lebanese political systems were aware of the Hariri plot: "Given the infiltration of Lebanese institutions and society by the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services working in tandem, it would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination plot could have been carried out without their knowledge." This hit close to Assad: His brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, heads Syria's military intelligence.

There was more: A witness also pointed to the involvement of Assad's brother, Maher, who as commander of the Republican Guard is another essential regime prop. While his name was removed in the official version, in the initial Microsoft Word document released to the media, the deletion was plainly visible after activating the "track changes" option. This has led to speculation that Mehlis allowed the name to be conspicuous as a warning to the Syrians that the investigation could hit very high, perhaps reaching the president himself.

If the revelations did anything, however, they made it more likely that Assad will be inflexible. His letter to the United Nations (where for some reason the promise to bring Syrians to trial was only included in the text sent to the United States, France and Britain) will provoke more questions than answers. Where would the Syrian suspects be put on trial? In a recent CNN interview, Assad hinted that because he considered Hariri's murder "treason," so a Syrian court might be the appropriate venue. What evidence would Syria consider "concrete" enough to mandate handing over suspects?

Mehlis has asked that Syrian officials be interviewed outside Syria, and it is obvious from his report that he would include both Shawkat and Maher Assad. Indeed, the investigation team had asked to speak to the president himself, but this was rejected. Fulfilling these requests would be the minimum required of Damascus to stave off the prospect of punitive action at the United Nations. But it is highly improbable that either Maher Assad or Shawkat would agree to leave Syria.

Where does this leave Assad? Bogus cooperation will not go far, nor will efforts to try the possible suspects in Syrian courts, unless this follows an internationally endorsed Syrian investigation. It is unlikely that a political deal - where Syria might be offered breathing room in exchange for ending its support for the Iraqi insurgency, leaving Lebanon alone and cutting its ties to Palestinian militant groups and Hezbollah - could avert a handover of officials who might have participated in Hariri's assassination. At best, Assad can play for time and avoid giving Mehlis anything to strengthen his case.

This may be suicidal, but the logic is compelling. Assad knows his final card is the uncertainty surrounding what would follow the demise of his regime. He also knows that if he avoids addressing Mehlis's demands, the Security Council will move into a divisive debate over sanctions and retribution. The Americans and French can push, but can they shove, given Russian and Chinese reluctance and American difficulties in Iraq? Assad will enforce unity inside, but may also accept confrontation outside.

Can it work? The probability isn't very high, but it's all Assad has. The real question, however, is whether political forces inside Syria will sit idly by as the regime takes the country into a period of prolonged uncertainty. There may be no alternatives today to Bashar Assad, but as his regime prepares for a siege, political spaces may be filled by those who do not wish to suffer for the Assads.

(Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star in Lebanon, and a contributing editor at Reason magazine in the United States.)

Investments in Syria? Fighting Islolation by Derhally

Massoud Derhally, a Dubai based journalist who recently came through town, talked to Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Dardari about the large Emaar real-estate deal. He explains how Abdullah Dardari is trying to keep an up-beat attitude about investment prospects in Syria and insists the Syrian economy will soon be growing at 7% because of recently progress in liberalization and banking advances. The Emaar deal is a bit misleading. Although it has been advertised as a 4 billion dollar deal, only one half billion is planned for immediate investment; the rest is contingent on the success of the first part. Clearly, the government is hoping that part of the recent flood of petrol dollars into the Gulf will wash up on Syrian Shores. Can this help Syria weather the isolation that is coming from the UN?

Syria will have to do much more to liberate the economy from its own lack of competitiveness, however. That is what Dardari said, when he slammed private and public sector monopolies in Syria. "The Syrian economy is subjected to public and private monopolies. For the economic reforms to succeed, it is necessary for these monopolies to stop," he was quoted as saying by Tishrin newspaper.

Also: "La Syrie se lance dans le développement de ses régions orientales"

La Syrie se prépare à investir l'équivalent de 523 millions de dollars pour le développement des régions orientales durant les cinq années qui viennent. Ces investissements font partie du prochain plan quinquennal préparé par les autorités syriennes qui débute l'année prochaine et court jusqu'en 2010.

Le gouvernement prévoit d'investir près de 17 milliards de livres (323 millions de dollars) dans la région de Hassaké, une augmentation de 140% par rapport au dernier plan quuinquénal et plus de 10,2 milliards à la région de Deir al-Zor, ce qui représente une augmentation de près de 300%. Dans cette région une nouvelle raffinerie ainsi qu'une zone industrielle devraient voir le jour.

Selon Abdallah al-Dardari, le vice-Premier Ministre en charge des affaires économiques qui a fait cette annonce au quotidien al-Sharq al-Awsat, ces investissements ont pour but de faire de la région orientale de la Syrie une plateforme de développement vers les deux pays voisins que sont la Turquie et l'Irak.
Moment of truth
by Massoud A. Derhally
Arabian Business
Thursday October 20, 2005

SYRIA is on the cusp of a new era of constructive change, introspection and improvement — at least that's how government officials and the state media in Damascus are portrayng the country's present environment. Talking to them, there seems to be a sense of ambivalence towards the storm brewing outside the borders of this embattled Arab nation.

International pressure on Damascus in the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri — which led to an exodus of Syria's 14,000 soldiers from the country in April — may have embittered Syrians who lost their jobs there. It may also have caused those in power in Damascus to be resentful about leaving a country they long saw as inherently part of Syria. But this is the least of their worries at the moment.

The findings of a UN report on the killing of Hariri are to be released to the UN Security Council on October 25 — but there seems to be little apprehension in Syria. Newspapers and the media abroad may be pre-occupied with the conclusions of Detlev Mehlis, the chief of the UN probe, but in Syria, the main story on the front page of the state run Tishreen newspaper last week was about a meeting convened by government officials to address ways to improve cleanliness.

During the day and in the evenings the Al Hamidiyah market, adjacent to the famous Oumayed mosque that is next to the shrine of Salah ad-Din, the Kurdish warrior who came to establish the Ayyubid Dynasty, is still buzzing with tourists and shoppers.

The Syrian government is also on a charm offensive. Officials are actively courting investors from the oil rich Gulf States, as part of the country's reform strategy, which aims to open up an economy that has been relatively stagnant for the past 30 years.

Just days before the Mehlis report is to be released to the Lebanese government and the UN, the Syrian deputy prime minister, Abdullah Al Dardari, who is very likely to be the next prime minister, held an event at the Palais de Nobles to celebrate with much pomp a US$3.9 billion real estate development spearheaded by Dubai based Emaar Properties and a Syrian group of businessmen.

Both Dardari and the chairman of Emaar, Mohamed Alabbar reiterated that the occasion marked an important juncture in the development of Syria's economy, that the country is open for business and has little to worry about.

Though the situation for Syria appears to be tense in the international arena, Alabbar said he wasn't concerned.

"Not in my business. I'm in the business of making money for my shareholders. I've been in [negotiations] with them for six months. I think these guys are doing a good job. They are very welcoming and they are forthcoming.

"The laws are changing positively. These guys are very serious people and I like to do business with them.

"We have to be optimistic as well. You can't live your life and worry," Alabbar told Arabian Business.

With such words there is little reason to believe in the onset of a political hurricane. But the prospects for Syria could very well turn grim, should the Mehlis report implicate its government in the killing of Hariri. In all likelihood it will, according to a source close to the investigation committee who spoke to Arabian Business earlier in the month, on condition of anonymity — as well as the most recent news reports that indicate the probe has drawn up a list of 20 suspects.

Though Syria has largely been able to swim against the tide and withstand American sanctions against the country, it also faces the worrying possibility of sanctions from the European Union and UN as well.

Such an eventuality would make an already sticky situation all the more tenuous for Damascus as the bulk of its trade is with Europe.

More importantly, the graver implication for Syria is the effect on the stalled EU-Association Accord, which Syria has been hoping would be finalised, enhancing its reform process of trade liberalisation. But this has largely been kept on hold due to the ominous political situation with Lebanon.

Still, this hasn't subdued Syria's deputy prime minister Abdullah Dardari, who was largely upbeat in an extended interview with Arabian Business. "I don't see any reason why we should always look at the worst-case scenario when we make our planning. Of course, in planning you take consideration of these possibilities, however you cannot plan your future based on a doomsday scenario," says Dardari.

"My projection actually is that the relationship with Europe will steam ahead; the association agreement will be signed, and trade and investment between Syrian and Europe will expand.

"Maybe there is talk about increased American sanctions against Syria, but there are already very strict American sanctions on Syria and, as you can see, investors are coming in full force, knowing in advance that the Syrian economy is moving ahead.

"We are adopting fully free trade, free investment, an open investment climate, we are liberalising our monetary and fiscal policies, and we are liberalising and deregulating our banking sector and financial system. Investors are not worried about either UN sanctions on Syria or European sanctions on Syria. There are already strict US sanctions on Syria, but that hasn't deterred investors to come to the country," adds Dardari.

Despite a recent economic report by Bank Audi that claimed "widening political uncertainties" and a "relatively slow reform process" have dampened Syria's growth performance to 2%, Dardari remains bullish. "In a country of 18 million and growing, a growth rate projected to reach 7% in the next few years, if I were an investor I would come to Syria."

Dardari estimates no less than US$10 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) will make its way to Syria from the Gulf states — a figure that is estimated to reach US$16 billion if European investment is accounted for as well.

Sensing what some observers say is its gradual isolation in the international community, and a media that paints it as a pariah state, Damascus has also been courting the international media. Its president Bashar Al Assad, for example, made his debut on CNN earlier in the month.

While this may allow Syria's government to score points at home, it is clear that the opinion of the international community matters most, and Syria believes it is making headway here as well.

"I don't think Syria is losing the publicity war. Syria is trying to reach out to the international community and to tell the world what Syria stands for and what are the real difficulties in achieving peace in the region — in achieving security, prosperity and establishing democracy in the region," says Bouthaina Shaaban, minister of expatriates.

"It is not Syria that is the obstacle. It is the parties who refuse to establish peace in the region. We believe that a just and comprehensive peace is the only solution for this region and no matter how may attempts they have for partial solutions they are not going to work.

"Arab people are not going to give up their rights," she adds.

But even as Damascus tries to rehabilitate its image in public, there is also an indication that it is pursuing secret negotiations with the US to reduce the impact of a damaging conclusion of the Mehlis report. There are unsubstantiated claims that the government is trying to cut a deal with Washington, similar to that it struck with Libyan leader Mohammed Qadafi, to bring the country back into the international fold.

But deputy premier Dardari vehemently denies such negotiations are taking place. "If there were any backdoor negotiations why should we hide them?" he says.

"Syria is not in the business of backdoor negotiations. Syria is in the business of transparent, open and honest talks to establish good working relationships with the United States. We feel that we have so many interests in common between Syria and the US in the stability and the prosperity of the Middle East. When the Americans are ready for such an open and transparent dialogue they will find open arms in Damascus."

There have also reports that Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to Washington, has been engaged in shuttle diplomacy in an attempt to alleviate the pressure on Damascus.

Though Dardari would not confirm or deny Bandar's involvement, he did indicate some form of dialogue was being conducted by outside parties.

"I don't want to specify names. There are many Arab and non-Arab third parties who offered help and we are telling everybody we are ready for an open, transparent, substantive, in-depth dialogue with the United States on issues of common concern towards establishing peace and stability and prosperity in the region," Dardari explains .

Syria, according to Dardari — who doesn't belong to the Ba'ath party which has ruled the country since coming to power in 1966 — is on solid ground, and not concerned that its ties with Arab states such as Saudi Arabia are endangered by the Mehlis report.

"They are [solid] as you can see today," says Dardari about his country's relations with the rest of the Arab world. He also discloses further capital inflow from Gulf States heading for the country. "We will announce considerable investment from other Arab countries in the very near future and, therefore, I really don't see any concerns. There will be considerable investments announced with Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Dubai."

However, relations with Lebanon may be a great deal trickier to master.

Both countries have openly voiced their displeasure with one another, with reports claiming that the Syrian prime minister refused to take calls from his Lebanese counterpart Fouad Siniora three times. The vitriol is also likely to increase some time after the Mehlis report is issued.

The Lebanese press is awash with information, both substantiated and unsubstantiated, that reiterates Beirut's suspicions that Syria or a fringe of those in power had a hand in the killing of Hariri. "I am sure it will impact," admits Dardari, when asked if the Mehlis report will affect Syrian-Lebanese relations. But he adds: "Our Lebanese brothers must realise that Syria is completely exonerated of the blood of Rafik Hariri. Whoever assassinated Rafik Hariri had in their minds the target of undermining Syrian-Lebanese relations."

Dardari wants to take a wait and see approach and is reluctant to hypothesise about the Mehlis report as some in Syria have, alleging it has largely been driven by a political agenda.

"Let's first see the findings. We are certain that if these findings were based on technical and criminal evidence, Syria is 100% innocent. We really have nothing to worry about. Whether the report will exonerate Syria's name or not because of political motivations, that's a different story," explains Dardari.

"If it is politicised we will deal with it then. However, we know, we are certain we are innocent and, as the president said, if there is any Syrian individual involved in this crime they will be treated as traitors and they will be punished accordingly."

Shaaban — who has largely been Syria's face in the Western media — says her country will continue along the same lines, secure in the knowledge that it has done nothing wrong.

"Our approach has always been consistent that we are against anything that makes the region more turbulent. We believe that the problem is not our approach. The problem is that Syria is targeted or threatened because it is clinging to the rights of Arabs and it has a stand against occupation. Syria does not have a policy of assassinations," she says.

That however, may be a hard sell in Beirut. Before Hariri was killed on February 14, thousands of Syrians worked in Lebanon and the capital they repatriated back home played an important role in reviving Syria's largely impoverished economy.

The death of Hariri, and the ensuing hostile environment in Lebanon towards Syrians — who are viewed not only as culpable in the death of their former premier, but also responsible for the wide spread corruption in the country — led to an exodus of Syrian workers and a souring of relations.

The road to reconciliation, at least in Dardari's view, is through old mercantile relationships and a history of trade that ties the two countries together.

"Both sides have to sit down and review, at least from an economic point of view, the future of the relationship. The Syrian economy is moving in a direction of opening up, setting up its own financial services, free trade, an open investment climate and therefore the role of the Lebanese economy, as the breathing lung of the Syrian economy as it [was] in the past, is no longer valid," explains Dardari.

"Lebanon and Syria must iron out a new economic relationship based on the developments of the Syrian economy. Our Lebanese brothers must tell us what exactly they want from Syria. We know what we want. We want a good, brotherly, open, solid, economic, relationship — reflecting the historical relationship between the two peoples. It's up to our Lebanese brothers to define what role they want to play."

Damascus and Beirut don't have diplomatic relations. To many Lebanese, the absence of a Syrian embassy in Beirut is an affirmation of Syria's belief that Lebanon is inherently part of it.

Asked if he envisions a change in the present status quo, with embassies being established in both capitals, Dardari is indirect. "When the Lebanese authorities come and request it, we will look into it," he says. "We are open to our Lebanese brothers and what they think is good for them, we think is good for us."

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Bolton: The Bull in the Mosaic Shop

I wrote the other day that the US NSC Chief Stephen Hadley had asked the President of Italy's Senate, Mr. Pera, about possible replacements for Bashar al-Asad. People close to Hadley wrote me to ask where I had gotten this plum. They insisted it made "no sense" for Hadley to ask the Italians.

Fortunately several Italian journalists read Syria Comment and ran down the story as best they could.

Simona Poidomani of ADNKRONOS press came up with this:

Dear Dr. Landis,

According to a senior official working with Mr. Pera, there has been no phone call from Stephen Hadley to the president of the Italian Senate. Pera actually met Hadley in Washington last September (which coincides with the one-two month ago timeline you mentioned to me on the phone) and they discussed several issues, including Middle East). This has been confirmed to me by another source in the government.

best regards,
Simona Poidomani
Simona, I love you! One has to admire real reporters. Where would we be without the forth estate. God bless them. One caveat: This does not prove that Hadley asked Pera about a Bashar replacement! We must not conclude that Washington wants regime change in Syria. And if they did want it a month ago, maybe they don't today? Maybe all the talk about chaos in Syria is seeping into US consciousness and we are not being run by a bunch of clowns? But don't count on it.

How good is American diplomacy?
A number of fine American journalists have assured me that Washington is determined that its diplomats are going to do things differently in Syria. "It's going to be different this time around," Deborah Amos of National Republic Radio told me yesterday. She just flew in from London, where she is now based for several months. "The neocons are not in charge any more."

Others have given me the same reassurance. The only fly in the ointment, they say, is John Bolton, who is perched at the UN. "But he will be constrained," they insist, knitting their brows. The French are worried. "It is a big test for him. Ann Patterson is no longer at UN to back him up." Paris fears he will be Samson in the temple. They are not sure he is the chef to shape, sugar, and sauté this resolution along its cordon blue path. But the Americans are confident. "Texan barbeque is better than frog brew anytime. This man has got the right glaze." That is the line I am hearing.

Well what happens yesterday? Bolton goes off like a roadside bomb, leaving blood on the tarmac.

Earlier in the day, President Bush gave a long interview on al-Arabia. It was good. Even using my mother-in-law test, it was good. She was impressed. (If you get a kind word out of Umm Firas about Bush, it's a lucky day) Reporters tried to get Bush to go on the record about when and how he would bomb Syria. He faced them down directly and said something along the lines of, "Why do you want me to say this? We don't want to use force and are not planning force. Of course, force is always a last option and I cannot say it will never be an option, but we believe this must be solved diplomatically, etc." Umm Firas was up-beat.

But this evening when I got back from iftar, al-Jazeera was running a clip of Bolton saying, "We want a resolution saying that every Syrian will testify if called by the investigation. - even President Asad." Bingo! The improvised explosive devise. (Have I mixed my metaphors enough?)

It was clear. America is still thinking of how to take down the Asad family. No door is going to be left open for a political solution. The last few days have been spent by everyone here wracking their brains to figure out a way in which the regime might be able to cooperate with the process without committing suicide.

My own little scenario was: Syria plays along with the investigation which centers on Shawkat Asef, the new bad guy who the West molds into a symbol of the mafia side of the regime. How to separate him from his brothers-in-law? The investigation proceeds. Syria cooperates but all the regime principals sing from the same script as they did the first time around: "We know nothing; we hear nothing; we see nothing."

Mehlis comes up with a lot of gray. His main witnesses to Syria's involvement remain under a cloud of suspicion, as they are now, and he must fall back on the argument that Syria had the motive, the means, and were in control of the geography and Lebanese bad guys. The investigation drags on for a year. Everyone gets tired of it. Lebanon is in a mess. All real government business in Beirut has been delayed, reform has foundered, and the economy is running on fumes and foreign dollar infusions. It has reached the apex of its pyramid scheme. The US is distracted by presidential elections, Europe is looking for a way out. The Arab states are anxious about continuing chaos in Iraq and worried Syria will go down the same path. Everyone is tired of keeping Syria in the freezer. Then Bashar cuts a deal.

The Asad family leans on Bushra and Asef, telling them they must save the regime. Asef agrees to resign and takes up residence in Dubai or some other gilded cage, much as Rifaat did before him. Bashar repents, changes some policies, uses the foreign pressure to promote many of the technocrats like Abdullah Dardari and Daoudi, etc., that he has been trying to promote as the non-Mafia, law-and-order face of his regime. He promises things will be different. He lets it be know that he only came into real power following the June 2005 Baath Party congress when he pushed out the last of the old guard. He needs time to be the real reformer. "Let Bashar be Bashar" becomes the new catch phrase within diplomatic circles. Syria will open up, move forward with reform, and have Egyptian type el