Somewhere in the shock waves of the terrible explosion that
robbed Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and at least 14
innocent bystanders of their lives, there is a sadness-tinged hope
for the future. Indeed, the possibility of positive repercussions
from this heinous act goes far beyond new pressure on Syria to end
its iron fist meddling in Lebanese affairs. It could also very well
remove a roadblock to the Israeli/Palestinian peace negotiations;
eliminate or reduce a source of funding for the Iraqi insurgency
and international terrorism; and help repair the United States’
relationship with the European powers.
The first and best sign of a new day dawning has been the
intensely angry reaction to Hariri’s murder throughout the
civilized world, and, more to the point, from France.
It was only last October, after all, that in the wake of the
passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which demanded
that a certain unnamed neighbor (i.e. Syria) end interference in
the internal affairs of Lebanon, Syrian intellectuals and
government officials (including President Bashar Assad) dismissed
any suggestion that France’s vote in favor of the resolution was
anything more than bluster.
“Syria and Lebanon have become France’s sole windows or gateways
to the Middle East region,” Fayez Sayegh, editor-in-chief of the
official Syrian daily al-Thawra, told UPI. “Thus it is not
in its interest to press for Syria’s military withdrawal from
Lebanon… France has many interests in Syria,
and I don’t see any interest for Paris to back the resolution in
the long-run.”
Now four months later, France and the United States have joined
hands in the Security Council, calling Syria out by name and
demanding an end to the de-facto occupation of Lebanon. One French
diplomat went so far as to tell the Associated Press that France
and the U.S. were working “hand in hand” to resolve the crisis.
While French President Jacques Chirac was a close friend of
Hariri, the semi-official policy of his government toward Syria was
to wait for it to come around and do the right thing. France hoped
that when anticipated economic and political reforms finally came
down the pike, the French would reap monetary and diplomatic
benefits.
That dream has now apparently been laid aside in favor of a
tougher stance. If it holds, Iran may regret its hasty announcement
of a “common front” with Syria. Iran’s connection to a state that
is quickly becoming a pariah even to “enlightened” European nations
cannot possibly work to its favor in the ongoing negotiations over
Iranian nuclear ambitions. It’s a long shot, but perhaps Europe’s
failure to change the nature of the Syrian regime with kind words
and kid-gloves will bleed over into how it views the Iranian
crisis.
Either way, a Syrian government increasingly embroiled in an
international crisis will find it more difficult to arm and finance
the Iraqi insurgency, as well as other terrorist entities. Syria
does not revel in its isolation as North Korea does. It wants to be
both a thug and a legitimate player, something it is finding
particularly hard to do these days. Likewise, states such as
France, which seem keen to allow that same insurgency play out
against America as proof that its opposition to the Iraq war was
sound, will find it more difficult to oppose Syria’s thuggish
behavior without acknowledging that country’s role in international
terrorism and destabilizing Iraq.
Yes, but how could this positively effect the Trans-Atlantic
Alliance? Never underestimate the power of creating a common
enemy.
“France says to itself, ‘Since we’ve had pretty awful relations
recently, we need to get closer to the United States. But we
clearly showed on Iraq that we opposed the American invasion, so
we’ll try to get closer through another door in the Middle East,’”
Barah Mikail, an expert at the Institute of International and
Strategic Relations in Paris, suggested to the AP. “Lebanon is that
door.”
Further, as Syria comes to the forefront of international
debate, Israel’s hand in trying to ward off Russia’s proposed sale
of shoulder-fired missiles to Syria will have been greatly
strengthened. Perhaps Russia, eager for friends in the Middle East
to offset American influence, will choose to stand by Syria even as
the world condemns and sanctions it. But it’s possible Russia will
answer the call to reason, as it occasionally does. (Remember a few
brief weeks ago when Russia denied any intention of selling Syria
advanced missile technology? Turns out that wasn’t exactly true,
which begs the question, how much weight should be given to Russian
denials vis-Ã -vis Iran’s
nuclear ambitions?) Also, Syria’s open encouragement of the
terrorist campaign against Israel will also become more risky in
the current political situation.
Any reduction in terrorist activity, of course, gives the
current Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire, all the more chance of
success. This is one more beam
of light in a situation we already have many reasons to be optimistic about.
Of course, resolve could wane and the Lebanese could be
forgotten with the next news cycle, making all of these positive
possibilities mere wishful thinking from a quaint moment in
history. But here’s hoping things go the other way. Here’s hoping
Rafik Hariri did not die in vain.
