Replies

also wonder what al-Jazeera has to say about all of this

Well let me just whip this out!

A time for unity or opportunism?
By Dr Mounzer Sleiman

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/14BD0F9C-D346-4CD4-94B6-5DD260A71875.htm
Monday 28 February 2005, 14:28 Makka Time, 11:28 GMT

Assassination is a potent force for change; examples that validate this conclusion abound throughout history. Yet rarely is it used with the intention of effecting historical change.

Instead, it is driven by hate, revenge or the desire to eliminate an influential opponent and reconstruct the internal political structure or balance of power, a tool for inflicting pain on the victim's immediate family, clan or political party. Such is the case in Lebanon.

The tragic and shocking assassination of former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri has created a political earthquake in Lebanon and the region. No other assassination in recent memory has provoked such intense, swift and wild accusations, speculations and political manipulations.

A loose coalition of former warlords, marginalised former officials and aspiring opportunists are manoeuvring to be considered candidates for parliament seats in the upcoming election.

They have no common ground except to use what they perceive to be "favourable international winds" to sail the fragile Lebanese ship towards a confrontation with Syria, to force its withdrawal from Lebanon, and to secure a seat on the American train that now circles the region to implement Pax Americana, which is being rammed down the throats of the Iraqi people.

This loose coalition has wasted no time in blaming the Lebanese and Syrian governments for the physical elimination of al-Hariri. No one bothered to look at the simple fact that the Syrian and Lebanese governments, in effect, had already politically sidelined al-Hariri. The removal of al-Hariri from his position as prime minister constituted a downsizing that was designed to weaken his political influence for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Although there is overwhelming grief and legitimate shock on the part of most Lebanese, the outpouring of sympathy stems perhaps not as much from a deep love and respect for al-Hariri as it does from a sense of personal violation by this tragic and brutal death. This tragedy has exposed some of the best qualities of the Lebanese, their generosity of spirit and optimism, and sense of community.

The opposition will
soon discover that gambling with the stability of Lebanon is a dangerous game decisively rejected
by the majority
of Lebanese

But at the same time, it exposed some of their worst traits: adventurism, hypocrisy, disingenuous grief, and egocentricity. There are those who never said a positive word about al-Hariri in his life who now sit in a front row seat at his gravesite, turning it into a platform from which to promote a political agenda.

The Lebanese and Syrian governments have failed utterly to deal with this sudden assassination of al-Hariri, which is proving to be devastating for Lebanon, not only because it has occurred during a critical period in the region, but also because al-Hariri represented the renewal of Lebanon.

Underestimating the enormity and gravity of the situation, they have failed to rise to the expectations of their constituents, as they have failed to restore a degree of control and credibility in the country.

Rather, they have allowed the "opposition" to take the political offensive in the media and on the street. Factions and individuals, once marginalised, are now eager to return to centre-stage, using the death of al-Hariri opportunistically to advance their own parochial agenda and personal ambition.

There is so much noise now in Lebanon in the aftermath of al-Hariri's death, as the opposition attempts to compare the situation there to the situation in the Ukraine. Never mind that the Ukrainian election had been marred by accusations of fraud, rather than by an assassination of a distinguished member of parliament, a former prime minister, and leader of a parliamentary bloc.

In fact, there is no comparison to the Ukrainian situation, just a self-serving attempt to create the illusion that there is no legitimacy to the presidency in Lebanon.

Of course, many are wondering who is behind the brutal killing of such an important figure, who was an international player because of his wealth and connections, and, in many ways, larger than his official title and his country.

Al-Hariri's use of his tremendous wealth to rebuild his country after its destruction during the civil war earned him that stature, which extended well beyond Lebanon to the international arena. (It also brought much criticism for the incredible debt the country incurred in the billions of dollars.)

But the real question is: Who benefits from his disappearance? Forces inside and outside the region could and would use his death to advance their grand design for the region.

Look at the Lebanese situation in the context of the American administration's grand design for the Middle East region. While this administration would like to redraw the political map of the entire region, the Iraqi situation has proven that it cannot use military power alone to do it.

The American-French axis is working in harmony with regard to Lebanon and Syria to eliminate any opposition that the US encounters there. Syria and Lebanon are the only Arab countries that oppose their grand design for the region.

The assassination of al-Hariri created a "window of opportunity" for the US-French coalition to eliminate any opposition to their policies. There is a division of labour between France and the United States to make Lebanon and Syria acquiesce to the grand design, while preserving French interests in the region.

The death of al-Hariri is being used as a tool to promote that grand design. A weak and chaotic Lebanon under some sort of civil strife will result in containing the feared power of armed Hizb Allah in Lebanon, and will eliminate a threat to Israel.

Al-Hariri's use of his tremendous wealth to rebuild his country after its destruction during the civil war earned him that stature, which extended well beyond Lebanon to the international arena

Hizb Allah, over the years, has been able to strike a balance of terror. Hizb Allah can retaliate with effective military strikes. If there is success in creating chaos in Lebanon, it will without a doubt negatively affect the Syrian position and make their government and leadership more amenable to accept Washington's dictates to play along with the US vis-a-vis the situation in Iraq and Palestine.

The Bush administration now has a keen interest in shifting the focus of attention away from its failure in Iraq. Despite the Iraqi election, a clear pattern now begins to emerge in this shifting of focus. At the height of the resistance, the US occupation blamed outside forces. But now, with the continuing loss of American and Iraqi blood, there is a need to divert attention from Iraq. Unfortunately, Lebanon has a tradition of playing this role.

Every time that there has been a complication or fear over the outcome in Iraq, the US has referred to the potential "Lebanonisation" of Iraq. Now we are hearing of the "Iraqisation" of Lebanon!

Picture this scenario: imagine a train with many wagons taking a trip through the Middle East. As it passes through, the US, with its threat of military might, makes every country hop on to the train.

But Syria says, "We don't want to jump on to any of the wagons. We just want to wait in the reception area. We don't agree with the trip, but we won't try to stop it. Nor do we want a reservation on this train." But the US says, "You are not allowed to just sit in the waiting room. If you are not with us, you are against us."

"We have the Israelis, we have Special Operations, we have assassinations, economic sanctions, UN resolutions - we can crush you in any number of ways."

The opposition in Lebanon is serving this agenda, hopping on the train, or at least, reserving seats in the wagon, for they are under the illusion that the US is winning. The opposition will soon discover that gambling with the stability of Lebanon is a dangerous game decisively rejected by the majority of Lebanese.

Mounzer Sleiman is a Washington-based senior political-military analyst with expertise in US national security affairs.

The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.