The following is the draft translation of a political analysis article written in Arabic.
Question: The Security Council issued the resolution 1636 on 31.10.2005 which obligates Syria with a complete and unconditioned co-operation with the International investigation committee headed by Melis, the resolution was based on chapter seven which is concerned with the penalty procedures in the case of not executing the resolution. America and France were active behind this resolution. The Syrian President preceded this resolution, and originated on 29.10.2005 (a juristic investigation committee) which has the authority of investigating civilians and military persons whom the committee of Meliss suspects, and to co-operate with the International investigation committee. The question is: the international investigation committee pointed to Syria, and the Syrian juristic investigation committee was asked to co-operate with the International committee, does that mean that the Syrian system or its officials are involved in the assassination? Cannot we also say; that there is harmony between America and France in this issue and not a dispute, especially that they are behind this resolution and that they race in putting restraint on the attitudes concerning Syria?
Answer: The following items put light on the answer:
1. America was holding the reigns in Syria and Lebanon, and was the only player on the Syrian and Lebanese stage without anyone from the East or West sharing it in that, that continued especially after the agreement of Ta’if until the assassination of Al-Hariri. After that Europe entered the stage, France openly and Britain behind the screen, America was obliged -in many issues in Lebanon and Syria- to accept a partner or more, after it used to be alone, even the reigns of taking the initiative in some issues was transferred from it to others and it had to follow it unwillingly such as the case in the resolution of 1559 and what followed similar to it.
2. America is behind appointing Bashar Al-Assad, and behind appointing Lahhud and extending for him, Bashar and Lahud moved with strength by the (breath) of America, until the assassination of Al-Hariri, after which Bashar and Lahud were shaken, and the men of France and Britain became stronger and more active, at the time when the men of America became shaken.
3. It is unlikely that the Syrian System (meaning Bashar) to be behind the assassination, because what happened is a strike for the system, but there are centers of power in Syria, and it is possible that some of these power centers have relation with that.
4. The situation of Bashar after his father is similar to that of Al-Sadat after Abdelnaser, because the centers of power were about to over throw Al-Sadat, America was thinking of changing and replacing him with a stronger one, fearing that matters will be out of its hands. But he was able by a calculated adventure to destroy the centers of power and to show America that he is her strong man, so he gained its content and it supported him and he kept his chair.
Bashar now is in this test, if he was able to destroy the centers of power, especially those which show that they have relation with the assassination of Al-Hariri, if he was able to do that, he will keep his chair with the content of America, and the report of Melis gave him this opportunity. May be this is what Patrik Seel -friend of the family- pointed to in his article issued in Al-Hayat newspaper on Friday
28.10.2005 by saying: "The report of Melis gives Bashar a golden opportunity to prove his authority towards the antagonist centers of power and prove that he is the actual ruler", and because his brother (Maher) is one of these centers of power who leads a military unit (the fourth regiment which controls the entrances of the capital) and also his brother in law (Asef Shawkat) who heads the military intelligence,
Patrik Seel points to something similar in the era of Hafez Al-Assad, where he adds in his mentioned article "if a confrontation took place between the two brothers , this will be a repetition for an incident which took place in 1984, between Hafez Al-Assad and his brother Rif’at who headed at that time a strong
military unit (the palace defense)".
5. America is trying to consolidate its post in Syria and Lebanon, it realizes that Syria is the origin, and to keep a strong influence for it in Syria, will preserve a strong influence for it in Lebanon. It also realizes that (France and Britain) are trying to have contact with some centers of power in Syria, that is why it is
looking for some one to replace Bashar, who is stronger than him and who can keep for America its influence in Syria, and stop any penetration of this influence by Europe. This is, if it was unable to destroy the centers of power, and until it finds that, it will try hard to direct Bashar how to execute the resolution 1636 in a manner which will strengthen his position and weaken his opponents from the centers of power. It entrusted that to its agent the man of missions, ruler of Egypt, and the visit of Mubarak to Syria on 28.10.2005 is something like that, he returned on the same day after holding a long closed session together. They had a phone call on 27.10.2005. It is not by coincidence that Bashar Al-Asad originated the juristic committee just after Mubarak had left Syria.
6. As for France, Britain and their followers in Lebanon and the region, they are in contrast to that, they do not want to lose the opportunity which originated after the assassination of Al-Hariri, they want to reach with it to the end of the round, so that their influence will return to Syria and Lebanon after it was alienated for a period of time, and the two countries will return their old dream in the region, which America was a hindrance for its realization for a long time, especially after the agreement of Al-Ta’if until the assassination of Al-Hariri.
7. Thus the conflict between America and Europe in Syria and Lebanon is real, because their political and materialistic interests require that, what appears on the surface from harmony in resolution projects and political work is only from the field of political manoeuvres which the circumstances of their presence in
Lebanon and Syria imply, where Europe competed with America on the influence in Lebanon, one could not manage things alone, so they were obliged to be partners in preparing the resolutions, while each tried to realize its own interests to its best, the work of the American ambassador and that of the French ambassador especially in Lebanon points to that.
07 Shawal 1426 AH
09 November 2005 CE
Question: The Security Council issued the resolution 1636 on 31.10.2005 which obligates Syria with a complete and unconditioned co-operation with the International investigation committee headed by Melis, the resolution was based on chapter seven which is concerned with the penalty procedures in the case of not executing the resolution. America and France were active behind this resolution. The Syrian President preceded this resolution, and originated on 29.10.2005 (a juristic investigation committee) which has the authority of investigating civilians and military persons whom the committee of Meliss suspects, and to co-operate with the International investigation committee. The question is: the international investigation committee pointed to Syria, and the Syrian juristic investigation committee was asked to co-operate with the International committee, does that mean that the Syrian system or its officials are involved in the assassination? Cannot we also say; that there is harmony between America and France in this issue and not a dispute, especially that they are behind this resolution and that they race in putting restraint on the attitudes concerning Syria?
Answer: The following items put light on the answer:
1. America was holding the reigns in Syria and Lebanon, and was the only player on the Syrian and Lebanese stage without anyone from the East or West sharing it in that, that continued especially after the agreement of Ta’if until the assassination of Al-Hariri. After that Europe entered the stage, France openly and Britain behind the screen, America was obliged -in many issues in Lebanon and Syria- to accept a partner or more, after it used to be alone, even the reigns of taking the initiative in some issues was transferred from it to others and it had to follow it unwillingly such as the case in the resolution of 1559 and what followed similar to it.
2. America is behind appointing Bashar Al-Assad, and behind appointing Lahhud and extending for him, Bashar and Lahud moved with strength by the (breath) of America, until the assassination of Al-Hariri, after which Bashar and Lahud were shaken, and the men of France and Britain became stronger and more active, at the time when the men of America became shaken.
3. It is unlikely that the Syrian System (meaning Bashar) to be behind the assassination, because what happened is a strike for the system, but there are centers of power in Syria, and it is possible that some of these power centers have relation with that.
4. The situation of Bashar after his father is similar to that of Al-Sadat after Abdelnaser, because the centers of power were about to over throw Al-Sadat, America was thinking of changing and replacing him with a stronger one, fearing that matters will be out of its hands. But he was able by a calculated adventure to destroy the centers of power and to show America that he is her strong man, so he gained its content and it supported him and he kept his chair.
Bashar now is in this test, if he was able to destroy the centers of power, especially those which show that they have relation with the assassination of Al-Hariri, if he was able to do that, he will keep his chair with the content of America, and the report of Melis gave him this opportunity. May be this is what Patrik Seel -friend of the family- pointed to in his article issued in Al-Hayat newspaper on Friday
28.10.2005 by saying: "The report of Melis gives Bashar a golden opportunity to prove his authority towards the antagonist centers of power and prove that he is the actual ruler", and because his brother (Maher) is one of these centers of power who leads a military unit (the fourth regiment which controls the entrances of the capital) and also his brother in law (Asef Shawkat) who heads the military intelligence,
Patrik Seel points to something similar in the era of Hafez Al-Assad, where he adds in his mentioned article "if a confrontation took place between the two brothers , this will be a repetition for an incident which took place in 1984, between Hafez Al-Assad and his brother Rif’at who headed at that time a strong
military unit (the palace defense)".
5. America is trying to consolidate its post in Syria and Lebanon, it realizes that Syria is the origin, and to keep a strong influence for it in Syria, will preserve a strong influence for it in Lebanon. It also realizes that (France and Britain) are trying to have contact with some centers of power in Syria, that is why it is
looking for some one to replace Bashar, who is stronger than him and who can keep for America its influence in Syria, and stop any penetration of this influence by Europe. This is, if it was unable to destroy the centers of power, and until it finds that, it will try hard to direct Bashar how to execute the resolution 1636 in a manner which will strengthen his position and weaken his opponents from the centers of power. It entrusted that to its agent the man of missions, ruler of Egypt, and the visit of Mubarak to Syria on 28.10.2005 is something like that, he returned on the same day after holding a long closed session together. They had a phone call on 27.10.2005. It is not by coincidence that Bashar Al-Asad originated the juristic committee just after Mubarak had left Syria.
6. As for France, Britain and their followers in Lebanon and the region, they are in contrast to that, they do not want to lose the opportunity which originated after the assassination of Al-Hariri, they want to reach with it to the end of the round, so that their influence will return to Syria and Lebanon after it was alienated for a period of time, and the two countries will return their old dream in the region, which America was a hindrance for its realization for a long time, especially after the agreement of Al-Ta’if until the assassination of Al-Hariri.
7. Thus the conflict between America and Europe in Syria and Lebanon is real, because their political and materialistic interests require that, what appears on the surface from harmony in resolution projects and political work is only from the field of political manoeuvres which the circumstances of their presence in
Lebanon and Syria imply, where Europe competed with America on the influence in Lebanon, one could not manage things alone, so they were obliged to be partners in preparing the resolutions, while each tried to realize its own interests to its best, the work of the American ambassador and that of the French ambassador especially in Lebanon points to that.
07 Shawal 1426 AH
09 November 2005 CE
Comments