Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Who Killed Mr. Lebanon?

Confusion abounds over who is responsible for the bomb that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon. The mob is blaming Syria, upset at the constant presence of Syrian troops in their country (y'see, occupations are never popular - the Syrian presence was hailed as a good thing by the US and others when it began, a sign Syria was joining the international community of peascekeepers). The US has been careful to blame Syria without actually blaming Syria:

The United States has recalled its ambassador to Syria amid rising tensions over the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon.

Before departing, U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey delivered a stern note, called a demarche in diplomatic parlance, to the Syrian government, said an official who discussed the situation only on grounds of anonymity. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, announcing the move, said it reflected the Bush administration's "profound outrage" over Hariri's assassination. Boucher did not accuse Syria of being involved in the bombing Monday in Beirut. "I have been careful to say we do not know who committed the murder at this time," he said. But he said the deadly attack illustrated that Syria's strong military and political presence in Lebanon was a problem and had not provided security in the neighboring country. "It reminds us even more starkly that the Syrian presence in Lebanon is not good," Boucher said. "It has not brought anything to the Lebanese people."


An Islamic group has claimed responsibility in retaliation for Hariri's strong ties to the Saudi government.
Meanwhile, the Syrian government has issued a statement disavowing responsibility and describing the assasination as an "odious crime... aimed at striking Lebanese national unity and civil peace". The Islamic media and one of Hariri's advisors are saying, perhaps predictably, that the killing was done by Mossad agents to destabilise the region, and the jihaadist groups' claim is a further part of the misdirection.

Only two things are certain. Firstly, that Robert Fisk is correct when he writes that:

Lebanon is built on institutions that enshrine sectarianism as a creed, in which the president must always be a Christian Maronite, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim - like Hariri - and the speaker of parliament a Shia Muslim. Anyone setting out to murder Hariri would know how this could re-open all the fissures of the civil war from 1975 to 1990.

The second is that the hawks at PNAC and in the White House will use this tragedy and any destabilisation that follows as an excuse to further their own agenda - imposing their will on the Middle East - no matter who is responsible. Let's face facts, the White House does not want a stable Middle East unless it is on their own terms. All their actions to date have proven this, and their statements over Hariri's assasination have continued the theme.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for giving some perspective on this event. I was totally clueless except that I know Syria has some oil.
I am still curious as to why a former PM and not a current leader.
If the assassination is to promote an agenda, wouldn't it have been more effective to target a decision maker?
Kirkrrt

Cernig said...

Hi Kirkrrt,

This obituary may give you an idea. Hariri was a billionaire, had been in and out of power a couple of times and was widly expected to bounce back again. He had strong ties to the Saudi royals and international figures such as Jaques Chirac. And he had a very very high profile amongst common Lebonese.

Regards, C

Cernig said...

It took a rightwing guest blogger at Loaded Mouth to point out what I should have seen and made comment on...The irony of Bush and his Bunch saying to Syria "Well, if you occupy a country you are responsible for all the unrest and terrorism that heppens there. This bombing proves you should withdraw your troops".

That's almost surreal.

Regards, C

Harkonnendog said...

"Let's face facts, the White House does not want a stable Middle East unless it is on their own terms. All their actions to date have proven this, and their statements over Hariri's assasination have continued the theme."
Couldn't agree more. The U.S. used to want stability at all costs. Now we only want a stable Middle East if it involves the people of the region having democracy!
;p ;p

For a good take on the assassination check out The Belmont Club and Newsysiphus... even the righty blogs are kind of scratching their heads.

Anonymous said...

The ironies are amazing. I don't have time to read all the links, but I am begining to think Syria may not have had anything to do with it. As a friend of mine noted, "it looks almost as if some renegade team persecuted a plan without authorization."
If that sounds like military speak, well....
Kirkrrt