That Syria seems set to conciliate with the US raises further questions as to the perpetrators and beneficiaries of Al-Hariri's killing, writes Amin Howeidi* The Mehlis report is about the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri. It's about a big-time murder case, about a first-rate crime with perpetrators and beneficiaries. I just want to point out that the beneficiaries don't need to be the same people as the perpetrators. The beneficiaries don't need to be the ones who commissioned the crime. A murder has taken place, and some people are determined to benefit from it. Right now, we have to be looking for two types of people: the perpetrators and the beneficiaries. Al-Hariri's murder has generated considerable international interest, much of it from the US. This seems a bit odd. Admittedly, the crime is big and the victim a man of great stature. But since when have major powers been interested in such things? Entire nations get slaughtered without the international community taking notice. Dozens of great men get killed without generating that level of interest. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the world did not do much, and the assassin is still unknown -- most likely he will never be known. Crimes against great men often go unresolved. Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by those benefiting from Kennedy's murder. They shot him to make sure that the crime would never be solved. My gut feeling is that Al-Hariri's murderer will never be known. Some people may already know the murderer's identity. But they want to use this information when the time is right. Let's say that the killer's identity is a trump card, saved up somebody's sleeve for the time being. The investigations dossier would be kept in a locked drawer, with a key marked "top secret". It will be used only when the need arises. German judge Detlev Mehlis has been placed in charge of an international team investigating the case. Why has he been chosen and who are the members of his team? Mehlis had cooperated with the UN in cases where crime was mixed with politics. He has experience in politically- motivated crimes. And his reports often reveal the crime piece-by-piece, step-by-step. The German judge has completed a report in which he revealed some of the information and left some hidden. As soon as he presented that report to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting and the US ambassador took the occasion to point a finger of accusation at Syria. The report was typed in two versions. The first, destined for the media, had no names. The second, leaked by the UK mission to the UN, named names. Which was the original? Your guess is as good as mine. The report made no accusations. Instead, it raised clouds of doubt that may take months or years to clear. The presumption of innocence still stands, the report says. In its current form, the report is just a preliminary statement, not an indictment. Because the report remains incomplete, the Lebanese authorities were told to complete it and keep looking for the perpetrators. The UN Security Council made a point of extending Mehlis' mandate until 15 December 2005. The report raises questions about key officials in both Lebanon and Syria. President Emile Lahoud, for example, was placed in such an awkward position that many called for his resignation. Later on, Mehlis held a news conference and vehemently denied Lahoud's involvement, while calling on Syria to cooperate with the investigation. This is rather unexpected. A Lebanese was killed in Lebanon, and yet it was Syria that was called to account. Syria has an admittedly questionable record in Lebanon. And yet one wonders. Is the current pressure on Syria motivated by the desire to solve the crime, or is it just a way of pressuring Syria to change its policies? The US president and secretary of state have both said that they had no wish to change the Syrian regime, but only to make it "change" its ways. Even after the UN Security Council passed resolution 1636, Rice called on the Syrian government to change its policies and stop "destabilising" the region. Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Al-Sharaa reacted by saying: "There are two clauses in the UN Security Council resolution that are unrelated to the investigation. This is a clear sign that the aim of those who pressed for the resolution was not to reveal the truth about the crime, but to target Syria and its policies." What exactly do the Americans dislike about Syrian policies? US officials say that Syria is not controlling its borders with Iraq, supports Iran and Hizbullah, allows Palestinian groups to operate on its land, and is not cooperating in full with Mehlis. These are all serious matters, and they suggest that the US is the main beneficiary of the crime. In a typically belated manner, Damascus began reacting to US demands. It formed an ad hoc legal committee to interrogate Syrian individuals, both civilian and military, and promised to cooperate with the Lebanese authorities. This may buy the Syrians some time, but it won't make the crisis go away. Sooner or later, the Syrians will have to address US intentions, not just its rhetoric. I recall that in the first meeting between President Sadat and Henry Kissinger, the US official opened his briefcase to get out some maps, and the Egyptian president interrupted him. "Forget the briefcase, Henry. Just tell me what you want." In his memoirs, Kissinger recalls that encounter, saying that the remark changed his mood. Kissinger said he wanted three things: the restoration of diplomatic relations with the Americans, an end to the Arab oil embargo, and the withdrawal of the Egyptian fleet from Baab Al-Mandab. The Egyptian president said, "I agree, I agree, and I agree." Kissinger asked if Sadat would officially announce this reply, and the Egyptian president promised to do so at the press conference scheduled afterwards. Kissinger then started discussing the maps and the wheels of diplomacy were sent in motion. The Syrians are in a debacle and must understand that the roundabout ways of the past are over. Damascus needs to find a solution that spares it sanctions and a possible military strike. At all cost, the Syrians should avoid a "Libyan deal" denouement, one involving a total change of policy. The Syrians have two options: first, to stand defiant and bear the consequences; second, to push for a compromise. It seems to me that Damascus is edging towards the second option. The signals Damascus is sending suggest that it's willing to reconsider its policies towards Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, and that it wishes to cooperate with Mehlis. Syrian media is moving away from harping on the shortcomings of resolution 1636 to stressing full cooperation. However belatedly, it seems that the Syrians are willing to change. As for the murderers, the accomplices, and the instigators of the crime, we may never find out who they are. Even if some names are uncovered, those are likely to be the small fish, not the big ones. Some suicide cases or mysterious deaths are not to be ruled out, especially among the small fish. After all, the dead don't talk. * The writer was formerly minister of defence and chief of general intelligence.
