Hassan Nafaa* assesses the likely repercussions -- and necessary reactions -- to the Mehlis report Detlev Mehlis, head of the international enquiry investigating the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, and Terry Rod Larsen, the UN envoy charged with following up the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, have both presented their findings to the UN. In both cases the news was far from encouraging. Syria has long been in the bad books of both Israel and the US but never before has a showdown been as close. Both Mehlis and Larsen level accusations against Syria, with Mehlis suggesting that Damascus may be directly involved in Al-Hariri's murder and Larsen pointing to Syrian foot-dragging over the implementation of Resolution 1559. Mehlis says Al-Hariri's murder could not have happened without the knowledge and collaboration of Syria's security services. Larsen says Syrian policies are detrimental to Lebanon's security. Just as the UN Security Council was debating a US-French draft resolution that would place more pressures on Syria, the Quartet (the US, Russia, the EU and UN) issued an ultimatum to Syria, demanding it close down Palestinian Jihad offices in Damascus. Since the heat is clearly already on, it seems a good time to remind readers that Syria is not being singled out for reasons that are hard to understand. Syria is being harassed because it stands in the way of Israel's Zionist vision for the region. Syria is being bullied because the US and Israel want to eliminate the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance. The pressure being placed on Syria is part and parcel of a larger assault, targeting the Palestinian resistance and its supporters, Iran included. A division of labour has been agreed, with Israel taking care of the Palestinians while the US handles the Lebanon-Syria-Iran front. Resolution 1559 is being used to bludgeon Hizbollah while Al-Hariri's assassination is being used to force Damascus to change its policies. Meanwhile, the nuclear issue is being used to ratchet up pressure on Tehran with the aim of forcing it, too, to change policy. Since the invasion of Iraq the US has been throwing its weight around and getting what it wants. Meanwhile, the Arabs are utterly disorganised. For two years now analysts in this region have been explaining the tremendous changes that have come upon the world. I, along with many others, argued that the regional and international conditions that allowed the Syrians to stay in Lebanon were no longer in place. We repeatedly warned that the Americans were determined to break the Lebanese-Syrian-Iranian alliance by whatever means they could find, including military action. When Damascus pushed for the renewal of Lahoud's presidential term it was clear that the situation could only get worse. When Al-Hariri was assassinated I wrote that Lebanon had become the target for hostile forces that are seeking to use divisions within the country to pursue their own agendas. The offensive is far from over, and its preferred modus operandi is to break the region into sectarian entities that are easy to order around. Now that the Mehlis report is out Syria is now in the crosshairs. What will the Arabs do? They are, as usual, divided. Some support Mehlis and think it's likely that Syrian security services were involved in the crime. After all, Al-Hariri was cooperating with France and the US and took part in the consultations leading up to 1559, a resolution that damaged the national interests of both Syria and Lebanon. The security services of despotic regimes routinely misjudge international and regional developments: often they kill first and ask questions later. Al-Hariri's assassination was not the first crime of its type and the perpetrators may have mistakenly imagined that they could get away with this one too. Others exclude the possibility of Syrian involvement on the grounds that the Syrians are the ones who had the most to lose from such an action. Both arguments are worthy of consideration. What is most worrying, though, is the lack of collective focus that the Arabs have exhibited ever since the run-up to the Iraq crisis. Many may hate the Syrian regime for its totalitarian tendencies. Many may wish to sacrifice Syria and its people at the US-Israeli alter. After all, they say, a corrupt regime cannot be allowed to survive indefinitely. That, unfortunately, is a premise that cannot be guaranteed, not in the region, and not in the rest of the world. Nor is there any guarantee that a democratic regime will replace the one currently in power in Damascus. And for all the mistakes the Syrian regime has committed it may yet be better than anything the Americans can offer. Furthermore, the Syrian regime has an important role to play in opposing Zionist hegemony in the region. For the current crisis to be defused two conditions must be met. If they are not it will be difficult to address the challenges that are waiting and extract Syria and the Arab world from the difficulties in which they find themselves. The first condition has to do with the Syrian regime, which must take on board the situation in both the region and further afield. It has faced facts soberly, addressing the mind rather than the heart. I hope that the Syrians will be able to rally all their resources and prove they had no part in the hideous crime of which they are accused. The Syrian regime needs either to uncover the real perpetrators or show that Mehlis is wrong. Damascus will need to demonstrate that some of the information gathered in the report is incorrect. For example, Mehlis claims that Farouq Al-Sharaa lied about the meeting between Al-Assad and Al-Hariri. The Syrians can publish the minutes of the meeting to prove Mehlis wrong. Damascus has already resolved to set up a special committee to investigate civilian and military officials implicated in the case. It is a wise, if belated, step. The second condition concerns the Arab world. The Arabs must agree to stand behind Syria. They should oppose any punitive measures against Damascus as long as the investigation is underway. And they should work to ensure that the case remains focussed on the assassination of Al-Hariri. Arab states must also insist that anyone involved in this crime be punished. In doing so they will be protecting not just Syria but themselves. There is a rational way of dealing with this crisis, but only if, as I believe, the Syrian leadership is innocent. Should I be mistaken in this assumption then the picture is far more bleak. For now we can only wait and see. Whatever happens, though, the Arabs cannot use international legitimacy as a blanket excuse to let the Syrians down. They must stand by Syria even if the UN Security Council turns against it. Those who truly believe in international legitimacy must make sure that international law is implemented everywhere, including Palestine, and not in a selective manner. Failure to do so will undermine their credibility. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
