In the wake of the Mehlis report, Syria's next move is being watched ever so closely. Rasha Saad sees where the country might go A "political earthquake", "Mehlis tsunami" and "the worst crisis in Syria's history" was how the newspapers described Syrian involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, as was stated in the Mehlis report. In the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat Ahmed Al-Rabei wrote that the report handed over to the UN secretary-general by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis last week "is more of a political earthquake". Al-Rabei weighed Syria's options and concluded that cooperation with the international community was wiser than confrontation. He said there were two options for the Syrian leadership: use emotional or rational language. According to Al-Rabei, the former is well known in Arab culture and is largely employed for local consumption like propitiation of the public. "However, this kind of language no longer exits and does not concern the international society. It is simple yet may be very costly in terms of its consequences." Al-Rabei thus recommends the rational language, "the language of logic, realistic interaction with the report, and the announcement of Syria's willingness to cooperate with the international community and international investigators." Similarly, Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed, who described this moment in Syrian history as "its worst crises since the 1973 War" believes it has few options. Al-Rashed wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat that Damascus can either cooperate with or reject the UN commission's report. Rejection, according to Al-Rashed, means that Syria will either become another Iraq -- a rejectionist country until it surrendered (by then war had broken out and Iraq had collapsed). Or Syria might follow the Libyan example, in which it refused to cooperate, only to surrender after suffering from the sanctions placed on it. The other alternative, Al-Rashed contends, is for Syria to accept the report and cooperate fully. "Such a decision would mean that the Syrian regime must condemn this crime and give up those who were involved, thus escaping a cycle of disaster that would be felt for many years." Abdul-Bari Atwan in the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi had some observations on the findings of the report. First, it did not mention whether Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan was behind Al-Hariri's assassination, "casting doubt that he committed suicide [as a result, reports suggested, of media pressure implicating him in the assassination]." This fact, Atwan says, gives credibility to reports that Kanaan was assassinated and did not kill himself. He said Kanaan was one of the US alternatives to the present Syrian regime, the reason why his life was cut short. Another point, Atwan observes, is the fact that no Arab leader can enjoy any privacy since the Mehlis report included transcriptions of the phone calls of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. "Investigations revealed that all phone calls of the Lebanese president and his senior assistants were tracked from somewhere in Washington or Tel Aviv." Abdel-Wahab Badrakhan wrote in the London- based Al-Hayat newspaper that everybody knew the outcome of the report beforehand. "Everybody knew 'the truth' from the first moment. The truth was here amongst the dead bodies, human remains, destruction and debris." Badrakhan did not mention Syria in his story, however, he indirectly agrees with the Mehlis findings that Damascus had a hand in Al-Hariri's assassination. Badrakhan wrote there were two groups: those who exerted every effort to help investigators and those who tried to put obstacles before them, thinking that this crime will, like others before it, drown in the swamp of mystery. But "they realised that they are not facing an investigator who can be threatened or bought and are not facing a judge who can be intimidated by harming his family or by blackmailing him with a document or a video tape." According to Badrakhan, "this investigation was a historic chance for Lebanon, and it is unlikely that such an event will be repeated. Those who were looking for the truth should now use it to restore what the civil war destroyed, especially with regard to people's minds and spirits." Jihad Al-Khazen wrote in Al-Hayat that people are divided into two groups: those opposed to the international investigation and who had a premeditated conception which aim was to indict Syria so that the US and France could implement their common policy against Damascus. And those who support the report, saying its content was a clear-cut judgement of condemnation. "The truth, I believe, is in between. The report simply says that a final verdict of [Syrian] innocence is still a possibility," Al-Khazen wrote.
