The Bush administration, satisfied with initial reports of Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, has stipulated that disarming Hizbullah comes next, Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington After weeks of sharp criticism of Syria and daily warnings by United States President George W Bush that its regime would face international isolation if it did not fully and immediately pull out its troops from Lebanon, for the first time this week, administration officials expressed relative satisfaction with reports on the deal reached between Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and UN envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen. In a statement read out after meeting Al-Assad in Aleppo on Saturday, Larsen announced a two-stage withdrawal for nearly 13,000 Syrian troops based in Lebanon over the past 15 years. By the end of March, all Syrian troops would withdraw to the border area of the Bekaa Valley, and a week later, military officials from both countries would meet to set a timetable for the complete pullout of Syrian forces and intelligence services personnel. Syrian Information Minister Bouthina Shaaban told Cable News Network (CNN) in an interview on Sunday that she believed the troops' withdrawal would be concluded even before the May deadline set by President Bush. She also affirmed that Syrian intelligence services personnel, whom Lebanese opposition figures and US officials claim have had the real power in Lebanese politics for the past 15 years, would also pull out with the military troops, saying, "those personnel were attached to the armed forces, and they will pull out with them." Yet, while Shaaban said that the withdrawal of Syrian troops was taking place according to the 1989 Taif agreement reached between the warring Lebanese faction with Arab sponsorship to end the bloody 15-year-old civil war there, US officials said the move was in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which the United States and France introduced a year ago after Syria insisted on backing Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and extending his term in office by three years despite widespread public opposition. The UN resolution demands an immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops based in Lebanon, in a direct reference to Syria but without naming it. However, the more controversial part of the resolution is that which calls for the disarmament of all Lebanese militias and the deployment of the state's national army to the border with Israel. That part of the resolution is particularly aimed at Hizbullah, which championed the struggle to liberate south Lebanon from Israel's occupation (1978-2000) and is backed by Iran and Syria. The US considers Hizbullah a terrorist organisation, and Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and other well-known "hawkish" members of the administration have usually referred to the group's attack on US marines in Lebanon in the early 1980s as the beginning of an international wave of terror aimed at intimidating the world's superpower. After the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri a month ago, which sparked the current wave of dynamism on the Lebanese front and renewed calls for withdrawal of Syrian troops, senior US officials hailed the demonstrations held by opposition parties there as part of the "march of freedom" sweeping the Middle East after President Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. However, when Hizbullah and other supporters of Syria in Lebanon held their own massive demonstration nearly two weeks ago, President Bush ignored the show of force and said his position remained unchanged. In all his recent public statements on Lebanon, observers noted that Bush did not make the part of the UN Resolution 1559 seeking the disarmament of Hizbullah a pressing issue in his campaign. This prompted speculation that the hardline Bush administration might have changed its position on Hizbullah, and was ready to accept a political role for the Iran-backed group in Lebanese politics if it announced its readiness to give up the fight against Israel. Yet Condoleezza Rice and other senior US spokesmen have vehemently denied that the administration has changed its position, and that President Bush continued to consider Hizbullah a "terrorist" organisation with "American blood on its hands". "The United States has not changed its view of Hizbullah. We consider Hizbullah a terrorist organisation," said Rice. "But we need to do first things first. When Syrian forces are out we will have a better sense, and more importantly the Lebanese will have a better sense, of how to chart a political future that can be for all Lebanese and representatives of the many different divisions that are in that society." Pressed on the US position on the disarmament of Hizbullah, Rice said she expected the Lebanese to determine their stand on this issue through elections, while noting that Washington continued to expect the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1559. "Of course, in the long run you can't have a democratic society and a society based on rule of law where you have groups or organisations that are committed to violence outside of that framework," Rice said. Rice even said Washington would be ready to coordinate international efforts to fill the vacuum that might be created by the withdrawal of Syrian troops, and said she would not exclude sending international troops to Lebanon. It remains unclear whether such international troops would be part of a UN force, an idea that is reportedly unpopular within the White House. But that force would not only monitor the full withdrawal of Syrian troops, but also assure the compliance by Hizbullah on not launching attacks against Israel. Meanwhile, US pressure on Syria will continue not only over Lebanon, but also over its alleged support of radical Palestinian groups based in Damascus and providing refuge for key members of the ousted Iraqi regime who are suspected of funding the resistance attacks against the US occupation troops there. For the so-called hawkish members of the Bush administration, mainly in Cheney's office and the Defense Department, there is clearly no love lost for Syria, and there is still hope that the withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon and the emergence of a more friendly government in Beirut will start a chain reaction that could ultimately lead to the downfall of the Syrian regime. Such figures in the Bush administration are also unlikely to give up their demand on disarming Hizbullah and even perhaps arresting its leaders and putting them on trial for the attacks against the US marines in Beirut more than two decades ago.
