US officials will escalate pressure on Syria to pull out its troops from Lebanon ahead of upcoming spring elections, Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington The strong statements United States President George W Bush made this week on Syria during his first European tour after winning his second four-year term left no doubt that Washington, with a rare backing from France, would escalate pressure on Damascus to pull out its troops from Lebanon, end its alleged support for the resistance to US occupation of Iraq, and support the revival of the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. "Our shared commitment to democratic progress is being tested in Lebanon -- a once thriving country that now suffers under the influence of an oppressive neighbour," Bush said in an unprecedented reference to Syria during a major policy address in Brussels on Monday. "Just as the Syrian regime must take stronger action to stop those who support violence and subversion in Iraq, and must end its support for terrorist groups seeking to destroy the hope of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Syria must also end its occupation of Lebanon," he added. Following a meeting with French President Jacques Chirac, who was also in Brussels to take part in a NATO summit, a senior administration official that briefed reporters said the two leaders shared the same views concerning Syria and the need to "end its occupation of Lebanon". Interestingly, the level of agreement was such that the Lebanon issue was the only subject on which the two leaders issued a joint statement. The statement went as far as setting a relatively tight deadline for Syria to pull out its nearly 14,000 troops from Lebanon, linking it to the upcoming parliament elections due to be held there in early May. In reference to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, which the US and France proposed late last year and calls for ending Syria's presence in Lebanon, the joint statement said: "Lebanon's forthcoming parliamentary elections can mark another milestone in Lebanon's return to independence and democracy. The implementation of UNSCR 1559 is essential to the organisation and success of these elections." The senior administration official who briefed reporters on the Bush-Chirac meeting refused to say directly whether this meant that the US and France wanted to see Syria pulling out from Lebanon as early as May, when Lebanese parliamentary elections are due to be held. "We would like to see it [Resolution 1559] implemented, and the elections, obviously, can take place in a far freer climate if 1559 is being implemented," the official said. The latest upsurge in US pressure on Syria follows the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri last week. Although Bush and senior US administration officials stopped short of holding Syria responsible for the heinous crime, saying they were still waiting for an international investigation to publish its findings, they apparently decided to use the incident to pressure Syria to give in to long-standing US demands whether related to Lebanon, Iraq or the Middle East peace process. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in several public statements last week, said Syria was indirectly responsible for Al-Hariri's assassination by failing to fulfil its main justification for its continued presence in Lebanon: maintaining security. She added that Syria's continued "occupation" of Lebanon only added to the ongoing tensions in the nation that has suffered a 15- year civil war that ended in 1991. While so-called hardliners in the Bush administration, mainly in the Department of Defense and Vice-President Dick Cheney's office, have been pressing for a more confrontational approach towards Syria, together with its main ally Iran, informed sources in the White House said they believed the room remained open to diplomacy at this stage. In a testimony in front of the Senate last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Syrians have been "harmful to what we're trying to do" in the Middle East. He added, "They're holding [Iraqi] assets and refuse to release them. They have harboured Baathists in their country. They are occupying Lebanon. They are facilitating, with Iran, Hizbullah [activity] into Lebanon and Israel... They're not a country that is cooperating and it's harmful to what we're trying to do." Rumsfeld noted that several US administrations have tried to convince Damascus to change its behaviour. "And they, thus far, have been unwilling to do so." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfwitz and key neo- conservatives in the Pentagon who stood hard behind the Iraq war, also had sharp words for Syria, but excluded the military option at this stage. "We're not looking to end this (Syrian) behaviour with another war," he told the Senate's Armed Services Committee early this month. However, he made clear that besides the dispute over Lebanon, a change on Syrian behaviour towards Iraq and the Middle East process could relatively ease the US pressure. "It's not our policy to destabilise Syria. It shouldn't be their policy to destabilise Iraq, or Lebanon for that matter," he added. Informed sources said that the first option the Bush administration might resort to in case of Syria's failure to comply with demands to pull out from Lebanon would be to impose more bilateral sanctions in the framework of the Syrian Accountability Act, which the Congress approved in May last year. Despite the obvious agreement between Bush and Chirac on pressing Syria to end its presence in Lebanon, Paris was reportedly opposed to imposing economic sanctions on Damascus through the UN Security Council, an informed White House source said. In statements on Monday, former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright echoed the views of many observers in Washington that even considering the military option against Syria should not be on the table at this stage. "I think we have enough on the plate at the moment," Albright said in reference to the US occupation of Iraq. But the neo-cons and hardliners in the Bush administration, who have no love lost for the Syrian government, are unlikely to ease their pressure on Damascus at the moment. The fact that Syria's prime minister headed to Tehran early this week amid the US escalation against his country, announcing the creation of a "united front" between the two neighbours, only added to the anger of the hardline camp and their pressure to bring about regime change in both Syria and Iran. "Lebanon is now [entering] into a new era," said Robert G Rabil, a visiting scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, known for its strong support of the right-wing camp in Israel and the neo-conservative agenda. "Between the [Lebanese] opposition's determination to confront Syria, and willingness of pro-Syrians to vigorously support the status quo, Lebanon's political future has become unpredictable. The moment is ripe for active international action to press Syria to end its occupation," he added.
