With Syria and Saudi Arabia leading efforts to pre-empt indictments in the investigation into the assassination of Rafik Al-Hariri, what might Syria's intentions be, asks Bassel Oudat in Damascus Over the past few months, Syria and Saudi Arabia have been leading efforts to pre-empt the issuing of indictments by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) investigating the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, fearing that these may target members of Hizbullah. The media and some politicians have claimed that a written agreement, co-signed by Damascus and Riyadh, is in the offing, its content having been disclosed to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and a limited number of advisers. The content of the agreement has thus far been kept secret, and Syrian hopes that the deal could be made public a few weeks ago were delayed by news of the illness of King Abdullah. Nevertheless, even though the publication of an agreement is taking longer than anticipated, Damascus appears to be satisfied with the cooperation with Riyadh, Syrian officials describing the delay as inconsequential if it resolves problems facing the tribunal. The Lebanese parties involved in the dispute also declared a truce after Syria and Saudi Arabia became involved in finding a compromise agreeable to all sides. The two countries' involvement has helped create an optimistic atmosphere in Lebanon, with hopes running high that a solution will be found so long as the Syrian-Saudi dialogue continues. Syria and Saudi Arabia between them will be able to prevent any radical decision by the tribunal, the Lebanese parties believe, while Damascus is counting on the efforts of King Abdullah to make progress in dialogue between the two countries. In the talks, Syria has spoken up on behalf of Hizbullah and the Lebanese opposition, insisting that it has done so in order to provide guarantees to the Lebanese resistance, also supported by Tehran. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has represented the Lebanese parliamentary majority headed by Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri, Saudi Arabia having the most influence over the Lebanese majority bloc. Syria has rejected efforts by other countries to become involved in finding solutions in Lebanon, with Iran, Turkey, France, Qatar and other countries playing supporting roles in the settlement efforts without being full partners. However, despite Syria's attempts at mediation in what is a critical time for Lebanon, some Lebanese, together with observers elsewhere, believe that Syria has yet to be exonerated of involvement in Al-Hariri's assassination. Observers argue that contacts between the Syrian leadership and countries in the Middle East and Europe, including an anticipated visit by Al-Assad to Paris today, aim to contain any backlash from the planned indictments and protect Syria's allies in Lebanon. Syria is also trying to protect itself from accusations of involvement, attempting to guarantee that the Syrian regime will not be accused of collusion if Syrian officials are indicted on suspicion of involvement in the assassination. Al-Hariri's assassination in 2005 had a negative effect on Syria, since Damascus was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and its political influence there diminished. Syria lost an important partner on regional issues, followed by deteriorating relations between the two sides. Some in Lebanese circles have accused Syria of complicity in the assassination, and preliminary reports by the STL, prepared by the tribunal's chief investigator Detlev Mehlis, have pointed to possible involvement by the Syrian regime. Damascus has denied the accusations, insisting that it had no involvement in Al-Hariri's killing and that no Syrian official was involved. Syria objected to the creation of an International Tribunal to investigate the killing, criticising the move as an attempt to "put Syria under siege." Damascus has since been critical of the way the STL has carried out its investigation, and it has expressed concerns that the tribunal is politicised. However, Damascus has allowed the STL to interview Syrian security officials, and over the past three years it has insisted that it has "completely cooperated" with the international probe. Syria's interests lie in uncovering the truth, Syrian statements have said, since Syria also considers itself to be "one of the main victims." Now that the STL's indictments are on the horizon, a Syrian source has reiterated that Damascus is not worried that Syria or Syrians will be indicted on suspicion of involvement in the assassination. Syria would charge anyone proven to have been involved in the killing with treason, the source said. Since the establishment of the STL in 2007, Damascus has consistently said that it is "not concerned" by the work of the tribunal and that its sovereignty comes "above any international decision." It has also declared that it will "try any Syrian citizen proven to have been involved in the assassination in the Syrian courts." In statements, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallim and deputy Faisal Al-Meqdad have declared that accusations of involvement levelled at Syria "do not scare any Syrian." The tribunal was a "Lebanese affair", they said, and the Syrian justice system would "do its duty and prosecute any Syrian citizen proven in the investigation to have participated in the crime." Some observers say that Syria is trying to distract attention from the fact that the STL was set up by the UN Security Council, which has the right to use force to ensure that its work is carried out under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Individuals close to decision-making circles in Syria agree that these are critical times not only for Lebanon, but also for Syria, with a clique in the US administration, headed by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, allegedly leading a campaign regarding possible indictments against Syria. Syria is counting on Saudi Arabia's help in finding a way out from pressures put upon it by the tribunal, with Syrian officials expressing optimism that a conclusion acceptable to all parties will be found to end instability in Lebanon and prevent a backlash in response to the tribunal's findings. However, other observers feel that such optimism may be misplaced and that the issue will not be easily resolved. "Agreement on Lebanon, whether domestically, regionally or internationally, is not close," Syrian political analyst Fayez Sara told Al-Ahram Weekly. "There are many issues in dispute that go beyond the International Tribunal, which is currently considered the core of domestic disagreement." "Saudi Arabia represents an Arab trend that is almost unanimous on the issue of Lebanon, while Syria champions a position close or similar to that of Iran," Sara said. "In the end, Syrian-Saudi consultations on Lebanon are part of regional and international talks. The US must to some extent approve of the Syrian-Saudi track, though this endorsement could depend on the outcome of the consultations." Some in Lebanon and elsewhere are also warning of the dangers should conditions in Lebanon boil over, believing that despite the strong links between Hizbullah and Syria, Damascus will have difficulty controlling such a scenario. Domestic factors would play a part, such commentators say, as would interference from abroad. The Lebanese media have quoted unnamed Syrian sources as saying that the Syrian-Saudi talks will reach a deal that will put an end to Lebanon's volatility, though they have given few details. The situation is more complicated than such simplistic statements make it appear, with Syria, trying to appear as an impartial mediator, still being viewed by some in Lebanon as a guilty party. Meanwhile, efforts by Damascus and Riyadh to address the situation in Lebanon continue, though their success depends on factors that are largely beyond their control, including the interests of the conflicting parties and their regional and international alliances. The policies of the Lebanese and Arab parties are not aligned and are sometimes even contradictory. This does not bode well for a situation in which many efforts have been invested and agreements reached, so far without achieving any long-lasting solution.
