In an appalling but all too common display of despotism and indifference, Arab nations throughout the Middle East failed to condemn Syria’s suppression of Lebanese sovereignty.
As the Digital Freedom Network observed on Friday, September 10:
On September 3, the Lebanese parliament, under intense pressure from the Syrian government, approved an amendment to the Lebanese constitution that will allow current president Emile Lahoud to service a second term of three years.
Following the passage of this amendment, the United Nations (UN) passed resolution 1559 which called for full national sovereignty for the Lebanese and respect for Lebanon’s constitution while also calling for the removal of all foreign troops without specifically mentioning Syria.
In addition to international condemnation from the U.S. and European Union (EU), local press and various religious and political leaders widely castigated the move. Four members of parliament under chief Druze MP, Wahlid Jumblatt, resigned in the aftermath.
The general expectation of behavior for Syria’s Arab neighbors following its regrettable maneuvering of power was if not outright condemnation, certainly nothing indicating praise or approval. Unfortunately, approval was all that was to be found.
According to reports from The Daily Star, “Egypt appeared to have stood with Damascus Wednesday, as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak reportedly rejected international condemnation of Syria’s domination of Lebanese politics.”
Ironically, Syria’s official news agency, SANA, reported that Mubarak and Syria’s leader, Bashar Al-Asad, called for “total Lebanese sovereignty” and repudiated UN Resolution 1559.
There are indications that “strong initial warnings” by Egypt, Jordan and Arab Gulf States for Syria to not interfere in the Lebanese electoral and constitutional affairs were altered or removed after intense lobbying from Syria.
Presumably, Syria introduced a goal of mutual interest that could be achieved given that there was unanimity between Arab parties. Forcing further U.S. difficulties in the increasingly dangerous Iraq is arguably chief among those.
With respect to Resolution 1559, Syria and Egypt deflected attention from the political arm-twisting by noting the need for a “realistic and political framework that would lead at the same time to the end of the Israeli occupation of all Syrian and Lebanese territory.”
Lebanese Foreign Minister Jean Obeid reiterated that position, according to The Daily Star, by observing, “Lebanon was being asked to deal with the issue of the national anti-Israel resistance without bearing in mind that there is Lebanese land still under Israeli occupation.”
Also there is the shared history of Syria and Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War where both countries ceded territory to Israel in an overwhelming military defeat. While Egypt officially made peace with Israel under the leadership of the late Anwar Sadat, Syria still believe it is entitled to those lands (the Golan Heights), though has neither the means nor the real desire to attempt any recapture.
Michael Young of Reason Magazine and The Daily Star argues any serious implementation of Resolution 1559 is difficult, especially in the context of Syria’s ties to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Recall that recent Israeli threats against Damascus came in the form of Syrian government approval of Hamas offices in Syrian territory, operating unfettered and to nearly full capacity. Israel argues it has the right to attack those targets, even if they exist in foreign territory. Young observes, “It’s difficult to imagine either the U.S. or Israel agreeing to new Syrian-Israeli talks unless Syria severs its ties with Hezbollah, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad.” As long as Syria is tethered to these extremist groups, any negotiations over the Golan territory, and thus the implementation of Resolution 1559 as both Israel and Syria withdraw from occupied territory, remains somewhat of a pipe dream.
In fairness to the complexities of international diplomacy and history, both Israel and Syria maintain that occupation of West Bank and some Lebanese territory, respectively, is necessary to counterbalance the presence of the other.
On Wednesday, September 15 Syria criticized the U.S. Congress resolution that was passed two days earlier, condemning Syria’s record on human rights abuses and calls for the U.S. government to combat the problem. The Daily Star reports as follows:
Syria’s Information Minister Ahmad Hassan dubbed the resolution “worthless,” adding that it bears the clear mark of the Zionist lobby in the U.S. congress.
House Resolution 363 called for the condemnation of the “continuing gross violations of human rights” and demanded support for the “civil liberties of the Syrian people by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.”
The resolution passed unanimously without hesitation, thus rendering Syria’s claim of surreptitious Zionist influence little more than baseless assertions.
In a very telling sign of the state of failure in Arab States, former Lebanese President Amin Gemayal, a member of Christian opposition, told The Daily Star Resolution 1559 “is different from all previous UN resolutions pertaining to Lebanon” and “it is the first time that a UN resolution intervenes in the internal relations among Arab states.”
Gemayal added “this shows the failure of Arab states to resolve their problems internally.”
So what does all this mean?
If one were to combine Syria’s hand wrangling of Lebanese affairs, lobbying of foreign Arab governments for support, repudiating of international criticism, repudiating of domestic and Lebanese concerns, flippant attitude toward UN resolutions, deflecting of attention back to the U.S. and Israel away from its’ failures, what we find is the unfortunate, but thoroughly unsurprising reality of politics in the Middle East.
Once again, Arab regimes have failed to come to rescue of fellow Arab nations by shamefully supporting ghastly actions of neighborhood dictators (there is also the gross failure to uphold the much heralded Pan Arabism). Again, this is not surprising. It is in many ways very unreasonable to expect Mubarak to outright condemn Syria while he presides over a police state. In his view, Assad’s situation is nearly tantamount to his with respect to attitudes from Washington, although Mubarak is not accussed of having and likely has no ties to terrorism. Regardless, a man whose sole interest is power cannot be expected to exhibit forthcoming behavior on issues of disclosure and morality.
What it will take to alter the climate of Arab politics is unclear, but it unquestionably must involve massive amounts of concessions and negotiations. Given the actions of Egypt and other Arab nations, such a prospect is little more than a glimmer in the eye.
