The Syrian occupation of Lebanon has generated a great convergence of disparate ideologies and perspectives. France and United States see eye-to-eye. Arab opinion ranges from opposition to the occupation to neutral “bureaucratese.” Even the U.N. Security Council has been able to reach common ground on the issue. The editorials of Le Monde are curiously similar to those of this newspaper on the issue.
Perspectives, indeed the dynamics of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, resemble those regarding Ukraine’s struggle for independence from Russian dominance. In the heady days of Ukraine’s struggle, the Atlantic gulf seemed to narrow and the United States and the European Union staunchly agreed on the need for elections in Ukraine that were fair and free of the Kremlin’s hand.
The plight of Lebanon may not seem critical to the United States, or Europe for that matter, in broad, geopolitical terms. Still, there has been sweeping interest in the attack that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the continued Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the potential connection between the two. This surely is in part due to the affect that Syrian harm and interference has had on Iraqi violence and politics. French engagement reflects France’s long-term view of Lebanon as a French sphere of influence and protection.
In September, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1559, which was sponsored by the United States and France, calling for the withdrawal of foreign (read Syrian) troops from Lebanon. Last week, the council called on U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to file an urgent report on the “circumstances, causes and consequences” of the Hariri assassination and on Lebanon’s government to bring the organizers, sponsors and perpetrators of the slaying to justice.
French daily Le Monde editorialized: “The argument used for a quarter of a century by the Syrian dictatorship …that its 15,000 troops were vital for Lebanon’s stability, has been smashed to pieces.” Indeed. Still further to the left in France, the sentiment remains the same. “If Damascus hasn’t yet understood the extent to which the Lebanese hate their tight grip on the country,” the newspaper Liberation said, “Rafik Hariri’s funeral will have made it clear.”
Many Mideast newspapers, meanwhile, appeared to be studiously neutral on the Hariri assassination and the Syrian presence in Lebanon. “The farewell accorded Rafik Hariri reflects the support which the man enjoyed among the diverse Lebanese people,” said Saudi Arabia’s al-Jazirah. Turkey’s Yeni Safak, however, was more to the point: “If they did kill Hariri, could Syria — which is surrounded, under threat of attack, and oppressed by the US and Israel from east and west — really run the risk of standing against the current flow of events? Isn’t it apparent that even before two days have passed, the results of the assassination have brought Syria face to face with occupation?” Lebanon’s top-selling newspaper, An-Nahar, was also forthright: Mr. Hariri’s funeral represented “the largest referendum for unity and sovereignty in Lebanon.
Syria has clearly miscalculated. Far from intimidating Lebanese opposition to Syrian occupation, it has strengthened it. And worse for Syria, it has opened a door through which the United States will be able to push its anti-Syrian policies — now with the support, rather than opposition, of European and Middle Eastern governments.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.