Why the uncalled-for interference in Syria? [Archives:2006/914/Opinion]
Syria is not unaware of the fact that there is an American political agenda progressing with steady steps to the end of laying siege to Syria, isolate and impose sanctions on it. Syria fully comprehends that the Bush administration relates that to what goes on in the region more than linking it to Mehlis report which certainly helped the American agenda. The Bush administration was planning the targeting of Syria even before the assassination of the Lebanese ex-prime minister Hariri and the formation of the international investigating committee under the UN Security Council Resolution 1595.
America began it actual provocation against Syria since it had invaded Iraq. It had delegated Colin Powell, its then secretary of State on a visit to Syria on May 2, 2003. Powell's visit coincided with appointment of Paul Bremer as High Commissioner in Iraq and with dividing Iraq into three security zones. Powell's visit also came at time when Bush administration was in dire need of the Syrian support. Therefore, Powell had then submitted a group of demands to Syria and they actually were a number of dictates. In the first place was the support for the American occupation of Iraq through putting an end to the resistance. Other demands were that Syria lifts its hand from Lebanon, to help disarmament of Hezbollah and closure of Palestinian factions' offices in Damascus. When Damascus had not responded to those dictates and did not meet the demands that contradict Syria's constants, America started a fierce war on Syria and used all kinds of maneuvers. Those provocative maneuvers could be traced as beginning from the Syria Accountability Act, through imposition of sanctions on Syria and the attempt of its isolation and ending with the UN resolution 1559, which France had participated in passing it. The resolution obliged Syria to withdraw Lebanon. That resolution was followed with the UN resolution 1595 that stipulated the formation of the international investigation committee into Hariri assassination, chaired by investigator Mehlis and it was followed with resolution 1636 that granted Mehlis unlimited authorities. It was inevitable to set in motion the American-Zionist scheme with the maneuver of Hariri assassination on 14 February 2005. The timing has implied indication of targeting Lebanon and Syria together. The plot succeeded and Hariri assassination had led to sabotage the relationship between the two neighboring countries and further resulted in causing schism inside the Lebanese politics embodied by one side supporting Syria and another against it.
Syria had pulled out of Lebanon but that was not satisfactory enough for America because it wants more than that. America wants to eliminate any relation between the two countries in prelude to impose international mandate on Lebanon. America wanted to take vengeance for Syria's non-abiding by its demands that were submitted by Powell in May 2003. Israel on its part wanted to punish Syria for its support for Hezbollah, representing the Lebanese resistance that forced the Zionist state to withdraw from Lebanon on May 24, 2000.
The major objective is to besiege Syria and isolate it. America and Israel intend to gain their single leverage on Lebanon to realize more than one deal, mainly to put squeeze on Syria. America and Israel intend to bury alive Hezbollah, destroy the Palestinian resistance, and pave the way for imposing international guardianship on Lebanon. The maneuver has not come to a halt and the scheme has not yet achieved all its goals.
The question is when the region and the Arab and Muslim leaders would read comprehensively this scenario and get prepared for adoption of plans to resist it, so that Syria could not be left alone or to avoid the scenario being extended to another country?
Prof. Abdulaziz Al-Tarb is an economist and a professor in Political Science and an expert in administrative development. He is the head of a number of professional associations, such as the Arab Group for Investment and Development.
——
[archive-e:914-v:14-y:2006-d:2006-01-23-p:opinion]
