|
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
|
|
Will the United Nations Ever Serve as The Guarantor of Lebanese Sovereignty and Security Against Terrorist Political Murders Committed by Syria?
By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. & Robert R. Guzzardi, Esquire
The U.N., the avatar of the International Community, is now ethically-challenged. It must restore the sovereignty of a U.N. member-state, the independence of which has been effectively destroyed by a virulent brand of Syrian Imperialism and Expansionism. It is poised to implement Security Council resolutions condemning Syria for meddling in Lebanon’s political processes, and for undermining the safety and security of the Lebanese citizenry. If it doesn’t, how might Lebanon struggle successfully to remain free, and how might regional stability to be restored? If Syria continues to defy international norms, law and human rights standards, America may be forced to play the role of “enforcer,” entering Beirut for the umpteenth time during the past half-century and, perhaps, effecting regime change in Syria. Ominous is the threat that Iran would then back its client-state, with uncertain implications. If ever the U.N. were able to prevent a conflagration, the time is now. Bashir Assad is a violent neighbor…who needs to be evicted, now. Just consider how Syria relates with four contiguous countries. Foxy Syrian insurgents continue to infest the Iraqi chicken-coup. These Ba’athists (self-proclaimed Fascists) systematically forge a melt-down of the Lebanese ethnic melting-pot, even as they lay claim to her sovereign territory, the Shaba Farms. Damascus domiciles proxy-Palestinians, who routinely nix contacts with Israel. Arabized culture continues to oppress Kurds, compounding pressures on the Turkish government. West, East, South and North…the Assads (father and son) have institutionalized terror. Yet, desperately seeking surcease, fools rush in. Advising America to reward Assad with discourse—as liberals consistently advise—can only afford Islamofascists more opportunities to sabotage fledgling democracies. Instead, America must aggressively seek a successor-regime. Now. Bill of Particulars What hath Assad wrought? Consider: In 2004, the Security Council reaffirmed Lebanon’s political independence and called for the withdrawal of the Syrian occupation army and the disarming of Hezbollah. Syria pledged retribution against Lebanese who would dare join the international campaign for freedom triggered by the U.S.-led War on Totalitarian, Utopian, Ideological Jihadism. Assad personally informed former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, a Sunni, of this stance. In the fall of 2004, a former minister from the Druze community, Marwan Hamade, survived a car bomb. This was a prelude of an imminent bloodbath. Hariri became the first mortality of this relentless campaign to wipe-out Lebanon’s independent leadership. He was blown-up by 1800 kilograms of explosives in a truck that had been driven from a Syrian camp outside Beirut on February 14, 2005. There were 22 “collateral” deaths. The Hariri murder triggered massive anti-Syrian street-protests—led by thousands of students—demanding the end of the occupation of their country by 5000 Syrian troops, mostly stationed in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. In response, through the pro-Syrian government headed by Prime Minister Omar Karami, a Sunni, Syria ordered the Lebanese Army to dispatch troops to shut down the “Lebanese Intifada.” Assad ultimately relented and withdrew the troops, but only after Secretary General Kofi Annan—pursuant to orders from the Security Council—warned him that his intransigence would trigger potent sanctions. Remaining in the country, however, were Syrian agents and Iranian-armed Shi’ites comprising the Hezbollah military. Since that time, fourteen anti-Syrian politicians and journalists have been attacked. This includes summertime slayings of progressive Lebanese leaders George Hawi and Samir Qassir, and the maiming of journalist May Chidiac. In December, Jubran Tueni, a member of the Lebanese Parliament and publisher of the daily an Nahar, was slain. Thus far, implicated in the Hariri “hit” have been senior Lebanese and Syrian security officials, including four Lebanese security chiefs aligned with the country’s pro-Syrian president, General Émile Geamil Lahoud (a Maronite). The Christian-Phalangist, Sunni, and Druze communities also blamed Syria, but Damascus and Mr. Lahoud have denied any involvement therein. After this bloodbath, Shi’ite Nabih Berri, the pro-Syrian speaker of the Parliament, invited their representatives—including Maronite General Michel Aoun—to what the Mafia terms a “sit down.” Playing the role of Don Corleone, Hezbollah’s agent essentially tried to lure these senior political leaders into obeisance. Following weeks of sterile talks, however, this “loaded dialogue” failed. U.N. Security Council Actions Yet, the latest flavor of appeasement promulgated primarily by anti-Bush idealogues is to chat with Assad. Forgotten are his contributions to the Civilizational World War being fought beyond the Middle East, such as in Chechnya (much as Russia would wish to deny its import). Neglected are his efforts to achieve “legitimization,” even as he serves as Iran’s partner-in-crime. Overlooked is the fact that, to Syrians, dialogue need be neither useful nor meaningful. Ignored is the inherent responsibility to connect-the-dots. At the U.N., rhetoric rules, debate rages, discussion of international law abounds. The Syrians respond with bombs and bullets, terrorizing reformers and innocents. And while a reinforced UNIFIL is stationed in Lebanon—abutting the Syrian border—it could easily arrest these political and terrorist murderers…if empowered to do so. Thus, a critical mass converged on the U.N., home of the largest scandal in world history, the multi-billion-dollar “Oil for Food” Program. This time, however, a novel outcome emerged. For, with support from France nurtured by U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, a series of Security Council Resolutions (1559 1595, 1644, 1664, 1686), led to investigations of these systematic slayings. They were requested in December, 2005 when Sunni Prime Minister Fouad Siniora asked Annan for help in bringing the killers to justice once they were identified. They have been led by Germany’s Detlev Mehlis and Belgium’s Serge Brammertz. In its first report, one year ago, this International Independent Investigation Commission characterized the Hariri assassination as a “terrorist bombing.” It concluded: “After having interviewed Syrian witnesses and suspects and establishing that many leads point directly towards Syrian security officials as being involved with the assassination, it is incumbent upon Syria to clarify a considerable part of the unresolved questions. While the Syrian authorities, after initial hesitation, have cooperated to a limited degree with the Commission, several interviewees tried to mislead the investigation by giving false or inaccurate statements. The letter addressed to the Commission by the Foreign Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic proved to contain false information." After the additional liquidations, the investigations were expanded. Currently, the U.N. is studying the nature and location of the explosive devices used in each attack, so as to discern the modus operandi employed. Lebanese investigators are being afforded increased technical assistance as they consolidate results of the extensive forensic examination of the crime scenes, the communications traffic, and their interviews. A second report cited additional comparison-analysis, strengthening its preliminary conclusion that these incidents had not been commissioned and executed by fifteen disparate and unconnected persons or groups harboring separate motives. A third report is to be issued on December 15, 2006. An International Tribunal On June 12, 2006, we wrote of this concern [“Getting Serious About Syria,” http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16776743&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=574088&rfi=6] and argued that “challenging the Damascus government’s legitimacy is vital.” There can be no negotiation with neo-fascists. Now, an international tribunal will probe these assassinations, plus any others deemed to be of a similar nature and gravity. On the very day this U.N. Tribunal was authorized, Christian Maronite Pierre Gemayel, the 34 year-old Minister of Industry, was rubbed-out and Lebanon has asked the U.N. to unearth the perpetrators of this sixteenth hit. Meanwhile, Assad abjectly refuses to allow his citizens to cooperate. In response, Assad danced, admixing delay and intimidation, feigning compliance while maintaining defiance, condemning the gangland slaying that he had probably ordered. Yet, just as he complied with Annan’s ultimatum last year, he can be pressured to relent this year. It is not surprising that he chose to ratchet-up tensions, if only to remind the United States that he retains a certain swagger. The challenge is to determine whether the U.N. will implement its own resolutions to indict these serial terrorist political murderers. Activists sought a free Lebanon, and journalists wrote of this struggle. They didn’t merit untimely deaths as a result. Such prosecution would alleviate all regional strife from the Ba’athists’ brutalities, liberating internal ethnic groups (Kurds) and external democracies (Iraq, Israel, Turkey). The U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution to investigate alleged killings in Beit Hunan, an accident that occurred during a military operation against Kassam launchers in Gaza. These rockets, increasingly accurate and powerful, target unarmed civilians living in Sderot. Recently, they killed two and inflicted loss of both legs of a third Israeli. Perhaps the U.N. will address the Lebanese assassinations with comparable gusto. Becoming Doctrinaire The best method to discern how America should approach this challenge, is to cite the Doctrines promulgated by each of America’s post-World War II Presidents. Although self-compliance was arguably questionable (notably, Carter), the rhetoric dovetails: Truman (March 12, 1947): “Support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Eisenhower (January 5, 1957): “Employ the armed forces of the United States to assist to defend the territorial integrity and the political independence of any nation.” Kennedy (January 20, 1961): “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. Johnson (May, 1965): “The United States will never again permit the establishment of a Communist regime in the Western Hemisphere.” Nixon (November 3, 1969): “We shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.” Ford (December 7, 1975): “Without security, there can be neither peace nor progress.” Carter (January 23, 1969): “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” Reagan (February 6, 1985): “Support for freedom fighters is self-defense.” Bush-41 (April 16, 1992): “Preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies.” Clinton (February 26, 1999): “Where our values and our interests are at stake, and where we can make a difference, we must be prepared to do so.” Bush-43 (September 17, 2002): “To forestall or prevent terrorist acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.” Action Item We must help place the full force of Lebanon’s government—so carefully maintained despite the Hezbollah-invoked warfare, this past summer—into service. International sanctions must be sought, consistent with the Doctrines of eleven American Presidents (five Democrats and six Republicans) to this festering front with the terrorists. Some had viewed Syria as low-hanging fruit, ripe for the picking. As it matures, inherent venom threatens the stability of freedom-loving peoples. It must be harvested as-soon-as-possible, despite the risk that Europeans may yelp. As “General Eisenhower,” Ike advised that solving regional conflicts may necessitate enlarging them. Leveraging the U.N. to muscle Damascus through Beirut, we can help liberate another country devoid of human rights, women’s rights, religious rights. Apologists such as the New York Times Editorial Board still argue that we must declare ourselves to be firm enough to deter Assad from any further abuses. They would keep drawing lines in the sand. Assad would be assured that this pattern of dilatory deterrence would displace prompt pre-emption. They would keep building sand castles in the air. Such self-proclaimed internationalists reside in a parallel universe, idealistic and unrealistic. They do not confront the imminent threats proclaimed by these zealots. Yet, if Islamists conquered America, their secular throats would be the first ones slit. Regardless of the degree to which one’s patriotism is religious, historical or utilitarian, recognition of America’s leadership in promulgating ethical humanism cannot be denied. Thus, we are driven to be the first country to offer humanitarian relief, without “strings.” Therefore, we must allow full expression of our self-worth, as the world’s super-power. We must seek nothing less than a “new Syria.” Now.
Dr. Sklaroff is a hematologist, oncologist, and internist. He may be contacted at rsklaroff@comcast.net. Mr. Guzzardi is a businessman/philanthropist. He may be contacted at BobGuzzardi@comcast.net.
|
|
To contact me--Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.--just send an e-mail (rsklaroff@comcast.net).
|