For the Syrian People’s Council to convene and find no response to what Abdul-Halim Khaddam launched against the Syrian leadership in terms of accusations and the facts he presented, other than accusing them of corruption and demanding the removal of the title “Mr.” that precedes the leader’s name, seems almost like a heavy-handed joke to those closely following the Syrian situation. Not a single Syrian deputy was able to respond politically to political accusations that targeted the leadership and the president himself in their finesse and their ability to manage affairs and read developments. Similarly, not a single deputy could deny or refute what the man claimed regarding the threat to former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri by the president himself. They contented themselves with adding the testimony of the former vice president to the well-known Syrian file regarding the claim of politicizing the international investigation led by the German Detlev Mehlis into the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
Thus, we are facing the collapse of nearly half of the Syrian edifice. There is no longer much to be said about the existence of an effective Syrian policy. The speech of the former vice president has essentially buried effective Syrian politics. Syria will most likely not respond politically because the accusations against its leaders will likely stamp out any political activity. With the dawn of the first day of the new world, Syrian politics must now justify and defend itself. With this testimony, Syria and its defenders have moved from the camp of those demanding others to prove their involvement to the camp demanding that the Syrian leadership today prove its innocence.
On the morning of the first day of January 2006, neither Mohammad Raad, the Hezbollah deputy in the Lebanese parliament, nor Wiam Wahhab, the former minister in Omar Karami’s pro-Syrian government, could say, “Prove to us that Syria is involved.” From this day forward, another course will be taken in making judgments. Today, Syria is accused, and its leadership must prove its innocence of the charges against it. Typically, the accused often lean towards silence because any words they utter may further implicate them.
Secondly, attention should be drawn to the emphasis in these responses on the scope that the conspiracy theory against Syria has taken. It is evident that the Vice President’s statements would not have become publicized if they did not receive support from various regional and international political circles. In this context, it is also crucial to note the absurdity of the official Syrian argument claiming that the Lebanese are conspiring against the Syrian leadership and that a handful of Lebanese want to harm Lebanese-Syrian relations.
Abu Jamal’s talk in Al Arabia was not just a defense of Lebanon and sorrow for what happened to his dear friend Rafik Hariri. These are some reasons, but the channel that broadcasted this televised talk is not of a lower level than high-ranking circles in multiple Arab and foreign countries. This strikes fundamental pillars in the arguments of Syria and its allies in Lebanon, which they have been relying on in recent weeks. There is the Arab initiative, opposed by the faction demanding the revelation of the truth about the assassination of Rafik Hariri, which the Syrians and their allies use to talk about the detachment from Arabism and its principles by the March 14 Movement in Lebanon. This time it’s not as straightforward. The speaker himself is not a sesame seller or even an activist present at the funerals of those assassinated in Beirut, like Hizam Hizam. The speaker this time has a long history of defending Syria’s regional position, and he is a key player in shaping this role, and the same applies to the means through which the Syrian official speaks and the reasons that prompted him to detonate this bomb at this particular time. This time, the MPs did not excel in talking about the conspiracy against Syria or even in belittling the speaker in their usual manner as they address the Lebanese with a disdainful tone that prevents Syrian leaders from seeing what is actually happening.
Judicially, this shock also has significant effects on the course of the investigation. Any professional, unbiased investigation will find itself obliged to seek the testimony of the Syrian President himself, not to mention his former deputy. This time, the words are not transmitted from one person to another; there was a conversation between Khaddam and the Syrian President regarding the threat, and this is a clue from the investigation that should not be underestimated. The Syrian responses from the People’s Council suggest that the building is indeed crumbling, and none of the deputies could counter the argument without condemning the regime as a whole, in its past and in its present, which is just a part of its archive.
Khaddam focused in his interview on this shift in the regional environment that required a renewed Syrian policy to deal with emerging realities. However, according to Mr. Khaddam, the current leadership preferred Syria’s governance from the seventies archive. Returning to the situation in the region and preparing for major battles on the regional level as a whole, allowing the effective use of the security apparatus without serious consequences on both the political and judicial levels.
It is likely that what Mr. Khaddam is alluding to witnessed its first chapters for the vigilant observer since the first shots fired against American forces in Iraq. They were condemned judicially and politically from the very beginning, and no one spoke up to defend their political legitimacy except their owners. But the Syrian administration chose to follow this path, according to Mr. Khaddam, which put Syria in the center of the storm. The Syrian responses resembled to some extent what could be considered an obituary for Syrian policy, which had nothing left but security to maneuver in. The truth is that this is feasible for a while. However, the facts of the Syrian counter-attack in Lebanon do not stand solely on security. If they do not rely on some form of political legitimacy, Syria will not be able to withstand such an attack for long.