The Terrorist Ambiguity

Number two in the State Department, most senior of American diplomats, with the rehabilitation of the international pariah Qaddafi under his belt, [Undersecretary of State] William Burns is also an old acquaintance of the Lebanese. He used to come regularly, in recent years, to boost his encouragement of the Cedar revolution, betting completely on the Syrian defeat.

Burns returned at the beginning of the week, pouring out testimonies of support for the Lebanese state, solemnly promising that America would never actively strive for definitive settlement of Palestinian refugees on our soil. That is already that, of course. But what about the passive contribution, that which would consist of watching as the prevailing anarchy and time took care of it (62 years already since the first exodus!), letting it happen all by itself, in the systematic sinking of peace plans, a distressing but ineluctable historical fate?

Carefully attentive, it was in Beirut that the undersecretary of state began his journey; however, the principal stage was very obviously in Damascus, where Washington has just nominated a new ambassador after a five-year vacancy following the assassination of Rafik Hariri. The undersecretary of state reviewed all points of disagreement with President Bashar Assad, but also reviewed points of agreement and reconciliation between the two countries. He acknowledged that Syria, with both its positive and negative implications, plays a central role in the Middle East crisis. As a seasoned diplomat, he said he was satisfied with the result of the discussions, without failing to point out, however, that there was still a long way to go.

It is elsewhere though — far from the spotlight — that the essential action is taking place, which no longer brings into play presidents and diplomats, but intelligence agents and local experts working on the mother of all problems: the question of security and its monstrous extension, terrorism. U.S.-Syrian cooperation is hardly a new thing; it’s just erratic. In the aftermath of 9/11, Damascus provided Washington with valuable information on al-Qaida loyalists, located throughout the country and identified by their own [intelligence] services. But the expedition against Saddam Hussein had hardly begun when the Syrians themselves were accused of sheltering Islamic militants or Baathists from Iraq, who freely crossed the border to commit anti-American attacks in that country.

The matter was only complicated by Syria’s notorious support of Hezbollah and Hamas, two groups that Washington considers to be terrorist organizations. So much so that it seems we have returned, until further notice, to the paradoxical situation where there is cheerful cooperation here, and none at all there. This, at a time when threats of war are exchanged, when the Israeli [national intelligence agency] Mossad is seen by Dubai authorities — for the murder of the Palestinian Mabhouh by commando enforcers carrying European passports — as having committed a flagrant terrorism offense and when the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, is vowing to harshly avenge the murder of his lieutenant, Imad Mughniyah.

Hopefully, the inventory of attacks will not end there. Equally disturbing in effect, for Lebanon, is that Washington is hiding, with such solicitude, small groups of lesser notoriety located throughout Lebanon, which manipulate Syria with the sole purpose of maintaining instability there. That also is terrorism.