Many praiseworthy comments have been spoken about the late Rafik Hariri. A few of the accolades cannot be disputed. Hariri, a multibillionaire, was obviously a skilled businessman. He greatly benefited people throughout the Arab world through his philanthropic work.
Hariri was also a genuine Lebanese patriot who ultimately died because of his political activities. He was a statesman who helped broker the Taif Accord that ended the long, bloody Lebanese civil war. And though a Sunni Muslim, he was not a factional leader. Rather, he was a rarity in Lebanese politics because he enjoyed broad support, and thus was a symbol of a united Lebanon. Hariri epitomized postwar Lebanon.
Rafik Hariri honed his image and built his legacy as a businessman, philanthropist, and pragmatic politician over time. But in the days since his untimely death, Hariri has become a symbol of resistance.
In Washington, he is remembered solely for the last days of his life. Hariri’s name now serves as a foil for the US government and the Lebanese opposition movement; the name is used to assail Syria and pressure Damascus to at long last withdraw from Lebanon.
History is replete with examples of how events have shaped subsequent political developments, even if the events themselves were not necessarily connected to the ensuing political debates. It is the law of unintended consequences. The most vivid example is the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian nationalists. This touched off World War I, and not only led to the deaths of millions, but also to drastic change in the world’s political and social order. More recently, India, Pakistan, Israel, and others successfully used the Sept. 11 terrorist attack to bolster their ties with the United States.
It remains to be seen what is on the horizon for Lebanon and Syria in wake of Hariri’s death. But at minimum, it seems likely to hasten Syria’s departure from Lebanon. The anti-Syria campaign of the Lebanese opposition and the United States government has been reinvigorated since Hariri’s death. Regardless of who killed the former prime minister, the move certainly did not bolster Syria’s standing.
The Lebanese opposition seemed to be gelling under the leadership of Hariri prior to the assassination, but it was uncertain that the Lebanese parliamentary elections would result in a Syrian defeat. Syria has long played the role of puppet master in Lebanon, building convenient and often temporary alliances to protect its interests.
American pressure on Damascus was increasing long before Feb. 14; it has increased exponentially since. And while the United States often was a lonely voice in ostracizing Damascus, the tragic day in Beirut has generated international support for the hard-line US position. Hariri’s death has united the US and France, formerly estranged allies.
The US Congress responded to the attack by passing a resolution honoring Hariri. While lionizing the former Lebanese leader, the House of Representatives also used the debate to rebuke Syria and, indirectly, implicate its government in his murder.
“We are here to do justice to Mr. Hariri’s dreams of a free, independent, and sovereign Lebanon...For 25 years Lebanon and its people have been denied this freedom,” stated Representative Chris Cox. “It is clear to me, and all the evidence is being gathered, but I suspect that this assassination has some ties to Damascus, to the regime in Damascus. There have been all kinds of allegations, and one thing I know for sure is that the Syrians have allowed Lebanon to destabilize, and this is part and parcel of the result,” added Rep. Elliot Engel, author of the 2003 Syrian Accountability Act. “Syria has claimed to be the responsible party in Lebanon for security. Yet even after warnings of the possibility of an attack on these and other leaders who have voiced their opposition to the continued presence of Syria in Lebanon, this heinous attack was allowed to occur,” suggested Lebanese-American Rep. Darrell Issa.
Representative Tom Lantos, a long-time critic of Damascus, was blunt in his assessment of Hariri and his demise. “Among Mr. Hariri’s most impressive attributes was his capacity for growth. Over time, he evolved from a Lebanese leader who was close to the Syrians, into one who was wary of them, and finally, in his last days, into one who outright opposed them. Of course it is a near certainty that it was that evolution, particularly the final stage, that led to his demise.”
No one in the American government has affirmatively stated that Syria ordered Hariri’s death. While it seems illogical that the Bashar government would engage in such an act when it is simultaneously trying to improve its image with Washington and reinitiate dialog with Israel, many officials believe Syrian participation in the attack, which silenced its potentially most threatening critic, is likely. After all, they note, Lebanon is economically exploited by Syria, and also serves as a bargaining chip vis-à-vis Israel.
While officially it remains to be seen who is responsible, Syria is being held accountable. And it may well cost Syria its tenuous hold on Lebanon, at least if the United States has any say in the matter.
