Rarely in the annals of modern Arab history has an official of such high rank as Abdel-Halim Khaddam made such damning remarks about his head of state. The former Syrian vice president is no longer in power and is living abroad, which might allow him the leeway to express his opinion and speak his mind. But after serving for 30 years under former President Hafez Assad, transferring allegiance to his son Bashar when he took office in 2000 after his father’s death, Khaddam was one of the longest-serving veterans in Damascus’ Baathist regime, and therefore was considered as true blue and loyal as they come. Which makes his sudden and extraordinary claim -- that President Bashar threatened former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri only months before Hariri’s death -- all the more shocking and mysterious.
Khaddam’s allegations are certainly extremely damaging to the Syrian leadership, coming as they do amid a UN inquiry into Hariri’s death, which has deemed the February assassination an act of terrorism and pointed to complicity by senior Syrian officials. Overall, the UN report concluded that it was highly unlikely that the complex plot to kill Hariri could have been conducted without the knowledge of Syrian security forces. Khaddam takes the scenario one step further when he alleges that the Syrian security services could not have carried out such an assassination without the approval of Bashar.
Khaddam’s testimony appears to be backed up by UN investigator Detlev Mehlis who said several sources had said they had been told by Hariri that Bashar had threatened “to break Lebanon over [his] head,” if he did not support the extension of pro-Syrian Lebanese President Emil Lahoud’s term. During the UN probe, witnesses told investigators that Hariri was indeed threatened by Bashar at a crunch meeting in August 2004. Hariri himself, in a taped account cited by the UN report, described the meeting as the “worst day of his life.” From the beginning, Syrian officials have denied responsibility for the assassination, many pointing out that their country does not stand to benefit from the murder of Hariri who was a staunch opponent of the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Some Lebanese even don’t discount the possibility that a third party could be taking advantage of the situation to settle scores, knowing that suspicions will be directed at Damascus.
However, even if Khaddam’s comments are accurate, that he was one of the architects of Syria’s 30-year involvement in Lebanon makes his catharsis somewhat questionable. And while explaining his decision to resign in June — he criticized the regime for failing to modernize and sought to portray himself as a reformist — he forgot that he himself, while in power, remained fiercely opposed to any loosening of the Baath Party’s grip on power.
It is possible that Khaddam may be positioning himself as an alternative to the Syrian president. Whatever his motives, Khaddam’s intervention is of immense significance and is bound to cause even more problems for the Syrian leadership.
