Bashar Assad Entombed?

Michael Young | September 8, 2005

According to the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar, American officials have told the paper's correspondent in Washington that Syrian President Bashar Assad is not going to the UN General Assembly in New York this month "after the emergence of serious evidence showing that responsibility for [former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik] Hariri's assassination reached the peak of the Syrian [power] pyramid."

The unidentified officials apparently got this information after a series of briefings provided by the official investigating the assassination, Detlev Mehlis, while on his trip to UN headquarters. The top of the Syrian pyramid is, of course, Bashar, but also his brother Maher and his brother-in-law Assef Shawqat, the head of Military Intelligence. It has long been assumed in Beirut that only such a triumvirate could have decided to kill so major a person as Hariri. We'll have to see if Mehlis agrees.

An English-language summary of the piece is here, and the Arabic version is here.

Comments

gaius marius|9.8.05 @ 9:16AM|#

prerequisite to hosting an institution like the united nations is a willingness to accept the representatives of other jurisdictions. refusing assad access to the un, if only to face rebuke, delegitimates the institution as an instrument of international governance. this is as ridiculous as would be refusing to allow the senator from louisiana into washington for her recent criticisms of our punching-bag-in-chief.

perhaps the united states has finally become too intolerant a place to be an appropriate home for a cooperative union.

gaius marius|9.8.05 @ 9:19AM|#

unidentified officials

and i wonder, mr young, why you would choose to believe american officials who, despite spouting the party line, seek the refuge of anonymity. when one controverts the propaganda of one's superiors, the benefits of anonymity are obvious. but why when agreeing?

largely, i think we can agree, because the credibility of the information is so suspect that no one is willing to attach a name to it. this so-called "intelligence" has the stench of the office of special plans upon it.

|9.8.05 @ 9:27AM|#

refusing assad access to the un, if only to face rebuke, delegitimates the institution as an instrument of international governance.

RTFA. Heck, read Mr. Young's entry again. Assad cancelled his trip to the U.N. on his own; the U.S. did nothing like what you've imagined.

and i wonder, mr young, why you would choose to believe american officials who, despite spouting the party line, seek the refuge of anonymity. when one controverts the propaganda of one's superiors, the benefits of anonymity are obvious. but why when agreeing?

I didn't know that American officials routinely distributed exclusive propoganda to Lebanese news reporters. Might it be possible that it was a Lebanese patriot working in the administration that gave this information?

|9.8.05 @ 9:37AM|#

no way jf, it was all amerikkkan imperialist lackeys doing Bu$h's dirty work. If you aren't outraged you aren't paying attention

gaius marius|9.8.05 @ 9:48AM|#

the U.S. did nothing like what you've imagined

this notion betrays a very naive conception of how such visits are actually organized, mr jf.

gaius marius|9.8.05 @ 9:55AM|#

I didn't know that American officials routinely distributed exclusive propoganda to Lebanese news reporters.

they do so to american reporters all day every day, when their propaganda is intended for americans. but i doubt they could find an american reporter who could do the desired job of undermining bashar assad so well as journalists in lebanon.

besides, they know as well as we that everyone in america long ago forgot who bashar is. indeed, anyone not named "katrina" at the moment is politically irrelevant.

|9.8.05 @ 10:50AM|#

jf:

RTFA. Heck, read Mr. Young's entry again. Assad cancelled his trip to the U.N. on his own; the U.S. did nothing like what you've imagined.

Actually, young did not say that Bashar cancelled his visit:

"American officials have told the paper's correspondent in Washington that Syrian President Bashar Assad is not going to the UN General Assembly in New York"

It does not say as you claim that he cancelled the visit. Why he is not going? we don't know.

R C Dean|9.8.05 @ 10:53AM|#

delegitimates the [UN] as an instrument of international governance.

Comedy gold, gaius. I don't know how you keep a straight face.

We can begin talking about the UN as a "legitimate instrument of governance" when (a) the Consitution of the UN that I had the chance to vote for is enacted, and (b) my elected representative to the UN takes his seat.

Until the UN operates with the consent of the governed, it ain't a legitimate instrument of governance and shouldn't be referred to that way.

|9.8.05 @ 11:01AM|#

a:

Sorry for the confusing sentence structure. I meant that Mr. Young's summary did not at all say that Mr. Assad was being refused entrance into the UN, and had gaius (and you) read the article, it clearly stated that Assad cancelled the trip.

An Nahar's Washington correspondent Hisham Milhem quoted official American sources as saying Assad canceled his U.N. trip "because the United States opposed his visit after the emergence of serious evidence pinning the responsibility for Hariri's assassination up to the peak of the Syrian pyramid."

|9.8.05 @ 11:03AM|#

gaius marius:

Perhaps I have betrayed my naivete regarding such matters. Perhaps, while you're enlightening me on this matter, you could also tell me which is the best brand of aluminum foil for plugging up my electric outlets? I think the government mind rays are messing with my thinking.

|9.8.05 @ 11:31AM|#

jf:
had gaius (and you) read the article, it clearly stated that Assad cancelled the trip.


No, actually it does not. The original Arabic article says it in the same way Young said it. The English summary reads differently, which tells you how much you trust An Nahar.

|9.8.05 @ 11:44AM|#

a:

ي جريمة اغتيال الرئيس رفيق الحريري، قد اثارت غضب
المسؤولين الاميركيين، الأمر الذي يفسر حملتهم الديبلوماسية والاعلامية لاقناع الرئيس بشار الاسد بالغاء زيارته لنيويورك. واشارت المصادر الى ان المسؤولين الاميركيين ابلغوا موقفهم هذا الى مسؤولين مصريين وسعوديين لكي يوصلوها بدورهم الى الرئيس السوري، بالاضافة الى الا

Clearly, you are mistaken.

|9.8.05 @ 11:56AM|#

Um, that was a joke, btw. I have no idea what it says, and should probably learn to read written Arabic. a, you demonstrate nicely the advantage of being able to read news articles in the language they are written. Translations too often add/remove key elements.

gaius marius|9.8.05 @ 12:04PM|#

it ain't a legitimate instrument of governance and shouldn't be referred to that way.

considering your advanced condition of revolutionary plebiscitarianism militant, mr dean, i'm unsurprised that you see it so. anything that offends the nation-god must be annihilated, hey? :)

|9.8.05 @ 12:19PM|#

a:

considering your advanced condition of revolutionary plebiscitarianism militant, mr dean, i'm unsurprised that you see it so. anything that offends the nation-god must be annihilated, hey? :)

While you're translating things, can you give me an English version of this? I don't think it's Arabic, though.

|9.8.05 @ 12:46PM|#

considering your advanced condition of revolutionary plebiscitarianism militant,

In three words you have precluded yourself from being taken seriously by anyone reading, AND demonstrated your penchant for onanistic grandiloquence. Well done!

Phil|9.8.05 @ 1:47PM|#

And in one fell swoop, RC Dean illustrates that he doesn't understand how Congress's power to sign and ratify treaties operates, or what happens afterwards. Nor does he understand what "international governance" means. (Hint: It doesn't mean that the UN governs all the signatory/member countries.)

I guess because RC didn't get to vote on who our ambassador to the UK is, we don't really have diplomatic relations with the UK.

|9.9.05 @ 3:15AM|#

Until the UN operates with the consent of the governed, it ain't a legitimate instrument of governance and shouldn't be referred to that way

Amen to that.

While you're translating things, can you give me an English version of this

"Individual self-determination is bad."