Why the Embassies Burned
|
Across the Bay
Feed |
A few important items on the matter. First, a sharp article by Lee Smith in the WS. Lee wonders why "only in Damascus and Beirut have institutions -- embassies or consulates -- representing Denmark and Norway been attacked"? He reminds readers that "Syria is an authoritarian state where nothing happens on the street unless the regime permits it to happen. Actually, that's something of an understatement--the government almost always determines and drives public actions. So, many of the Damascus protestors venting their pious outrage likely either work for Syrian security services or are rent-a-mobs being paid to riot." As for motives, he offers three possibilities:
Indeed, regarding #2, it was Bashar who was first to scream that the Arab League should foot the bill for Hamas if the EU decides not to subsidize them anymore. Of course, the message behind that was -- besides the lame attempt at reviving Syria's status as the "beating heart of Arabism" and "citadel of resistance" -- that Hamas should not succumb to the conditions set forth by the EU (and later, Egypt) and recognize Israel and cease terrorist attacks. In other words, Bashar was solidifying his position in the Iran axis of upheaval and rejectionism. Read the whole article for more. But Lee's essential thesis is also held by people like Olivier Roy, and Italy's deputy prime minister and foreign minister Gianfranco Fini. Fini said the following about Syria: "I'm about to make a serious but grounded accusation: I think that at this stage Syria poses a serious threat. I'll take my responsibility for this statement ... I can't believe that in a country like Syria demonstrations that lead to violent attacks by armed men on embassies and consulates are not tolerated by local authorities." Fini added, "When countries like Syria, Iran and, God forbid, Palestine are led by groups of fundamentalists, we can't but face similar consequences." Roy saw that Syria's act was motivated by "scores [it has] to settle with the Europeans." Roy pointed to France's "very hard-line" positions over Syria's influence in Lebanon and Iran's nuclear activities. Last but not least is Martin Kramer's take, and his proposal as to what the EU should do:
Another crucial point is that the US and the EU should remain united in their positions. After all, as Lee said, this is "practically an act of war." Addendum: Ammar Abdulhamid is on the same page:
Ammar's proposal is one I agree fully with. To deal a blow to this alliance, you focus on its weakest link: Syria. Update: For more from Olivier Roy, see here (French). Here's a translated bit on the Damascus riots: "It is evident that these demonstrations are entirely manipulated by the authorities. It's revenge for the European pressure on the Syrian presence in Lebanon. The EU has firmly intervened on that file, especially the French. The message is clear: they tap the Danes to say stop the European intrusion in the region." Update 2: More still from Roy, in Le Monde: "La carte des émeutes montre que les pays touchés par la violence sont ceux où le régime et certaines forces politiques ont des comptes à régler avec les Européens. La violence a été instrumentalisée par des Etats et des mouvements politiques qui rejettent la présence des Européens dans un certain nombre de crises au Moyen-Orient. ... Ici, il s'agit d'une manoeuvre purement politique pour reprendre la main au Liban en s'alliant avec tous ceux qui se sentent menacés ou ignorés par la politique européenne. ... Au Liban, la France — et donc aussi l'Europe — a pris soudainement une position très dure sur la présence syrienne, qui a exaspéré le régime de Bachar Al-Assad: il se venge aujourd'hui en organisant en sous-main les attaques contre les ambassades (qui peut imaginer qu'une manifestation spontanée et incontrôlée puisse se dérouler à Damas aujourd'hui?)." |
| full article | source | 29 reads | |

