Preparing to Negotiate.

It is hard going, persuading partisans on both sides of a dispute of the merits of dialogue and realistic bargaining; many Western politicians and commentators persist in talking about the assassins of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's late premier, and now they are in full cry about the killing of Pierre Gemayel, a member of the Lebanese Cabinet. To them it is obvious that Syria's President arranged both deaths, and that he has no serious intention to negotiate at all with the U.S., the U.K. and their allies. Admittedly suspicions and misgivings on both sides have intensified in recent years, and have been buttressed by the speculation over the true identities of the murderers. Certainly some members of Hezbollah are thought to have been implicated, as well as a number of Lebanese Shi'ites, and some of the more extreme supporters of the Syurian Government, but to assert that does not specifically identify President Bashar Assad, his ministers and advisers.The promptness and sincerity of the Syrian Government's statement, condemning the murder of Pierre Gemayel, indicates that. After all, why would the Syrian leadership , who have just resumed diplomatic relations with Iraq and announced their readiness for discussions with Western governments, decide to contradict those moves, so intensifying hostility? It makes no sense at all, especially as the Syrians have stated their intention of cooperating with Iraq in monitoring andcontrolling movements across their common border.

It is much more likely that some hotheads and extremists in both Lebanon and Syria wish to frustrate the current policy of the Syrian Government to achieve some kind of rapprochement with the Western powers. It is a familiar enough pattern, the attempt to derail a particular development, and in this instance the thinking behind the killing of Pierre Gemayel was misconceived. On the other side, the split in the Lebanese Government, followed by the resignation of of six Hezbollah supporters, has been matched by a militantly pro-Western attitude on the part of those who remain in office. Pressing relentlessly for the completion of the enquiries into Rafik Hariri's death may be understandable in terms of emotion, but it is a diversion from the present issues, which urgently require attention. What is desperately needed is an effort to repair the breach between those who resigned and their former colleagues, still holding office, and to form once more a united coalition.Lebanon is, at best, a fragile state, prone to crack along well known fracture lines, so especial care has to be taken in creating and maintaining a clear and lasting consensus between the mutually tense and suspicious groupings. What, then, should this new consensus contain?

First of all, it has to follow up the usual declaration, that Lebanon is a united, sovereign state by stressing the common concern of all its various communities in ensuring order, peace and the conditions to bring about economic prosperity. In that regard, the aftermath of the Five Weeks' War with Israel last summer has been encouraging. The Lebanese people united then to resist Israeli actions and succeeded. Thus the Lebanese Army and the partisans of Hezbollah are united [A] to protect Lebanon from any further attacks, and [B] to foster reconstruction and the achievement of economic growth in the context of peace and harmony. In that respect, the presence of the enlarged U.N. observer force is welcome.

The difficulties seem to have arisen, because it is reported that the supporters of Hezbollah sought an express veto or blocking mechanism within the Cabinet and Government, to ensure that pro-Western elements did not seize control and alter the direction of policy. Those fears are probably exaggerated, but the Hezbollah supporters' wish for reassurance in the form of a policy statement, as outlined in the previous paragraph, and endorsed by all, is clear. The pro-Western grouping may have been pressing for such measures as the disbanding of Hezbollah' s volunteers and the closing of the border between Lebanon and Syria to all traffic deemed to comprise volunteers and military equipment. Certainly the terms outlined in the cease-fire arrangements at the end of the Five Weeks' War envisaged such measures, but they were, at best, aspirations, not realistic, practical and enforceable measures. Far more cogent than such unattainable stipulations are such matters as the renewal of diplomatic relations between Syria and Iraq, the conversations between them over controlling their common border, efforts by Lebanon and Syria to effect similar controls over their common frontier and the furtherance of the proposed talks between Syria, the U.S.A., the U.K. and their allies.Once the more volatile elements in Lebanonn, particularly in Hezbollah, realize that peace along the border between Israel and Lebanon is the best guarantee of their country's peace, security and prosperity, then current tensions and threats should diminish.The existence of a strong, vigilant, well armed and united force , comprising the Lebanese Army and the Hezbollah volunteers along the Lebanese/ Israeli frontier, watched by the U.N. force, is far and away the best guarantee of continuing peace.Israel, of course, should not be provoked, but simply deterred.

Faction fights and quarrels about the exact identity of the killers of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel, however understandable, divert from the main issues and betray division and weakness. Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Premier, and his supportersshould be left in no doubt that the governments and peoples of both Lebanon and Syria are at one in their determination to resist any further threats and attacks. Once that is understood, it should become possible to lower tensions, and even, to start on the long and slow process of building muual confidence and trust.

Michael B. Buck..

WHY NOT A LIFE SENTENCE FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN?

The announcement, that Saddam Hussein had been found guilty and sentenced to be hanged was predictable. Already many people were uneasy about the prospect of inflicting the death penalty, for the alternative of imprisonment for life shows some
useful precedents. Two notable instances were those of George Papadopoulos, the Greek dictator, who ruled from 1967 to 1973, and his successor, General Ionides, who lasted about a year.Both died in prison, having been there ever since the collapse of the military regime in 1974. Their crimes were not as brutal as those committed by Saddam Hussein and his supporters, but no Greek democrats favoured their release, although one right-wing government did briefly consider the possibility.

Whether or not the Iraqi authorities would consider commuting the sentence on the former dictator to life imprisonment is problematic, although such a course would have some merits:-
[A] the late dictator would be denied martyrdom; and
[B] he would spend a number of years in strict custody, during which he would have time to reflect on his misdeeds.
Some will object that Iraq is unstable, and there is a risk that another coup might restore him to power. However, that never happened in Greece, a volatile state with an indifferent security record. It should be feasible to incarcerate Saddam Hussein safely in a high security prison near Basra in the Shi'ite South, where the chances of escape would be minimized.

Present day Iraq is deeply divided, and currently much well-informed comment favours for the future a loosely knit federation, with three strongly autonomous governments, one in the Kurdish area, one in the centre and West for the Sunnites and the third for the Shi'ite communities in the South. Inevitably demarking the boundaries between the trio would be a tense and irksome process, but it would not be impossible.

That leaves one question to be resolved, planning the withdrawal of American, British and other allied forces at the earliest practicable date. The conventional answer to that, "when the job is done," is not good enough, for it is too vague. Some commentators have refined that to mean as soon as the Iraqi Army and police appear able to cope with law and order, but gauging that will be a difficult judgment in the present context. Many people hope that that stage will be reached within the next year, but even that is problematic. Recent events, such as the Democrats' victories in the mid-term elections in the United States , the deliberations of James Baker's committee, reviewing progress in Iraq and recent public remarks about conferring with Iran and Syria, suggest that some marked changes of policy could materialize. They certainly indicate a more pragmatic view of Middle Eastern affairs, and that could only be a welcome change from the preconceptions of the so-called Neocons.

Michael B. Buck.