Syria`s Soviet plan for Lebanon

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Is Syria living in the past, trying to emulate the tactics of a now defunct power that was once called the 'Evil Empire' by President Reagan?

With high-ranking officials defecting to the West, others 'committing suicide,' or 'suicided,' as many people believe, and the regime suspected of eliminating those who dare speak out against it, the pattern, so far, follows much the same tactics of the old KGB -- the former Soviet secret police.

At least one Syrian feels strongly enough about what is going on in his country to risk his life by putting his thoughts to paper.

Michel Kilo is a Syrian intellectual who recently published an article in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi. Kilo, who lives in Damascus, attacked the Syrian regime, comparing it to the Soviet Union, and hinted Damascus was responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures -- politicians and journalists.

Speaking at a Cairo news conference, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara announced a new principle of modern Arab diplomacy. Let`s call it 'the Shara principle,' writes the newspaper, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Shara`s main function in the aftermath of the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon writes Kilo, is to limit Lebanese sovereignty. The Syrians want to keep Lebanon`s sovereignty linked to the Syrian regime. Syria, for its part, sees a free and independent Lebanon as a base for plots against it.

' Shara`s principle is closely copied on one put in place years ago by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, which outlined the relationship between various socialist satellite states and the limited sovereignty (each had) vis-Ã -vis the Soviet Union.'

Under the Brezhnev principle, the member countries of the Warsaw Pact were prevented from acting independently. Priority had to be given, not to their national security, but instead to the interests and security of their master -- the Soviet bloc.

Brezhnev saw to it 'the Soviets had the right to take over internal affairs of the socialist states.' Any military intervention was legitimized, as was the case in Budapest and Prague.

Shara`s principle is practically a mirror of Brezhnev`s. According to the newspaper article, the Syrian regime, much like the Soviet one before it, thinks Lebanon should formulate its policy according to Syrian interests. Moreover, 'the Syrian regime requires (Lebanon) to coordinate all matters, great or small, with Syria, since the minute Beirut becomes independent (of Damascus), the situation in Lebanon becomes an international affair. And in such a case, (Syria believes that it) has the right to intervene (in Lebanese matters) in order... to prevent Lebanon from becoming a center for conspiracies against it.'

'What is the meaning of Shara principle, and where might its implementation lead the two countries?' the newspaper asks. 'As a rule, Syria treats Lebanon as a marginal (party) while the Syrian regime (is perceived) as central. (This means) the center will take the decisions and the periphery will obey, or else (pay the price).'

Secondly, the paper notes, 'As the Syrian regime has taken control of Lebanon,' it seems determined to adopt the Soviet model, taking military and political control of Lebanon.'

The newspaper accuses Syria of having tried to 'usurp the Palestine Liberation Organization`s authority in taking decisions regarding Palestine.'

'In addition, it has forced Jordan to respect (Syrian) hegemony and control over the Arab East, and has compelled Saudi Arabia to accept a division of labor in which Saudi Arabia`s role is to provide the funds and Syria`s role is to call the shots, intimidate the neighboring countries, and keep them quiet.'

'Another implication (of the Shara principle) is that nobody may reprimand Syria for performing (what is sees as) its national duty toward Lebanon. ... Syria has an obligation to liberate Lebanon from subordination to foreigners, which is very dangerous (for Syria, since) it is aimed against (Syria), and against its role as the last bastion standing fast against America and Israel.'

The article stipulates Syria leaves Lebanon with only two options: 'To accept the return of Syrian Forces, or to risk constant escalation of the situation. This will be achieved either by the return of Syrian forces to Lebanon, or by bringing Lebanon to the point where it agrees to (Syrian) limitations on its sovereignty, and accepts (Syria`s) right to determine (Lebanon`s) policy and interests, and even to control (Lebanon).'

The article ends of a gloomy note saying one should 'not expect any breakthrough or improvement of relations between Lebanon and Syria.'

When trying to copy history, it may be worth noting that the heavy-handed tactics employed by the Soviets didn`t work out too well for them in the long run. Why then do some Syrian officials -- those trying to stem the unavoidable march toward democratic reforms -- believe Soviet-era methods will hold up any better today?