Syria's Assad slams ex-deputy Khaddam-paper (proof that Khaddam lied)

Fri Jan 6, 2006 7:57 PM GMT

CAIRO (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad denied an accusation by his former vice president that he threatened Rafik al-Hariri before the former Lebanese prime minister was killed, an Egyptian newspaper reported on Friday. (...)

In the interview, Assad accused now Paris-based Khaddam of scheming against Syria before resigning in June and also hinted that, as president of Syria, he would be immune from questioning by a team investigating Hariri's February assassination.

Asked about Khaddam's accusation that he threatened Hariri, Assad said: "This incident did not happen. The aim of spreading these allegations is to link the threat to the assassination. The game is clear."

"I wish to say here that no one joined us in the last meeting between me and Hariri, so where did these allegations come from?" he said in an advance copy of the interview, sent to Reuters before publication in El Osboa's Monday edition.

More:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-06T195737Z_01_SCH671784_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SYRIA-EGYPT-ASSAD.xml&archived=False

This is indeed the proof that Khaddam is lying. In an interview with Newsweek magazine, Khaddam claims that Assad told him about the meeting with Hariri. This is how he describes it:

What was said to me directly—maybe two months prior to the extension of the term of Lahoud—I had a meeting with President Bashar Assad at 9 o’clock in the morning. When I visited him he was nervous. He immediately told me, “I had Hariri visiting. I brought him in the morning along with Ghazi Kanaan, Rustom Ghazaleh, and Mohammed Khalouf,”* who are the main security people responsible in Lebanon. And then he started telling me what he told Mr. Hariri: “You are working against Syria. You are working to bring a new president … You should know that I am the decision maker. Whoever works against my will, I will crush him.”
So, when President Assad finished telling me what happened, I said, “What did you do? How dare you talk to the prime minister of Lebanon in that way? How can you use that kind of language, especially in front of junior Syrian generals? He’s the prime minister of Lebanon, not a public worker in Syria.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10728635/site/newsweek/page/2/

As Assad noted above, the meeting took place in private and not "in front of junior Syrian generals". Hariri certainly would have mentioned such a humiliation. This is how Hariri himself described the meeting, according to the first Mehlis report:

27. (...)

Rafik Hariri, taped conversation with Walid Al-Moallem on 1 February 2005:

“In connection with the extension episode, he (President Assad) sent for me and met me
for 10 to 15 minutes.”
(...)
“He sent for me and told me: “ You always say that you are with Syria. Now the time has
come for you to prove whether you meant what you said or otherwise.” (...) He did not
ask my opinion. He said: “I have decided.” He did not address me as Prime Minister or
as Rafik or anything of that kind. He just said: “I have decided.” I was totally flustered,
at a loss. That was the worst day of my life.”
(...)
“He did not tell me that he wished to extend Lahoud’s mandate. All he said was “I have
decided to do this, don’t answer me, think and come back to me.””
(...)
“I was not treated as a friend or an acquaintance. No. I was asked: “Are you with us or
against us?” That was it. When I finished my meeting with him, I swear to you, my body
guard looked at me and asked why I was pale-faced.”
http://www.mideastweb.org/mehlis_report.htm

There is no mention at all of the "junior Syrian generals", nor is there in the testimony of the other witnesses. It looks as if Khaddam is lying about his conversation with Assad.

Al-Assad denies threatening al-Hariri
Saturday 07 January 2006, 0:55 Makka Time, 21:55 GMT
(...)

Immunity

Al-Assad also hinted that as president of Syria, he would be immune from questioning by a team investigating al-Hariri's February assassination.

Al-Assad said Syria had previously voiced its readiness to cooperate with the probe if the request had a "legal basis".

"This is not the first request. There was a previous request, when the committee proposed to come to Syria at the end of last summer to listen to Syrian witnesses, as they call them. At that time, they requested to meet with President Bashar, and the president of the republic has international immunity," he said in the interview with El Osboa's editor Mostafa Bakry.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FF0D2BE3-E983-48D7-B56E-B14D9BEF86F2.htm

Andrea Bianchi, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, agrees:

«Il n'y a en effet pas de précédent, c'est un événement totalement nouveau», analyse Andrea Bianchi, professeur de droit international à l'Institut des hautes études internationales de Genève. Mais innovation ne signifie pas forcément révolution: «La portée juridique de cet événement restera malgré tout très limitée. Certes, la commission a émis le souhait d'entendre Bachar el-Assad. Mais elle a besoin du consentement de ce dernier, qui n'a aucune obligation juridique de répondre à l'invitation. Et on peut d'ailleurs bien imaginer qu'il n'y répondra pas! La Syrie rejette les conclusions de la commission, l'accuse depuis longtemps d'être manipulée politiquement. En témoignant, le président perdrait la face.»
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:UBIb7zLPMDMJ:www.24heures.ch/vqhome/le_journal/monde/syrie_040106.edition%3Dls.html+L%E2%80%99ONU+invente+l%E2%80%99audition+d%E2%80%99un+pr%C3%A9sident+en+fonction&hl=en

Babelfish translation:
"There is indeed no precedent, it is a completely new event", analyzes Andrea Bianchi, professor of international law to the Institute of the high international studies of Geneva. But innovation does not mean revolution inevitably: "the legal significance of this event will remain despite everything very limited. Admittedly, the commission emitted the wish to hear Bachar el-Assad. But it needs the assent of this last, which does not have any legal obligation to answer the invitation. And one can imagine well besides that it will not answer it! Syria rejects the conclusions of the commission, for a long time shows it to be handled politically. While testifying, the president would lose the face."

A controversial Belgian court case against the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, appeared to be over before it had begun last night after the international court of justice ruled that past and present government leaders cannot be tried for war crimes by a foreign state. (...)

But in a landmark judgment, the court in the Haguesaid yesterday that former and current government ministers and leaders are protected from prosecution by a foreign state because of their diplomatic immunity and can only be held to account in their own country.

"The judgment is clear," said Jan Devadder, a legal adviser to the Belgian government. "The court has clearly ruled government leaders and heads of state enjoy total immunity from prosecution. The Sharon case, in my opinion, is closed."

The Israeli government said the judgment vindicated its opposition to the Sharon case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,650603,00.html

I'm against head of state immunity, but I also think that as long as it is not abolished it should apply to all, not just to our allies. Everything else would be a travesty of justice.

Now what?

Jack Straw, for example, "said a Syrian official's claims that President Assad had threatened Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri before his murder were "very serious indeed.""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4579442.stm

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "I think his remarks warrant further investigation by Mr. (Detlev) Mehlis. (...) I think that Mr. Khaddam's remarks raise some deeply troubling issues as to what exactly was going on during the period in time in question".
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/01/03/ap2426230.html

They will ask Assad to appear before the UN commission, Assad will refuse and they will be able to declare that Syria is in "material breach" of Security Council resolutions.

And now we know that Khaddam is most probably lying. They know as well. I guess they even told him what to say:

Khaddam has long been collaborating with "European and U.S. officials", "actively holding meetings about Syria’s future".
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9085/syrias_leaders.html

It's all part of a plot, "regime change on the cheap".

what I don't get is why the UN is along for the neocons' ride?

So it is of little strategic interest for China or Russia. It will be interesting to see, however, how they will react in the case of Iran (which still has huge oil reserves).

The leader of Syria's opposition Muslim Brotherhood has indicated that his group might back a change of regime involving Abdel-Halim Khaddam, the rec­ently defected former vice-president now presenting himself as an alternative.

Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, the exiled head of the Brotherhood, the most powerful opposition to President Bashar al-Assad, told the Financial Times that his movement was willing to work for political transition in Syria with former regime officials who are ready to commit themselves to democratic change.

---

"I think Khaddam will encourage others. We hope that whether they are Alawite or Sunni, others should leave. The future of this regime is disastrous," he said.

The Muslim Brotherhood has long been repressed in Syria, where the government accuses it of involvement in violence. But its leaders say they are committed to non-violent opposition and free elections. The Brotherhood joined other secular opposition groups last year in issuing the Damascus Declaration, calling for a democratic alternative to the Assad regime.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/11fb115a-7f22-11da-a6a2-0000779e2340.html