Lebanon Rises Against Syrian Domination; Egypt Opens Up To Other Presidential Bids.

*** The White House Calls Beirut's Uprising 'Cedar Revolution'; The Assad Regime Is Afraid That A Quick Withdrawal Will Mean It Is Too Weak To Survive A Revolt Inside Syria; Will This Be A Repeat To What Happened To Yugoslavia? - If So Can Lebanon Avert Partition?

*** With Israel Accusing Syria Of Being Behind The Feb. 25 Tel Aviv Suicide Bombing, A Wanted Fatah Man In Beirut Points To Hizbollah, While Islamic Jihad Denounced The Attack Which Killed Five Israelis - One Theory Is That The Aim Was To Keep A Syrian Presence On Lebanese Soil Till The Whole ME Conflict Is Resolved - See FAP Of This Week

BEIRUT - The Arabs have had their own Berlin Wall falling with free elections in Palestine, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, an "Uprising for Independence" in Lebanon and admission by President Mubarak of Egypt that he can no longer stand as a sole candidate to another term later this year. The dream of US President George W. Bush to democratise the Greater Middle East (GME) looks likely to become a reality; but there are some serious implications for the stability of this vital source of world energy.

Syrian domination of Lebanon, no longer acceptable to the West, is coming to an end. But in its wake are two disturbing scenarios other than the obvious one of the Lebanese being finally united to resume their pre-1970s life as a vibrant democracy - with the Syrians out: (1) another cycle of civil wars, which none of the Lebanese is prepared to have; and (2) the partitioning of the Middle East into small sectarian and ethnic entities, beginning from Iraq or from Lebanon.

Neither of these two scenarios is desirable to the majority of local sectarian and ethnic groups other than one dangerous segment of Israeli society: the extreme right-wing in the Likud coalition of parties backed by an extreme faction among the neo-conservatives (neo-cons) of Washington.

Following the same line are extremists among sectarian and ethnic groups in the GME, notably including those among the Kurds, the Christians, the Alawites, etc.

The Baathist regime in Syria, meanwhile, is in deep trouble. President Bashar Al-Assad  has recently handed over to Iraq a Saddam half-brother and other senior Sunni insurgent leaders - proving that Syria has a major role in the anti-US insurgency (see fap3bSyriaJordPalesMar7-05).

The pro-Syrian Lebanese government of Omar Karami resigned on Feb. 28 after a show of people power in the streets of Beirut, two weeks after the Feb. 14 assassination of the billionaire former Premier Rafiq Hariri, a Sunni. "I am keen that the government will not be a hurdle in front of those who want the good for this country. I declare the resignation of the government that I had the honour to head. May God preserve Lebanon", the Sunni leader Karami said before a stunned Shiite parliament speaker, Nabih Berri. The blow went mostly to Lebanon's Maronite Christian President Emile Lahoud and his Syrian backer Bashar Al-Assad, who belongs to Syria's Alawite minority.

The resignation was a huge victory for a united Sunni-Christian-Druze opposition and the most dramatic moment yet in an ongoing series of protests and political manoeuvres that have shaken Lebanon and its government since the assassination of Hariri. Jubilant demonstrators immediately shouted for Lahoud to step down next.

Karami's cabinet continues as a caretaker government. The next step is for Lahoud to appoint another Sunni leader for the premiership after consulting with parliament members. The new prime minister consults parliamentary blocs to form a cabinet that must withstand a vote of confidence from a pro-Syrian parliament. Karami's cabinet had a majority and was expected to win a no-confidence vote meant to close a parliamentary debate on Hariri's assassination which shocked Lebanon to the core and brought back memories of its 1975-90 civil war.

"Today the government fell. Tomorrow, it's the one huddled in Anjar", Christian opposition leader Elias Atallah told the overwhelming crowd to cheers, referring to the Syrian intelligence chief based in the eastern Lebanese town of Anjar. He said the opposition will continue its actions until all demands were met. The protesters went further, shouting: "Lahoud, your turn is coming!" Druze opposition leader Walid Jumblatt told LBC television after Karami's resignation: "The people have won". The protests against the government and its Syrian backers, shown on TV worldwide, were unprecedented in scale and scope.

Saudi Arabia on March 3 told Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, adding a powerful voice to Arab and international demands for an end to Syria's grip on its smaller neighbour. This came at a crisis meeting in Riyadh between Assad and de facto Saudi ruler Crown Prince Abdullah. On March 4 Assad said Syrian troops will soon begin a partial pullout and was to make an announcement on this to parliament on March 5.

The Lebanese opposition on March 2 demanded the resignation of the heads of Lebanon's intelligence and security services, who were accused of subordinating Lebanon's interests to those of Syria and some of whom were suspected of having played a role in Hariri's assassination. It called President Lahoud illegitimate and urged withdrawal from Lebanon of all Syrian troops and intelligence networks, before discussion of a new Lebanese government.

This could be the most crucial month in the confrontation between the opposition and Syria and its local allies. A former chief of the Lebanese Army, Lahoud has been a staunch ally of Syria long before taking office in 1998. Last September parliament, with a nod from Syria, voted to change the constitution to allow Lahoud a three-year extension to a six-year mandate which was to expire in November. That precipitated mounting opposition to Syria's control over Lebanon and reached a climax with the assassination of Hariri.

Many in Syria hope the democratic awakening in Lebanon could seep over into their own country. Michel Kilo, a prominent Syrian opposition man, recently joined 60 other Syrian intellectuals to send a letter of solidarity to the Lebanese expressing their support for democracy and for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. Kilo, who signed a similar letter to President Assad, says support for withdrawal is not only among intellectuals and activists, adding: "The Syrian people were scared that the US and the Europeans would turn against their country because of the situation in Lebanon. They are happier that Lebanon will be a freer country and that it will be able to make its own decisions".

While the prospects for Syria's allies in Lebanon look bleak, analysts in Damascus say the Baathist regime is still "optimistic" it can forge a new relationship with a future Beirut government. Ibrahim Hamidi, a Syrian correspondent for the London-based Al-Hayat, says: "If the Syrians play the game cleverly, they can have good relations with any government in Beirut". After Karami's resignation Jumblatt said: "The Syrian-Lebanese security agencies should be dismantled next...and Syrian forces must be withdrawn from Lebanon. All this should be done without hostility to Syria. Hostility to Syria will not be tolerated". Analysts in Damascus say senior members of the ruling Baath Party have accepted the necessity of withdrawing from Lebanon and regularising relations between the two countries. But only up to a point.

The Syrian Baathists view retaining influence in Lebanon as second only to the survival of their regime. With the tentacles of Syrian influence removed from Lebanon, Damascus will sit back and watch from afar as the Lebanese adjust to the new realities. The Lebanese may be in the flush of freedom; but once the battleground for the future of Lebanon begins to take shape and old confessional divisions line up, Syria will be exposed to grave danger.

The winds of change throughout the Middle East began to blow after more than eight million Iraqis on Jan. 30 went to the polls despite many suicide bombings by Salafi terrorists and Sunni warnings against the elections.

The Egyptian Turnaround: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak surprised his National Democratic Party (NDP) as much as his opponents on Feb. 26 when he ordered a constitutional amendment to allow direct multi-party presidential elections. The change, once approved by parliament and put to a referendum in May, would set the scene for the first competitive presidential elections in Egypt since the overthrow of the monarchy in 1952. It represents a dramatic turnaround for the 76-year-old president.

Only in January he said opposition demands for direct presidential elections were "futile" and would invite the kind of chaos that led to the toppling of King Farouq. Details of how candidates from officially sanctioned political parties would qualify to run remain unclear.

Yet this was a welcome move after long autocratic rule in Egypt. It follows a sharp US protest against the Mubarak regime's jailing of an opposition leader in January. It was welcomed by opposition politicians and diplomats as a step in the right direction which will help energise Egyptian politics after stagnation. US State Department spokesman Steven Pike said: "This appears to be a step in the direction of a more open political system and we welcome it".

There have been fresh reports of widespread torture in Egyptian jails. Ayman Nour, a leading opposition MP, and other activists were detained in January and growing strains emerged between Washington and Mubarak over the latter's painfully slow response to calls for democratic reform. At the same time, there have been promises from the ruling NDP of changes on the way, and the regime has tolerated increasingly vocal criticism.

The amendment was a response to a changing environment in Egypt and the region. At the same time, by seizing the initiative Mubarak has tried to reclaim ownership of the debate and show that he still controlled political life in Egypt. Hisham Qassem, editor of the independent Al-Masry Al-Youm newspaper, described the amendment as the boldest move Mubarak has taken since he assumed power in 1981. But there is consensus that it is unlikely to stand in the way of his serving another six-year term.

Mubarak's rule has been characterised by obsessive caution and attention to stability. Political activity has been stifled by emergency laws used to crush militant Islamists in the 1980s and 1990s but which remain in place. The NDP controls about 85% of a parliament whose function is limited by the sweeping powers of the presidency.

Mohammed Kamal, a leading member of a younger generation in the NDP, said presidential elections offered all the parties an opportunity to present ideas of what further political reforms were needed. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is widely considered the most organised and well-supported opposition, although it is outlawed and banned as a party. After years living with political and security restrictions, none of the other political parties is in a position to present a popular alternative to Mubarak. Kamal is a political science professor at Cairo University and serves on NDP's advisory committee.

Speaking live on TV at the University of Menoufiya in the delta - Menoufiya is his hometown - Mubarak on Feb. 26 said: "The president will be elected through direct, secret balloting, opening the opportunity for political parties to run in the presidential elections and providing guarantees that allow more than one candidate for the people to choose from with their own will". But he mentioned amending only the 1971 Constitution's Article 76, on how the president is chosen, not No. 77 which provides for unlimited terms.

Columnist Ibrahim Eissa said: "This is a way to improve his image with the Americans and to please them with some formal changes". Issam El-Eryan, a leader in the MB, said: "While at the same time he is keeping everything else unchanged, like the emergency laws, imprisoning the opposition, the state controlling the media and political parties existing just on paper. This is deception". El-Eryan said the revision might limit the choice of candidates by barring those not endorsed by a legal political party.

For instance, Ayman Nour was imprisoned on Jan. 29 on allegations of forging 2,000 signatures to gain a licence last year for his party, Al Ghad (Tomorrow). The charismatic, young and liberal MP denies the accusation. Critics of the government on March 2-3 noted that Nour's continued detention seemed to undermine the president's commitment to greater democracy.

Some analysts and opposition politicians praised the proposal as heralding a new era for Egypt, the Arab world's most populous nation. But sceptics said they would examine the details to make sure the eventual constitutional amendment would not create merely the appearance of democracy, a common facade in the region. Proponents said the measure was the first, central step in reviewing Egypt's entire constitution and answered both vocal domestic demands for increased democracy and stepped-up pressure from the US. But analysts sounded notes of doubt, pointing out that parliament, dominated by the NDP, planned to take about two weeks to work out the details of the amendment. (Other countries in the Middle East and North Africa, like Tunisia, allow a few hand-picked opposition members to run, but the president gets virtually all the publicity and racks up an overwhelming majority in each election. Parliament in Cairo has a long history of diluting reforms, and may yet announce rules on candidacy which would create the aura of democracy while blocking any real change).

The election measure comes in response to marked internal changes in Egypt over the past few years, with growing anger over the political system. Even during small street demonstrations allowed to express solidarity with the Palestinians, for example, demonstrators quickly change to shout slogans against the long rule of Mubarak, who is 76. Over the past few months a tiny opposition movement has held a number of street demonstrations against Mubarak, shouting "Enough!" - an unprecedented step in Egypt.

At his annual meeting with intellectuals in January, virtually all of them spoke out about the need to amend the constitution, which includes quaint socialistic rules, like reserving half the seats in parliament for farmers and workers. Mubarak, who took office after President Anwar Sadat's assassination, has never faced an opponent during four referenda that allowed Egyptians to vote either yes or no on his continued rule. His announced tally has always been more than 90%. In his Feb. 26 speech, he said his proposal came from "my full conviction of the need to consolidate efforts for more freedom and democracy". The proposed change is expected to be put to a public referendum within nine weeks.

The old system had become an embarrassment. During speaking engagements around the country, Mubarak's son Gamal, 41, head of NDP's political committee, faced pointed questions from students, like whether he planned to run for president and, if he did, whether he would win elections with the same margins his father received.

There had been some speculation that Mubarak might try to pave the way for a nationwide vote to see Gamal elected to succeed him; but the manner in which he proposed the changes on Feb. 26 seemed to contradict that. Rather than announcing that the changes emerged from the Gamal's political committee, which is ostensibly pushing for reform, the president chose the unusual step of announcing it in a dramatic speech from his hometown. That lent it the aura of a personal initiative rather than winning his son national points as a proponent for change.

The US Reaction: The Bush administration has reacted cautiously to Mubarak's proposal. Steven Pike, a State Department spokesman, later on Feb. 26 said: "This appears to be a step in the direction of a more open political system, and we welcome it". At the same time, however, US officials said they wanted more information from Cairo.

The New York Times on March 3 quoted a senior Bush administration official as saying: "We have to see the details of the referendum. We are hopeful, but until we know exactly what the government is embracing, it is too early to declare that it is a major change".

Among the details as yet unclear is how freely opposition candidates would be able to campaign, whether the state-controlled media would be allowed to cover all the candidates equally, whether the government would allow rallies in support of opposition candidates and whether international election monitors would be allowed.