Beirut's latest political murder may dampen hopes of US talks with Syria and shockwaves could short-circuit a US drive for a new Middle East with Lebanon as a "crown jewel," analysts said.
While Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel's killing will be felt most in the streets of Beirut and Middle Eastern capitals, its impact was already affecting US policy in the region on Tuesday.
An early casualty may be the idea of dialogue with US foes Damascus and Tehran expected to be mooted soon by a commission co-chaired by former secretary of state James Baker probing new strategy for Iraq.
"It is going to be much harder," said Joshua Landis, a Syria expert and co-director of Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma.
In the wake of Tuesday's murder, US President George W. Bush showed no sign of moderating his tone to preserve a diplomatic opening, accusing Syria and Iran of fomenting "instability and violence" in Lebanon, though stopping short of apportioning direct blame.
Syria's embassy in Washington hit back, saying attempts to pin Gemayel's death on Damascus were a well-worn "charade."
Some analysts saw the killing as the latest step in a bid by the Iran and Syria-backed Shiite Hezbollah militia to topple the US-endorsed government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora.
Others divined an effort by Syria to prevent Siniora's government from endorsing a UN-sanctioned tribunal agreed on Tuesday into the killing last year of the late Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri.
But with many diplomatic signals pointing to a desire by Damascus to go to the table with Washington, why would Syria initiate new tensions?
"I believe the Syrians ... know they will be implicated [by the UN tribunal] at a very high level ... they have to stop this," said David Schenker, senior fellow in Arab politics at the Washington Near East Institute.
Schenker said Syrian outreach to Iran and Iraq in recent days was consistent with past attempts to deflect diplomatic pressure, at a time when the screws were tightening on Syria at the UN.
Analysts also suggested the killing could be the work of rogue factions in Syria or its intelligence services, or even be score settling in Lebanon's fractured political jungle.
If the intent of Gemayel's killers was to halt the Hariri tribunal, it will fail, said Brookings Institution analyst Bilal Saab.
"Regardless whether the Americans are going to talk to the Syrians or the Iranians, the international tribunal is a top priority and there is no turning back on that," he said.
Gemayel's murder meanwhile threatened to sweep Siniora from power and raised fears here planned street demonstrations by Hezbollah could turn out to be the first shots in a new Lebanese civil war.
Even a peaceful collapse of the Siniora government would deal a severe blow to the US democratization agenda in the region, in which the Bush administration has invested significant political prestige.
Lebanon "certainly was the sort of crown jewel in the administration's Middle East portfolio, but they are going to have to regroup," said Schenker, who served Bush as a Pentagon Middle East advisor.
Bilal Saab said the failure of the Siniora government would be a "setback for the Bush administration."
"The Americans believe that this government is capable of advancing US interests -- the flourishing of democracy in the region -- and they see Lebanon an example of democracy taking its way," Saab said.
Landis was more blunt.
"Lebanon is the last success story. If it falls, it is the end," he said.
Bush supporters hailed the parliamentary elections in Lebanon and retreat of Syrian occupiers as a triumph for democracy, and vindication of the president's call for a wave of reform to create a "new" Middle East.
But US-backed elections have brought the radical Islamic Hamas group to power in the Palestinian territories, emboldened radical Muslim groups in Egypt and done little to quell violence in Iraq.
Once again, Lebanon seems to be a proxy battlefield for international political tensions, as it was during the war between Israel and Hezbollah.
"The US is going to use Lebanon as a battering ram," against Syria and Iran, Landis said. Syria meanwhile, "feels the tide is running out on America's imperial authority in the Middle East."
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS