Page:FitzGerald Report-Report of the Fact-finding Mission to Lebanon-S2005203.pdf/18

 pattern of coercive management of Lebanese affairs. Others claim that the Syrian leadership did not anticipate such strong reactions from the Lebanese people and the international community. In their view, the decision to eliminate Mr. Hariri was "a strategic miscalculation", not dissimilar to other miscalculations made by the Syrian Government.

55. Syrian supporters counter by claiming that Mr. Hariri was assassinated by "the enemies of Syria"; those who wanted to exert international pressure on the Syrian leadership in order to accelerate the demise of Syrian influence in Lebanon and/or start a chain of reactions that would eventually force a "regime change" inside the Syrian Arab Republic itself. According to the adherents of this theory, the assassination of Mr. Hariri would have been too gross a mistake for the Syrian leadership to make. The Syrian Arab Republic would have been not only the obvious suspect, but also the obvious loser. Those who maintain this theory reminded the Mission that political assassinations are carried out not in revenge, but in order to lead to certain consequences. The consequences of Mr. Hariri’s assassination are, in their view, obviously unfavourable to the Syrian Arab Republic.

56. The assassination quickly widened the gap between the Lebanese political factions and further polarized the political scene to a threatening level. Immediately after the assassination, the political spectrum was divided between "opposition" and "loyalty" camps, crystallizing around the position towards the current Lebanese Government/President and the existing Syrian/Lebanese relationship. Two weeks after the assassination, large numbers of Lebanese took to the streets to express a combination of grief, anger, anxiety and political opposition to the Syrian involvement in Lebanese affairs. The protesters and the opposition leaders accused the Lebanese and Syrian security services of involvement in the assassination and called for the Government to resign and for the Syrian troops and security assets to leave Lebanon. Although Prime Minister Karami had a majority in the Parliament and was confident of winning a confidence vote, he listened to the voice of the street and announced his Government’s resignation while the demonstrators were still gathered not far from the Parliament.

57. The protestors and opposition leaders continued their campaign, calling for the dismissal of all the heads of security agencies, a Syrian withdrawal of its army and security assets, the formation of a "neutral" government that would focus on preparing the upcoming legislative elections, and the establishment of an independent international investigation. The loyalty quickly responded by taking to the streets on 8 March when at least half a million people demonstrated in support of the Government and of the Syrian Arab Republic. Immediately afterwards, the Syrian President declared his Government’s intention of withdrawing its forces to the Beqa’a valley in implementation of the Taif Agreement of 1989, and as well as of undertaking further withdrawals up to the Syrian border. However, this announcement did not bring the debate over the Syrian presence to an end. Opposition leaders continued to show scepticism regarding Syrian intentions and required a timetable for the full pull-out, with some calling for its completion before the legislative elections.

58. On 14 March, according to available estimates, more than 1 million people gathered in the main square of Beirut and chanted for the "independence" of Lebanon, the creation of an independent international investigation commission, the removal of the heads of security agencies, and the formation of a neutral