"SYRIAN GAMBIT" FOR YEREVAN

The situation in Lebanon contin-ues to remain in the spotlight for the world's political elite. The presidential elections there were disrupted after unknown terrorists killed another deputy from the anti-Syrian ruling bloc - Antoine Ghanem, an MP from the Kataib Party (Lebanese Phalanxes). Antoine Ghanem's death is not the first "elimination" of anti-Syrian politicians. Extraordinary security measures - even for Beirut - were in place for the session of the Lebanese parliament scheduled for 25 September. However, attempts to elect the country's president at the session failed: Hezbollah and Iranian-Syrian allies, including members of the Free Patriotic Movement, led by pro-Syrian General Michel Aoun, and deputies from Dashnaktsuyun simply boycotted the voting. Only deputies from the ruling coalition were present. There were 65 MPs - a simple majority. However, a two-thirds majority of the 128-seat parliament - 85 votes - were needed for the presidential polls. Deputies from pro-Syrian parties came to the parliament as well, but refused to vote, preferring to talk idly in the corridor. As a result, Speaker Nabih Berri was forced to postpone the voting for a month - till 23 October.

The presidential elections are a breakthrough in the struggle for power, according to numerous press reports. The anti-Syrian front, which came to power as a result of the "Cedar Revolution", still maintains a majority in parliament, and these forces form the country's government led by Fu'ad As-Sanyurah. However, the post of speaker - traditionally held by a Shi'a Muslim - is already controlled by pro-Syrian forces: Nabih Berri represents the Amal Movement.

At the same time, Armenian politicians have always followed the situation in Lebanon closely. This is because Syria has a large and influential Armenian community, the Cilician Catholicos - an alternative to Echmiadzin, a great number of "common relatives" and so on. There is also economic cooperation. For example, Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisyan recently received a delegation of Lebanese bankers led by the chairman of the board of directors of the Lebanese Credit Bank, Tariq Khalifa.

The prime minister welcomed the bank's intention to work in Armenia, saying that its policy dovetails with that of the Armenian government, for example, on the issue of developing the financial market. He emphasized that the Credit Bank has always been regarded as an international financial centre.

In turn, the chairman of the Credit Bank board of directors, Tariq Khalifa, thanked Sarkisyan for his readiness to cooperate and said that the meetings and discussions that were held with partners from the Central Bank of Armenia and a number of Armenian commercial banks had bolstered Credit Bank's intention to start working in Armenia.

"Our observations show that in Armenia there are genuine prospects and a favourable environment for the development of banking activity, and we will be glad to make our own contribution to the development of the republic's economy," he said.

However, an article in the newspaper Azg deserves special attention. Its writers held a debate with journalist Anush Trvants who presented a report about General Michele Aoun, who was portentously labelled the "Lebanese Napoleon", during the "Haylur" programme on Armenian Public TV.

In her report, Trvants delivered such a eulogy to the main character of the final, most destructive stage of the Lebanese civil war, General Michele Aoun, that we thought "Haylur" was involved in the general's election campaign for the presidency that will soon be held in that country," the newspaper said.

He was presented as a mouthpiece for all the Christians in Lebanon, which, to put it mildly, is not the case. Several large groups of Lebanese Christian Arabs absolutely do not support his candidacy because of the general's pro-Syrian orientation, while Trvants presented him as "the leader of the anti-Syrian forces". The television broadcast a short interview in which the general spoke flatteringly about Lebanese Armenians, especially his ally - the ARF (Dashnaktsutyun). After that, Azg said: "The 'Haylur' correspondent, just like any other correspondent, may not conceal his sympathy with this or that candidate from this or that party. However, Public Television has no right to side with one or another candidate in the election campaign of another country, even if this country is friendly, and to force the opinion of one party onto a whole community."

In fact, Dashnaks played a major role in the consolidation of the pro-Syrian front in Lebanon. It was this party which many think mediated an alliance between pro-Iranian Shi'a groups Amal and Hezbollah on the one hand, and the Syrian Nationalist Party on the other. Moreover, the Dashnaks acted as a "tie-down fitting" for pro-Syrian Christian parties, such as the movement of that same Aoun. Although political alliances can be very unpredictable in Lebanon and rarely last long, local Christians rarely form a bloc with Palestinian forces. Hezbollah is a Palestinian group.

The Azg newspaper which attacked Anush Trvants is published by the Ramkavar Azatakan party. Like Dashnaktsutyun, this party is regarded as a "traditional" one and is quite active within the Armenian diaspora. However, if Dashnaktsutyun is regarded as a left-wing party, Ramkavar is a right-wing party. In a word, they do not share the same ground.

However, several days later Azg had to justify itself and publish a copious commentary on Kocharyan's decree appointing Arshak Poladyan to the post of Armenian ambassador to Syria. "It is no secret that political relations between Armenia and Syria can be regarded as an alliance. It seems that neither country has any irreconcilable problems. Damascus was one of the first to recognize Armenia's independence and opened an embassy in Yerevan. In those cold and dark years, President Hafez Al-Asad ordered that a large amount of wheat and flour be supplied to Armenia, which greatly helped Armenia overcome its difficult situation," the newspaper humbly acknowledged. But Azg failed to mention that the signing of an agreement on military cooperation between Lebanon and Armenia was initiated by Syria and that the lion's share of Yerevan-Damascus "contracts" concerned weapons, not wheat and flour. Instead, the newspaper said: "We should observe that the dynamic development of Armenian-Syrian relations was nevertheless prevented by political events in the region. This is probably the only explanation for the fact that there is no Syrian ambassador to Armenia, which we can say is a serious situation. It must be said that, in response to Syria's failure to appoint its ambassador to Yerevan in 2004, Yerevan lowered the status of its diplomatic office in Damascus. Ambassador Levon Sargsyan was recalled, after that our country was represented by a charge d'affaires until Poladyan's appointment. First it was Yura Babukhanyan and then Artem Aznavuryan. Syria had an ambassador here in 2000-2002 - Hamid Hasan, who had worked in Armenia as a charge d'affaires from 1997. However, beginning from 2002, the other official representatives - Fayez Absi, Hasan Rasslan, Muhlis Farauni and Mamoun Hariri - who replaced him were only charges d'affaires. We should also say that Hasan Rslan, who represented Syria in Armenia in 2003-2005, had ambassador status, but in fact worked only as a charge d'affaires." After that, the newspaper says unconvincingly: "It is clear that, because of this situation, there could not be any imputation for the Armenian side. We should observe that, according to Damascus, the situation arises from a lack of diplomats; however, Armenian experts tend to think that this situation is linked to developments in Syrian-Turkish relations, which became especially noticeable in early 2000. There is an impression that Damascus is trying to improve relations with Ankara by reducing the level of diplomatic relations with Yerevan."

Perhaps, a little explanation is needed here. Relations between Syria and Turkey in the 1980s and 1990s were not brilliant, to put it mildly, as Damascus persistently criticized Turkish-Israeli cooperation. Further, Syria almost provoked a "water war" in the region, telling Turkey that its hydro systems on the Euphrates and Tigris violated practices of fair water use. Turkey accused Syria of supporting anti-Ankara terrorist groups, especially the PKK. Either way, Ankara and Damascus ended up on the verge of a military conflict in 1998.

As the Cuban crisis forced the USSR and USA to meet each other half way, Syria realized that it could be really dangerous to continue the previous policy.

Syria was ruled by Hafez Al-Asad, the father of the incumbent president Bashar Al-Asad, at the time. As an experienced politician, he realized that a conflict with a country that had the second largest army in Europe - after Russia, and was in NATO -might have negative consequences for his country. Damascus preferred to deport Abdullah Ocalan, who was arrested in Nairobi some time later, extradited to Turkey and sentenced to death (his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment later).

After Hafez Al-Asad's death, there was a break in the dialogue between the two countries. Only by January 2004, did Bashar Al-Asad feel confident enough to pay his first visit to Turkey as Syrian president.

Strictly speaking, no "revolutionary" documents were signed during the visit. However, the Turkish-Syrian summit itself meant a lot to observers. Moreover, after Al-Asad's visit to Ankara, Syria actually stopped its "information war" against Turkey. Damascus no longer accuses Ankara of a "military blockade", or makes a fuss about "betrayal" and does not even criticize its excessively close relations with Israel. If we bear in mind that Turkey tried from the very beginning not to exacerbate the situation and demanded that Syria stop "being hospitable" to Abdullah Ocalan (this problem was solved in 1998), there is in essence no obstacle to rapprochement between the two countries.

Relations between Ankara and Damascus withstood another test recently as the Syrian authorities accused Israel of carrying out an air strike on its territory. Officials kept silent while unofficially, there were explanations according to which the air strike was carried out on a Hezbollah arms depot. In turn, the former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said that the Israelis bombed a Syrian nuclear site and that this raid was another warning to Iran. At the same time, there was a report in Turkey that a suspension fuel tank had been found near the Syrian border, which probably belonged to an Israeli war plane. What's more, there were quite heated discussions in the country about arguments in the US Jewish community on the recognition of the "Armenian genocide". For this reason, Damascus decided to enlist Turkey's support. However, after another round of negotiations, the media did not file any report as to whether Ankara supported Damascus or sided with Israel - Turkey managed to maintain relations with both and keep the "showdown" behind closed doors.

This allows us to understand that Armenia really has good reason to worry. Relations with Syria have always been the main trump card in Armenia's foreign policy in the eastern, or to be more precise, Arabic regions, and the loss of such an ally presages serious political trouble for Yerevan. Of course, we can hardly talk about a total breakdown in relations between Armenia and Syria, but the phrase about Damascus's readiness to lower the level of its relations with Armenia in order to improve ties with Turkey has some significance.