How Annan Edited Mehlis

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

American, French, and British diplomats will encounter resistance as they start the drive tomorrow to ensure that the Hafez al-Assad clan bears the consequences of its responsibility for the assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri. And yes, U.N. Security Council defenders of Damascus will be subtly supported by Secretary-General Annan.


How do I know this? Because prior to releasing a doctored version of Detlev Mehlis’s report on Thursday, Mr. Annan said he wanted to avoid “politicization” of the probe into the assassination of Hariri. In the region, the statement was taken to imply that Mr. Annan wanted to avoid any turmoil that might unseat the al-Assad clan. Some feared damning facts in the Mehlis report would be sacrificed to assure political stability.


Indeed, shortly after Mr. Mehlis released his analysis that determined Syria and its allies in Lebanon were responsible for the February 14 murder of Hariri, Damascus dismissed the report as “political.” The Baathists bolstered their argument by pointing out that Mr. Mehlis named no senior Syrian officials as responsible for the car bombing in Beirut that killed Hariri and 20 others.


The version sent to Security Council members, however, did quote an unnamed witness who testified that after last year’s adoption of Security Council resolution 1559, which was a thorn in Syria’s side, “Senior Lebanese and Syrian officials” had decided to assassinate Hariri. Who were those officials?


The version sent to the council members did not answer that question. It was, however, sent in a Microsoft Word format that allowed a reader to see changes. An earlier version specified five names, including Maher al-Assad and Assef Shawkat – the president’s brother and his brother-in-law. Further tracking of the changes showed that the deletion of those names and replacing them with the more general “officials” was done by Mr. Mehlis, or as Microsoft Word describes it: “Special. Rep, 10/20/2005 11:55 AM: Deleted.”


Also deleted was an assessment that the deeds of a key witness and suspect, Zuhir Ibn Mohamed Said Saddik, “added to his reliability.” So was the testimony that among the people who received transcripts of Syrian wiretaps of Hariri’s phone were the former Syrian enforcer in Lebanon, Ghazi Kanaan, and his successor, Rustum Ghazali. Kanaan died recently of what Syria ruled as suicide.


Mr. Mehlis told reporters on Friday that all changes – there were dozens more – were done by him only, and not by Mr. Annan. True, but he could not gloss over the timing: The most significant deletions, including naming top Syrian suspects in what the report called a “terrorist act,” were done either as Mr. Mehlis sat in Mr. Annan’s 38th-floor Turtle Bay office, or minutes later.


At just about that time, coincidentally, the daily noon briefing by Mr. Annan’s spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, took place 35 floors below. “Once again,” I asked the spokesman, “The report, as was written by Mehlis, will be the same report that the secretary general gives the Security Council?” Yes, Mr. Dujarric replied, “That’s my understanding.” There will be no editing, he affirmed.


So why, despite the public denials, was Mr. Mehlis apparently urged by Mr. Annan to edit his report?


In part, it is the convictions that were apparent in Mr. Annan’s appeasement maneuvers leading up to the Iraq war. Faced with the possibility of an American-led forceful action that might upset the apple cart of Middle Eastern politics, Mr. Annan opted to rush to the aid of established rulers, no matter how odious.


I am told that Secretary of State Rice, who had asked for a private breakfast meeting with Mr. Annan at his residence last week, tried to enroll the secretary-general in America’s campaign of diplomatic pressure on Damascus. He declined.


Another explanation has to do with internal U.N. politics, and specifically the so-called “North-South” division. Mr. Annan is taunted by an ongoing American nagging at U.N. shortcomings. Even after he assumed a corner was turned on oil for food, for example, the investigations rage on in Congress and in the American court system. Mr. Annan assumes his natural allies are the poorer nations of the “South,” which will rush to the side of the Baathists. That last assumption, by the way, might turn out to be wrong after all, as most Arab capitals are about ready to write off Damascus.


If the “South” puts up a credible Security Council fight to save Mr. al-Assad’s hide, it will be led by a northern capital, Moscow, which has Syrian interests. It will also be cheered from the sidelines by the secretary-general. Just as he did by helping Mr. Mehlis to do some creative editing, Mr. Annan will continue to oppose any muscular stance to oust the outlaw Syrian regime.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use