|
*
Who's Responsible for the International "Retreat" in Support
for Lebanon's Path of Independence?
Al-Hayat, UK,
December 15, 2007
By Raghida Dergham
NEW YORK - US
President George W Bush is politically and morally
responsible toward a small country called Lebanon because he
took the initiative to make statement after statement in
which he pledged support for this country's path toward
independence and democracy and its standing up to extremism
and plans to turn it into a base for Syria or Iran. Bush
then let this country down with his frightening silence,
which told those who had relied on his commitments that he
was now unable to do anything.
The same goes
for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who pledged his love
and loyalty to the US and received Bush's permission to
manage the Lebanon "issue." He now has a duty to explain
what he and his team did when they decided to return Syrian
influence to Lebanon, in a French piece of acrobatics that
was astonishing in its ignorance and arrogance.
Of course, the
US administration and the French government aren't directly
responsible for every new political assassination of a
government official, journalist or prominent officer in the
Lebanese Army. However, they aren't exempt from some
responsibility for leaving the impression that it has now
become possible to escape punishment for the political
assassinations and that all possibilities are open to
deal-making. It's true that Lebanon will be the direct price
for the US political decision to abandon it, for reasons
that appear to involve Iran and its role in Iraq, and Syria
in its relationship with Israel. However, Lebanon will not
pay the price alone. America will also pay an expensive
price in allowing the Iranian regime to dominate Iraq and
Lebanon and giving in to the forces of terror, intimidation,
political assassinations and sabotage.
Europe will
also be an open arena for the repercussions of following a
policy of knuckling under, for which France was tasked by
the European Union to carry out. During the era of Sarkozy,
France has eagerly embarked upon policies dictated by
financial interests in the billions, such as those between
France and Qatar, which has a close relationship with the
Syrian regime. The victor and vanquished in the battle over
Lebanon are not the Lebanese alone, but also those who
trusted the US, France and the international community, as
represented by the Security Council and Secretariat-General
of the United Nations. They represent a popular and elite in
the Middle East and part of the Islamic world. They have
asked the Security Council to defend its resolutions as much
as the forces loyal to the Lebanese government defend the
centrality of these resolutions and the need to see them
implemented. Meanwhile, the opposition and its allies in
Damascus and Tehran have worked to methodically whittle down
the international resolutions. They are asking UN Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon to stop his photo-op diplomacy of
planned and surprise visits, and truly contemplate the
meaning of losing the battle of international resolutions in
Lebanon and its impact on the region and the UN.
It's clear that
China doesn't assign Lebanon much importance and leaves it,
in the Security Council, to Russia, the ally of Damascus and
Tehran. Meanwhile, Britain is leaving behind its leading
role on the Lebanon issue and turning it over to France. The
French and British ambassadors to the UN are new, and follow
experienced people who had direct and active roles in the
Lebanon and Iran issues. The US ambassador, Zalmay
Khalilzad, is also new, to a certain extent, and isn't
concerned with Lebanon and Iran, in contrast to his
predecessor John Bolton. Khalilzad wants to see the UN
return to its role in Iraq, to help the US there. Lebanon
isn't helped at all by the fact that the only Arab
representative on the Security Council during the last two
years has been Qatar (whose membership ends at the end of
this year), which "produced" the formation known as the
"Gang of Five," in a reference to the group that is always
trying to abort UN resolutions that Syria and Iran dislike,
and these are South Africa, Indonesia, Qatar, Russia and
China.
Less than two
months ago, the US president informed Lebanese groups that
had wagered on his support for the country's path toward
democracy and independence that he would issue a credible
warning to Syria to keep its hands off Lebanon. Bush then
turned around and sent clear messages that the US was unable
to do anything of this sort. His administration said that
the climate doesn't permit sending a "credible warning" to
Damascus, which would clearly show that the US was committed
to its promises to Lebanon and would not let the Syrian
regime regain its influence and dominance over the country
or escape punishment. There are two basic points of view
among the various contradictory opinions about what happened
and what is happening in US policy toward Iran and Syria,
through Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. One opinion holds that
the main issue for the US is Iraq and not Lebanon, and that
Iran and Syria are cooperating now regarding Iraq, each in
its own way, after they had used Iraq to send the US more
than one message, through methods that included facilitating
the flight of volunteers to Iraq and direct strikes against
US forces in that country.
This group says
that the Americans aren't the party that took the initiative
to repair the relationship and ask for assistance. The
Iranians did so after the US was able to achieve important
security accomplishments in Iraq. In other words, this is
after it appeared to Iran that Bush would not leave Iraq in
a rush. Iran offered its assistance and proved that it had
intelligence information from inside Iraq, helping the US.
The US president, who longs for success in Iraq, found that
the strategic interest of the US and himself lay in
accepting the Iranian invitation, and this is how a radical
change in the relationship with and toward Iran took place.
For its part,
Iran wanted to be recognized as a key, indispensable player
in the US strategic balance in the Gulf and Middle East,
beginning with Iraq. The immediate priorities are clear:
keep the regime in power, not lose Iraq, in which it enjoys
dominance and influence thanks to the US invasion.
US decision
makers have arrived at the conviction that they have no
objection to giving Iran shares in a partnership in Iraq if
Iran is ready to behave positively - facilitating rather
than hindering the reordering of US bilateral relations with
the Iraqi government. This new relationship crowns the
efforts to get US troops out of Iraq's cities so that they
won't become hostages to security developments as troops are
re-deployed, instead of initiating a US withdrawal from
Iraq. According to people holding this view, namely that
arriving at an US-Iranian agreement involves Iraq, the
conflict has been settled between supporters and opponents
of Iraq's partition, whether this has taken place "crudely"
or "softly." This group says that the final decision in the
Bush administration is to remain with a united Iraq. If the
Democrats gain office, the situation might changes,
especially with people like Senator Joe Biden, Lesley Gelb
and Richard Holbrooke who call for dividing the country in
order to save it, in their view.
Finally, people
holding this opinion believe that the nuclear issue in the
US-Iranian relationship has been settled, in its turn, by
the National Intelligence Estimate, which said that Tehran
stopped its secret program in 2003. This group adds that the
regime in Iran has not sought to obtain a nuclear bombs as
much it has sought to "create a debate" about Iran's "right"
to possess nuclear capabilities. This "debate" about this
"right" is what has helped garner popular support behind the
Iranian regime, since it has played on national feeling and
pride based on the "right" to a Shiite nuclear bomb, in the
face of Pakistan's "Sunni" version of that weapon, and
Israel's Jewish version, and India's Buddhist version.
Therefore, this
group believes that Iranian pragmatism and wisdom are what
has produced the simple calculation: the US's
accomplishments in Iraq, the Iraqi Shiites' resistance to
Iranian dictates and the cooperation of Iraqi tribes with
the US put Iran before the opportunity of fixing its
situation with the US and with Iraq, or waste the chance and
pay the price. Iran has taken the decision to cooperate and
work in a silent partnership with the US.
This
partnership, in this point of view, is not being translated
negatively in Lebanon, but perhaps the contrary could be
true. This group - and they are directly involved in
Lebanon's relationship with US and Iranian strategies toward
each other and toward Iraq - says that Tehran wants to rid
itself of the burden of Hizbullah in Lebanon in a
face-saving way and with US guarantees that neither it nor
its proxy in Lebanon will be embarrassed. Hizbullah is a
project that costs Tehran hundreds of millions of dollars a
year, in addition to the political cost. Iran might put its
ties to the party in a different scale if it will hinder its
strategic relationship with the US. This relationship will
be built on recognizing the regime and stopping attempts to
destabilize, threaten and isolate it; it will recognize its
regional weight. This is a big return and will require
re-evaluating whether there is an alternative to sticking
with Hizbullah and sacrificing the opportunity to shore up
the Iranian regime.
The question
for Bush today is the following: will US-Iranian cooperation
in Iraq lead to the model of pluralism that the
administration promised when it invaded and occupied Iraq?
Or will the partnership with the rulers in Tehran, who
impose their model that rejects pluralism, frustrate and lay
bare all of the claims that the US favors democracy and
pluralism?
These are not
random or marginal questions; they coincide with the
beginnings of Bush's abandonment of his commitments to
support pluralism in Lebanon, and of the betrayal of the
democratic process and independence and the confrontation of
Syrian hegemony, which has used political assassinations of
Lebanese figures as a model and a policy.
This leads to
the second point of view about the meaning of events in
Lebanon, the last one being another terrorist assassination,
which killed General Francois Hajj, the commander of
operations in the Lebanese Army. Hajj was a leading
candidate to succeed Army Commander General Michel Suleiman
(after he is elected president of the Republic) and one of
the most competent military men, who led the battle against
Fatah-Islam terrorists and others.
Those who hold
the second opinion believe that this assassination coincided
with the general feeling in Lebanon that the US and the
international community, represented by the Security Council
and secretary general of the United Nations, have abandoned
Lebanon, and that this atmosphere has strengthened the
confidence of those perpetrating these crimes that they will
be able to escape punishment.
Everything that
the Security Council and the secretary general have done in
the last few months involves issuing statements asking Iran
and Syria to stop using Lebanon as a negotiating card by the
methodic obstruction of constitutional institutions, from
Parliament to the Lebanese Army.
Russia is also
behind the stalling and the demolishing of previous stances
by the Security Council; it's the party primarily
responsible for the international community's retreat from
supporting international resolutions that its issued and
from supporting the Lebanese government and the army.
However, this
retreat in American and French positions has radically
helped in the strengthening of Russia's call to methodically
obstruct the resolutions and Lebanon itself.
Ban Ki-moon has
also helped in this destruction (of international
resolutions); he repeatedly hesitated to ask Syria to
implement what the resolutions ask it do, such as
cooperating in the investigation to demarcating the borders
with Lebanon, recognizing its independence by establishing
diplomatic relations, halting its intervention in Lebanese
affairs, and carrying out the Security Council's orders by
not allowing arms, men and terrorists flow into Lebanon via
the Syrian border.
The silence of
Ki-moon and the Security Council about the transgressions is
tantamount to a blessing for Syria and its destructive role
in Lebanon, which is also a blessing of Iran and its
financing and arming of Hizbullah.
The Security
Council and the secretary general were silent even after
Serge Brammertz, who heads the international investigation
into the political assassinations (tasked by Security
Council resolutions), said that the operational ability was
present in Lebanon for additional political assassinations -
the silence has been embarrassing. General Hajj was then
assassinated, in a disgrace to the international community,
which behaves apologetically whenever it should be making
firm demands and credible threats against those who are
committing these horrible crimes, so that they tremble in
fear.
Instead of
this, the government of Nicolas Sarkozy is proud that it,
unlike the previous government of Jacques Chirac, will not
seek to isolate Syria; it is shameless enough to be proud of
its determination to help the Syrian government, which has
worked against all international resolutions. What's worse
is that Sarkozy tasked a person with a long history of
seriousness with the Foreign Ministry; Bernard Kouchner has
taken on the responsibility of letting Syria enter Lebanon
once again, through the "window" of Sarkozy, after Chirac's
France kicked Syria out of Lebanon through the door, shoring
up international support behind it for the move.
Sarkozy and his
team have forgotten that the Lebanese gateway is what
returned Franco-American relations to a situation of
partnership and friendship in the wake of the cool ties
following the Iraq war. Sarkozy today is begging the US to
accept him as a partner, to take the place of the British
"poodle," Tony Blair. He is doing this in a clear case of
treachery against Lebanon, which helped the Franco-American
reconciliation take place; he's doing this now by opening
the window to let Syria in once again, so that it can
control Lebanon.
The recent
remarks by Syrian Vice President Farouq Sharaa signaled the
triumph of the model of violence and ignoring international
resolutions and calls for democracy and respect for the
independence of Lebanon. France's policy, supported by the
US, is what allowed Sharaa to make such a speech, and not
just Syria's alliance with Iran.
The coming
"victory" speeches by the leaderships in Tehran and Damascus
do not involve delusions. The victory is one over the
international community and resolutions issued its name,
calling on these two countries to respect them or else… the
US and French retreat from the "or else" now represents a
betrayal of Lebanon. However, the price of misleading,
retreating and disappointing will not be paid by the
Lebanese alone. The price to be paid will soon be upon the
Americans, French and the Europeans who paid the price of
making deals with regimes that use political assassinations
and car bombs and that use the borders to facilitate the
movement of terror, finance and arm militias in Lebanon, and
do the same thing in Iraq, to strike at US forces.
The Lebanese
have held on for three years and have captured the hearts
and minds and aspirations of millions of people in the Arab
and Islamic worlds. They have become a model for democratic
elections, international resolutions, and political acumen
in the face of assassinations and imported terror. The ones
who haven't held on are the Bush administration, the
government of Sarkozy, the Security Council and the
secretary general of the UN; they are the losers because
they caved in to the blackmail, fear-mongering and bribery
and they are going to pay a steep price. |
