Lebanon mess: France, Syria, and (lest we forget) Iran
PARIS — Lebanon’s imbroglio deepens. Militarily the Israeli offensive to seek and destroy the Hizbollah terrorists has not delivered the quick knockout punch as expected. The Hizbollah militias who started the conflict have proven resilient and have acquired a perverse prestige in the Arab world. Syria gains stature as a regional power. Islamic Iran profits from the conflict as it provides a diversion from Teheran’s nuclear proliferation. And tragically the Lebanese people are caught in the middle.
Indeed diplomatic solutions to settle the Lebanon’s deepening conflict appeared more complicated as initial Franco/American cooperation in the United Nations Security Council soon stalled, then restarted, only to reach a flawed solution. Pressures from the Beirut government as well as much of the Arab world calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Israeli offensive swayed the French, Lebanon’s former colonial power.
The original UN draft resolution spoke of an end to hostilities but without a specific timeframe. Now reflecting Middle Eastern opinion, French President Jacques Chirac put the U.S. on notice that a resolution calling for anything less than an “immediate ceasefire” was “immoral.”
Keeping Franco/American entente in the Security Council rather than allowing these divisions to beach cooperation on the sandbar of political semantics remains vital.
Israel sees the situation in Lebanon as “a nightmare,” cites former Lebanese Premier Amine Gemayel in an interview with the French daily Le Figaro who adds, “Israel looks at the issue only from a plan of strict geographic security and many countries take the same approach. It forgets the national dimension of the Lebanese problem, it forgets the Lebanese Republic with its democratic institutions and democratic values. France is a country who understands well the considerations in this crisis.”
According to Le Figaro, “France plays a key role in finding a diplomatic solution to the war in Lebanon, but is not able, despite its tandem with the U.S., to impose a ceasefire.” And let’s not forget that the politically lame duck Chirac government needs to create some diplomatic momentum to reverse slipping domestic political fortunes.
While Washington has pressed for an international peacekeeping force to separate the antagonists and disarm the Hizbollah militias, many voices across the Lebanese political landscape oppose the concept. The new military force of 15,000 peacekeepers will augment the now effectively defunct 2,000 member UNIFIL observer unit under whose noses the Hizbollah operated with near impunity. This expanded force (not NATO as originally planned and not with a tough mandate) will help monitor an Israeli military withdrawal from south Lebanon as well as keep the truce.
But here’s the dilemma. Deploying any United Nations force needs the consent of the host country’s sovereign government and the parties to the conflict. Moreover finding troop contributors for a military mission with less than tough rules of engagement means sending combat troops with a risky mandate. Not many countries wish to sign up to an enforcement operation where the UN blue helmets are not viewed as neutral but are seen as sitting ducks. Lebanon’s army must play a strong role in controlling its own country.
Syria long a supporter of Hizbollah is said to hold the trump card to “settle” the conflict. A few years ago, Franco/American diplomatic cooperation led to resolution #1559 which forced Syrian occupation forces out of Lebanon. That resolution moreover demanded the disarming of militias such as Hizbollah, which never happened. The new resolution calls for strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon.
The Bush Administration is not willing to deal with the Assad dictatorship in Syria, nor should it. Neither are the French who are equally loath to settle with Syria since the shadow of the Damascus regime hangs over the assassination of former Lebanese Premier Rafiq Hariri, a personal friend of Jacques Chirac.
Maverick left-wing French politico Jack Lang, a luminary of the Socialist Party popped up in Damascus to float ideas on a political settlement. Lang said "We support French diplomacy, except on one point: We believe we must speak with Syria." He added that "the Syrian president spoke at length of his disappointment at French intransigence."
Lang who calls himself a “militant for peace” and who extended his hand to the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, had earlier in the month launched a vulgar TV tirade against George W. Bush, “He’s a fanatic and an imbecile,” He added of the American president “This guy, after four years, drives this region (Middle East) and the world to chaos.”
Lebanon faces an open ended and probably widening conflict unless the diplomats get this situation under control. The Franco/American effort got a resolution through the Security Council, but will the combatants cease operations? It’s not likely in the short run. Lest this first step towards peace be lost and the momentum to a yet wider conflict becomes unstoppable, all sides must now weigh the consequences.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense
issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com. |
