بسم الله الرحمن
الرحيم
Question:
Is it
correct that the conflict in Lebanon has entered a new phase, as has been
announced? If it is so, then what are the new rules of the game in Lebanon in
the new phase?
Answer:
It is sound to say that the Lebanon conflict has entered a new phase, and to understand this clearly, we present the problem from its beginning in order to put it in perspective:
1. The United States enjoyed influence and hold over Lebanon
since the Tai’f Accord until the assassination of Rafiq al Hariri, and Syria
protected the US influence in Lebanon when it sent its armed forces there under
US orders.
2.
After the assassination of Hariri,
French president Chirac saw a golden opportunity wherein he hoped to restore
its influence in Lebanon. Chirac therefore exploited the events and mobilised
French loyalists in Lebanon and succeeded in swaying the public opinion away
from the US, Syria and their loyalists to turn it in favour of France until the
Americans agreed to expel the Syrian army from Lebanon. Syria meekly followed
the US order to move out of there.
The
conflict continued to be the burning issue between the US, Syria and their
followers on one hand, and the French along with loyalists on the other.
Meanwhile Britain along with its loyalists in Lebanon, keeping with its
tradition of ‘no open hostility to the US’, supported the French from behind
the scenes without confronting the Americans openly.
3. This continued until Sarkozy
succeeded Chirac as the French president. He is known to be a friend of the US
administration and this was clearly in evidence during his election campaign.
Thus the conflict between the US and France evaporated and was replaced by
competition with sportsman’s sprit between the sides. Sarkozy hoped to reach an
understanding with US on the solution to the Lebanese conflict and thus protect
the French interests. He keenly played his role visiting Lebanon and seriously
worked towards such a solution.
4. Such a solution was within reach and
the only bottleneck was that the British and their supporters were not
satisfied with it. Britain was not simply prepared to abandon Lebanon to the US
and France to share allowing the solution to come about between them while
Britain and become a mute spectator on the sidelines. But since Britain excels
in political shrewdness and cunning, its men in Lebanon created some storm or
another whenever such a solution was in sight. However this did not deter the
two parties, either the French or the US and Syria and they continued to move
ahead and the sporting competition sustained. The British maneuvers did affect
the solution sporadically, but could not heat up the conflict to a dangerous
level.
5. This situation continued with the
US, France and their followers engaged in a healthy competition and Britain’s
subversive activities. This however did not spoil the US French relationship
and Britain failed to change the rules of the game between the key players.
This situation prevailed until the French President Sarkozy met the British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown on 27th March, 2008 to discuss the impact of the American
mortgage companies’ crisis which had resulted in a heavy debt crisis for
banking and finance companies in Europe and collapse of US home loan firms.
It
appears that British shrewdness has succeeded in creating distrust in a rather
gullible Sarkozy’s heart towards the US on the issue of the huge losses
suffered by European companies as a result of the US home-loan crisis. This
distrust has reflected on France’s relation relations with the US in Lebanon
especially since France has observed that Americans delaying a solution in
Lebanon in order to prepare grounds for fortifying their complete hold and are
not keen to allow any share of the Lebanese cake for France.
Ever
since then, it is has been observed that the French-US relations in Lebanon are
no longer competitive, but are rather hostile. The British activities have also
become more than merely discordant for the France’s men in government which was
already bogged down by the quarrelling of Walid Jumblat’s men…the Lebanese
government has taken these in its stride without affecting its policies. But
now the scenario has changed and the French are seriously concerned over the
situation.
6.
In the month of April, 2008, the issue
of the communication network and the cameras at the airport turned hot to took
proportions of being a crisis, so much so that Walid Jumblat called a press
conference on this issue including the issue of the airport security director…
7.
The government, instead of dealing
with Jumblat’s provocations as it had been dealing with earlier without
affecting its policies, now responded by taking decision regarding the airport
communication network, the cameras and the issue of the airport security
director. This was due to the fact that Britain and France now worked closely
together.
8.
In short, after the communications
network and the airport security director issue exploded, the British persuaded
France to support her on the issue, assuming that the reactions of the US,
Syria and the opposition will not be Material heated reactions because of the
Americans preoccupations with the election campaign. And then the conflict will
lead to an ‘army versus opposition’ scenario…followed by a solution whereby Britain,
France and their loyalists will have their interests ensured.
9. The British and the French were
wrong in foreseeing the situation, the US, Syria and the opposition have a
strong hold both in terms of numbers and preparedness, any clever ruler should
be aware that adverse reactions are not confined to mere competition or even to
simple rivalries, but blow up into material & flagrant hostilities. It cannot
be ruled out that the British were aware of this, but preferred to allow the
issue to blow up in the face of France-US relations!
10. It is now anticipated that these events will result in a
solution, but are more likely to be in favour of the Americans, the Syrians and
the Lebanese opposition, adversely affecting the balance away from Europe and
its allies. In fact new solutions (either new only in name or even really new
solutions) may emerge from the Ta’if accord so much so that a new Ta’if II may
be on the anvil.
11. Therefore, to say that the conflict has entered a new phase
is correct from a certain perspective.
Or,
See
this Link
No comments:
Post a Comment