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?
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 with out 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 can not 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.
5th Jumadah al Oola, 1429 A.H
9th May, 2008 C.E
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 2538
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (1)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Zeital
said:
 |
In spite of Anglo-American intrigues in places like Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Iran, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Georgia (to name s few) there is clearly plenty of rivalry between England and the U.S.A. Yet the U.S.A used to (including during the Cold War) and still distrusted the English; who always had their own motives in fuelling or creating conflicts. Britain was involved in covert operations to draw America into both World Wars, (in an attempt to neutralise Germany). Britain also sought to bring the U.S.A into the Near East to help ‘police’ the region after World War One, whilst viewing the U.S.A as a rival in Mesopotamia and Persia. Britain and France had been close allies in their rivalry against Russia (Crimean War), invasions of China, and in attempts to dismantle the Ottoman State. France still has plenty of influence globally (particularly in Africa) but keeps a markedly lower profile. France is very much involved in Afghanistan and was supportive of the Anglo-American attempts to break-up Yugoslavia. It seems that France will return as a partner in Anglo-American imperialism. This is not the first time Anglo-American intrigues sought to bring a European ally in their camp. In the past General Charles de Gaulle kept a check on Anglo-American influence in Europe by keeping the English out of the European Union. Once Britain became part of the European Union, the British undermined Europe's attempts to pursue an independent stance from the U.S.A. Britain, (since the days of Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli) continue to undermine rival economic power blocks (with help from America). However Britain also tries to undermine the U.S.A, and play strong alliances (like EU) against the U.S. Perhaps Russia is the only nation which remains diametrically opposed to Britain (even during Cold War). A CENTURY OF WAR: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by William Engdahl. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|