|
|
|
|
COMMENTARY
Crediting
Bush misplaced
By Stephen Zunes
(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus)
In a mirror image of those who blame
everything wrong in the world on United States
President George W Bush, a surprising number of
people are now giving him credit for the recent
show of force by hundreds of thousands of Lebanese
protestors demanding an end to Syria's overbearing
influence in their country.
It is
extremely doubtful that the US invasion of Iraq
has had anything to do with the inspirational
"people power" demonstrations in the Lebanese
capital of Beirut.
Many leading members of
the Lebanese opposition - such as the late former
prime minister Rafik Hariri, whose assassination
prompted the recent wave of anti-Syrian protests -
were outspoken opponents of US policy in the
region, including the invasion of Iraq. Hariri's
government chaired the emergency Arab League
meeting in Cairo just prior to the March 2003 US
invasion in which the 22-member body expressed its
"total rejection of the threat of aggression on
Arab nations, in particular Iraq".
The
recently completed Iraqi or Palestinian elections,
which were repeatedly praised by the Bush
administration, did not play much of a role
either. Lebanon has held competitive elections for
many years, though - like in Iraq and Palestine -
they have taken place under a foreign military
presence that strictly limits the elected
government's ability to act independently. The
newly elected Palestinian government is unable to
exercise its administration in most of the West
Bank, which is still under the control of Israeli
occupation forces in violation of several UN
Security Council resolutions - which call on
Israel to withdraw from areas controlled by the
Palestinian Authority prior to September 2000.
In Iraq, six weeks after that country's
election, violence and instability continue
unabated and the new government - which is yet to
be formed - has its power limited by a series of
Transitional Administrative Laws and regulatory
agencies imposed under the US occupation. If the
Iraqi election actually did influence recent
events in Lebanon, it may be for different reasons
than the Bush administration would like to
recognize: parties calling for an end of American
domination of Iraq and for a withdrawal of
American forces won an overwhelming majority of
votes, perhaps inspiring Lebanese who want an end
of Syrian domination of their country and for a
withdrawal of Syrian forces.
If foreign
influence did play a positive role, at least as
much credit would belong to France - the former
colonial power, which still exerts significant
influence in the country - as well as to the
United Nations, which last year passed a Security
Council resolution calling on all foreign forces
to leave Lebanon and will likely play a major role
in overseeing an eventual Syrian withdrawal.
Instead, Washington's attempts to gain
support for ridding Lebanon of Syrian domination
may have been counter-productive. The
pro-government forces became mobilized and the
anti-government/anti-Syrian movement appeared to
stall as soon as the US started taking credit for
it.
Just as the Bush administration was
trumpeting its alleged role of inspiring
demonstrations over previous weeks by tens of
thousands of supporters of the Lebanese
opposition, a counter-demonstration brought
hundreds of thousands to the streets to denounce
US interference and show support for the
pro-Syrian Lebanese government, and pro-Syrian
Prime Minister Oman Karami, who had been dumped
last month, was returned to power.
The
pro-government rally was primarily organized by
the Shi'ite Hezbollah party but was also supported
by Amal (another Shi'ite party), as well as
segments of the Sunni population loyal to Karami.
Interestingly, Hezbollah's leaders have not openly
called for the Syrians to remain, but have instead
insisted that the withdrawal be carried out
according to the guidelines of the Taif Accords
(signed by the Syrian and Lebanese governments in
1989), and not as a result of foreign pressure.
Some observers believe that the protest -
rather than being against a Syrian withdrawal -
was meant more as a show of strength by Hezbollah
and others to bargain for a place in a future
Lebanese government. The connection the
fundamentalist Lebanese Shi'ite movement has with
the secular Syrian Ba'athist government has always
been primarily an alliance of convenience.
Anti-Syrian sentiment has been growing in
Lebanon for some time and has become increasingly
widespread throughout the country's diverse
religious and ethnic communities. The major
problem has not been the presence of Syrian troops
per se, which are far less visible and numerous
than in previous years, but the effective control
Syria wields through its secret police in Beirut,
who effectively intimidate government officials
into not challenging the wishes of Damascus. It
has become less of an issue of ideology or
ethnicity as one of nationalism. The New York
Times and other news outlets noted that many of
the protestors not only opposed Syrian
intervention, but opposed French, Israeli, and
American intervention as well.
At the same
time, the presence of large numbers of affluent
Maronite Christians at the earlier opposition
rallies led many to dub the effort "the Gucci
uprising" or "the BMW revolution". Lebanese
leftist Ghassam Makarem, in noting the high
visibility at the anti-Syrian rallies of parties
affiliated with the far-right and various
warlords, observed, "There is absolutely no
question that the Syrian presence in the country
and their sponsorship of this ruling class should
end. But there should also be no question that we
cannot allow the genuine calls for peace and
freedom to be hijacked by fascists and war
criminals."
The fact that the US has
supported a number of prominent Lebanese "fascists
and war criminals" over the years has added to the
backlash. The growing American calls for greater
Lebanese sovereignty is viewed by most Lebanese as
crass opportunism on the part of Washington, which
for decades has undermined Lebanon's sovereignty.
The bottom line is that the complexity of
Lebanese politics and the new dynamics on the
ground in reaction to Hariri's killing precludes
any premature claim of American credit for
whatever positive developments have emerged in
that war-ravaged country challenging the undue
influence of Syria. Furthermore, it is unlikely
that the widespread anti-American sentiment in
Lebanon will change as long as US demands that
Lebanese sovereignty be respected appear to be
limited only to situations where the violator of
that sovereignty is not allied with the United
States.
Stephen Zunes is a
professor of politics and chair of the Peace and
Justice Studies Program at the University of San
Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for the
Foreign Policy in Focus Project and is the author
of Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the
Roots of Terrorism.
(Posted with
permission from Foreign Policy in Focus) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Middle East Sex News
|
|
|
