Bush quick onto Lebanon blame-game
By Khody Akhavi
WASHINGTON - United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has pledged her
administration's support for the Lebanese government in the aftermath of
Hezbollah's takeover of west Beirut, accusing the Iranian-backed group of
"killing innocent civilians" in a bid to "protect their state-within-a-state".
But a planned meeting this week between President George W Bush, who is on a
swing through the Middle East, and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora is
in doubt following the clashes between the US-backed government in Beirut and
the Hezbollah-led opposition.
Bush and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal have
accused Iran of exacerbating the situation by supporting Hezbollah. In an
interview with BBC Arabic TV, Bush called Iran the "crux of many of the
problems in the Middle East", adding that "Hezbollah would be nothing without
Iranian support".
Saud also warned that Tehran's relations with Arab countries would be affected
by its support for the militant group.
Bush also pledged continued support for the Lebanese government and army,
saying Washington would continue to supply and train the country's forces.
Rice, meanwhile, praised Arab regimes for rejecting militia attacks inside
Lebanon, but she called the advancement of democracy in the region "very
fragile". Washington's support of the Lebanese government has become the
centerpiece of its democratization strategy in the Middle East. For many
critics of the US approach, Washington's embrace of the March 14th coalition,
which includes divisive political figures such as Walid Jumblatt and Lebanese
Forces leader Samir Geagea, reflects a policy of creating divisions, not unity
and legitimacy.
In the Middle East, a region that continues to be penetrated by the imposition
of a national-state system, territorial boundaries and the legitimacy of the
governing elite remain contentious. Armed militias continue to be an obstacle
towards reconciliation, and at the same time, a vehicle for the continuation of
a US policy more broadly aimed at stemming the influence of Iran.
In a report that appeared on the Washington Note blog Friday, journalist Nir
Rosen described the origins of the militias that fighting Hezbollah throughout
Lebanon.
"The Americans along with their Saudi allies backed the creation of sectarian
Sunni militias in Lebanon, some of whom were even trained in Jordan. Their
ideology consisted of anti Shi'ite sectarianism," wrote Rosen. "But these Sunni
militiamen proved a complete failure, and America's proxies in Lebanon barely
put up a fight, despite their strident anti-Shi'ite rhetoric. Now it is clear
that Beirut is firmly in the hands of Hezbollah and nothing the Americans can
do will dislodge or weaken this popular movement."
But most analysts believe that the recent violence was not an intended outcome
of the US policy; it has only exposed the March 14th coalition's political
weakness, and placed more pressure on an already overstretched Lebanese army,
an institution prized for its impartiality, and whose cross-sectarian ranks
presumably embody the unity of the Lebanese state.
Three days of intense clashes between government and opposition supporters last
week left 18 people dead and scores wounded. As the guns fell silent over the
city on Friday, so had the broadcasting signal of Future Movement,
parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri's media operations. Hezbollah seized
television, radio and print offices, tightened its grip on the airport, and
remained in control of other areas, including the Bekaa Valley.
By Tuesday, fighting between pro-government Sunni Muslim gunmen and militiamen
allied to Hezbollah had spread to the northern city of Tripoli, bringing the
overall toll to at least 81 dead and about 250 wounded.
The worst sectarian violence since the days of the country's 15-year civil war
that ended in 1990 has pushed Lebanon past the brink of its parliamentary
impasse, and into a new phase of political crisis. Hezbollah's success has
dealt a heavy blow to the ruling Sunni-led coalition and its primary supporter,
the United States. In addition to "protecting their state-within-a-state", the
Shi'ite political movement with a disciplined guerilla army sent the clear
signal that it could challenge the very apparatus of the state, symbolically
and discursively, but also - if need be - through violence.
"I think Hezbollah showed [Friday] that it can control all of Beirut very
quickly, that it could control other parts of Lebanon very quickly; it really
displayed the military and tactical advantages," said Lebanon expert Mohammad
Bazzi, in a conference call with reporters Friday.
"Who will impose order on the streets of Beirut, or Lebanon? The answer today
is basically no one is going to impose that kind of order, and that it is in
the hands of Hezbollah," said Bazzi, a fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, who is currently in Lebanon. "The whole day was a show of force."
The outburst of violence was sparked by a government move last Monday to shut
down Hezbollah's telecommunications network, a move that Hezbollah secretary
general Hassan Nasrallah decried as a "declaration of war" against the
"resistance".
Druze leader and prominent March 14th politician Jumblatt had held a press
conference in which he accused the Shi'ite group of spying on the Lebanese
state, a charge based on the discovery of a secret camera on the airport runway
to presumably record flights. Jumblatt also called for the dismantling of the
private telecommunications network used by Hezbollah's military command
structure, which Nasrallah said was instrumental to its success in the
Israel-Hezbollah war.
Nasrallah, who has repeatedly vowed not to turn Hezbollah's arms against
Lebanese citizens, tried to explain the show of force as a defensive maneuver,
but according to Bazzi, many Lebanese did not look at it that way.
"[Hezbollah] did in their statements seem to go to great lengths to keep the
damage and casualties very low. These were some intense street battles that
went on for hours and hours," said Bazzi. "It's difficult to tell who's winning
the information war, because one side lost a good deal of its media today."
"There is one interpretation out on the streets of Beirut these days that the
government wanted to provoke some sort of confrontation over Hezbollah's arms
as long as the Bush administration is still in power," said Bazzi.
"Hezbollah and Nasrallah would definitely have you believe this entire maneuver
was cooked up by the US, but there really doesn't seem to be much evidence of
that ... it seems to have caught diplomats here by surprise, and they weren't
ready for it," he said.
Syria and Lebanon expert Josh Landis also dismissed the idea that the US
promoted this type of confrontation: "There will be those who believe this is
part of a larger US and Israeli plan to sucker Hezbollah into overreaching only
to provide justification for a second Israeli attack," he wrote on his widely
read blog, SyriaComment. "I am inclined to believe that March 14th was dragged
along by rash leadership. It is hard to believe Washington would be so
foolish."
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
