The Us-French Initiative and why the UN does not work

[igloo]

FIASCO A LA FRANCAISE

By AMIR TAHERI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives

Print Reprint

September 10, 2004 -- ONE of the charges leveled against President Bush on Iraq is that he circum vented the United Nations, ignored allies and acted unilaterally. The theory is that an OK from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and French President Jacques Chirac is the surest guarantee of success for U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

That theory was put to the test earlier this month — and proved to be not only false but counter-productive, at least for the time being.

Here is the story: French diplomats, anxious to offer an alternative to Bushian "regime change," spent a good part of the summer in secret talks with their U.S. counterparts in search of a common policy on Syria, one of the oldest members of the club of "states sponsoring terrorism." By the end of August, the talks had produced agreement on joint action to end Syria's military presence in Lebanon.

On Sept. 2 came something that had not happened in a while: France and the United States jointly sponsored a Security Council resolution calling on Syria to take its army out of Lebanon and allow the disarming of Lebanese militias, including the Iranian-controlled Hezbollah.

The resolution passed 9-0, with six abstentions, indicating unusual U.N. consensus. French diplomats were in seventh heaven: They had proved they could do through diplomacy what the "Cowboy" Bush insists on doing through force.

But what happened next was less idyllic: Far from bowing to the "collective will of the international community," Syria decided to ignore the Bush-Chirac alliance and reacted by, in effect, abolishing the Lebanese state.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad summoned Lebanon's Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri to Damascus, the Syrian capital. Hariri was left to cool his heels for two hours before being admitted into Assad's presence for 15 minutes to receive "instructions," including an order to have the Lebanese Constitution amended to allow the six-year term of President Emil Lahoud, a Syrian appointee, to be extended for three years.

Assad also summoned Nabih Berri, speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, and instructed him to amend the Constitution and extend Lahoud's term in a single session. The Syrian leader insisted that his orders be carried out within 24 hours after the Chirac-Bush "triumph" at the Security Council.

The point that the Lebanese state has effectively ceased to exist was driven home when the so-called parliament in Beirut did as Assad had ordered, by a vote of 96 to 29.

To emphasize his disdain for the United Nations, Assad also ordered a strengthening of Syria's military presence in Lebanon from 28,000 men to almost 40,000 men before year's end.

Syria's various secret services, some of which operate their own courts and prisons in both Syria and Lebanon, have also been ordered to adopt a higher profile in Beirut. And Iran has stepped up its arms shipments to the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, via Syria.

All this is accompanied by a campaign in the state-owned media in Damascus and the Syrian-controlled newspapers in Beirut against Franco-U.S. "imperialist" intervention "to undermine Arab unity" by driving Assad's army out of Lebanon.

Although Syria has been the de facto power in Lebanon for almost three decades, no one had expected Assad to advertise it so dramatically and in open defiance of the Chirac-Bush alliance. Assad's stance was more surprising because he had failed to persuade such long-time allies as Russia and China to veto the Franco-U.S. resolution.

Why has Assad behaved as he has?

The main reason is that Assad's Ba'athist dictatorship is one of those regimes that respond only to the threat or the actual use of force. Their strategy is based on the assumption that while sticks and stones can break their bones, words shall harm them never!

Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist dictatorship in Baghdad was another such regime. It had learned from the experience of 13 years, in which it ignored 12 mandatory U.N. resolutions, that diplomacy could never threaten the only thing that mattered to Saddam: his hold on power.

If Saddam violated 12 resolutions over 13 years before he faced the threat of war, Assad has 11 resolutions and 12 more years to go. Why pay any attention to the Franco-American huffing and puffing this early in the game?

A despotic regime can't afford to heed U.N. resolutions: It would end up being asked to stop imprisoning, torturing and murdering its opponents, to accept free elections — in short, to commit political suicide. It would also lose part of its aura of invincibility and its capacity to terrorize its population.

Assad is banking on "the great good news" that his media promise: A Bush loss in November. The Syrian media hope that "the Bush storm" will soon blow over and that America will revert to its traditional policy of coddling the despot of Damascus. After all, Bush is the only U.S. president since 1969 who has refused to meet the Syrian ruler. (Bill Clinton met Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's father, twice and endorsed his occupation of Lebanon.)

Another reason for Assad's defiance: The mullahs of Tehran, who prop up his regime with money, arms and cheap oil, are determined not to allow international diplomacy any meaningful role in the region. The mullahs fear that the Franco-U.S. resolution on Lebanon could set a precedent and lead to a resolution against Iran's nuclear-weapons program. The mullahs are also determined to maintain the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah as their surrogate army in what they see as a war against America and Israel.

The Syrian riposte to the Franco-U.S. move has not been limited to political maneuvers and propaganda. In close cooperation with Tehran, Syria has called on its agents and allies in Iraq to step up their campaign of terror in hopes of weakening Bush's position in the forthcoming U.S. election.

"The fire in Iraq will spread," promises the newspaper Tishrin, an organ of the Syrian Ba'ath. The Iranian media similarly make no secret of their hope that a Bush defeat would lead to a quick U.S. retreat from the region.

Well, here we have a textbook case of multilateral diplomacy as opposed to Bushian "extremism."

Syria has been courted for more than two years by France and other members of the European Union and offered the widest range of goodies that "soft power" can provide. President Assad has been feted half a dozen European capitals and flattered as "a great leader."

We also have a very nice resolution, number 1559, written in the politest possible language. It is not demanding the moon. All it asks is for Syria to take its army out of Lebanon, a U.N. founding member, and let the Lebanese run their own lives, just as the people of East Timor have since the end of the Indonesian occupation. The resolution does not call for any investigation of the numerous alleged crimes committed by the Syrians in Lebanon over the past 30 years, including the murder of two elected presidents and the looting of the Lebanese treasury.

In other words, "soft power" cannot get softer than this. Yet it is a safe bet that Syria will not evacuate Lebanon unless it is either kicked out by force or sees its own regime threatened with destruction as a result of military action.

Almost a year ago, the European Union tried "soft power" to persuade Iran not to build a nuclear arsenal, and failed. The "soft power" move towards Syria is also heading for failure.

Those who still believe that Saddam would have been persuaded to mend his ways through an endless series of U.N. resolutions would do well to ponder the Iranian and Syrian experiments. We have a beautiful resolution; we have Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac in the driving seat; we are doing multilateralism, and yet we are getting nowhere.

Should we not wonder why? E-mail:

[siceone]

good read

[jtk4]

It might also have to do with the fact that the us is in iraq and afghanistan and he knows that we will not send troops in for atleast a year maybe 2. We have enough on our plate right now, and people know this.

[igloo]

It might also have to do with the fact that the us is in iraq and afghanistan and he knows that we will not send troops in for atleast a year maybe 2. We have enough on our plate right now, and people know this.

This may have some impact on their thinking, and I believe it does, but more so in the overall context that the U.N. is useless, has always been, and has no teeth.....

[mursa]

the U.N. is useless, has always been, and has no teeth.....

Your just mad cause the UN didn't fall for Bush's BS on invading iraq with UN's go ahead/assistance . lol

.....if thats the case then just make sure your maverick president bush doesn't go to them with his tail tucked inbetween his legs asking for assistance , like he did not too long ago .

[igloo]

.....if thats the case then just make sure your maverick president bush doesn't go to them with his tail tucked inbetween his legs asking for assistance , like he did no too long ago .

[obby]

the U.N. is useless, has always been, and has no teeth.....

It took Bush to add teeth to their bite !!!!!!!!

[tres-b]

I think a nicely worded letter to bin Laden, Arafat and the rest of the Muslim worlds terrorist heros will clear everything up. Im going to start one as soon as I finish my sensitivity training course so I dont offend any of the cowardly Muslim terrorist scum----errr I mean friendly Arabs that I will be dealing with in my letters.

After I write the letters, I will first allow the UN to review them b/c their approval is paramount to any sucess that I might have in this venture. They have our best interests in mind so I can trust them.

I believe that should solve everything since Jihad isnt all that important and the terrorists will have a HUGE change of heart after seeing that we just want to get along with them.

Dont you get it? This is a kill or be killed deal. No negotiations. No compromise. No more talk. That all ended when the tower fell. This war will never be over until every terrorist is either 1-Dead(preffered) or 2-Captured.

[jtk4]

no bush showed they had no teeth.

Listen the only way we would invade another country is if bin laden was taking a shit on the american flag in downtown lebanon. That is about it. The world knows this, so the world will do what they will. that does not mean down the line we will not but right now we have other shit to do. Sudan has pretty much given the finger to the un for the past 5 years.

[obby]

Dont you get it? This is a kill or be killed deal. No negotiations. No compromise. No more talk. That all ended when the tower fell. This war will never be over until every terrorist is either 1-Dead(preffered) or 2-Captured.

See...this guy gets it unlike some other on this board. We may never defeat terrorist 100% but as long as we stay on the offensive, they will be on the run leaving them less time to sit and plan any attacks against us.

Sounds like a great plan to me. It has been our tactic since 9/11 and so far it's working.

[sobeton]

never underestimate the will and resolve of your enemy. 9/11 took years to plan. current Circumstance does not equate to accomplishment. a fallacious sense of security can be just as deadly as any terrorist attack.

[mrmatas2277]

Your just mad cause the UN didn't fall for Bush's BS on invading iraq with UN's go ahead/assistance

COUGH COUGH food for oil COUGH COUGH

[mursa]

COUGH COUGH food for oil COUGH COUGH

Your telling me a few corrupt UN employees made the UN turn its back to iraq ??? .lol ....every corporation has it's bad apples , the city of miami for example , now imagine a organization that spans the entire globe ...cmon matas , don't be so naive .

..kinda funny we talk about favors for oil though , especially since the US invaded the country with the second largest oil reserves .....

..

...im sure it was a coincidence though .

ps... by the way i haven't seen anyone convicted for the alleged oil4food program scandal ....where is it ?

[sobeton]

COUGH COUGH food for oil COUGH COUGH

the UN is a farce. we will never find out the extent to which France and Russia where involved in this latest UN fiasco. since the US does whatever the hell it pleases anyway. then they should withdraw from the UN as we (US), and Great Britain had threatened to do in the wake of the food for oil fiasco. since the super powers pretty much bypass the UN anyway... let countries handle their own business and form their own alliances. if other countries interfere in the business, of another country they will simply suffer the consequences.

[jtk4]

yeah having countries solve their own problems worked so well in the past. The us made the un a farce, because we did what the hell we wanted and really there is nothing they could do about it. The un was supposed to be like a police force/judicial system for the world, when we gave them the finger they lose all credibility. It should be renamed police force to keep the poor people in line, but the big countries ahh you can do what the hell you want.

[obby]

Never underestimate the will and resolve of our troops and current Prez !!!!!!!!!!!

[sobeton]

yeah having countries solve their own problems worked so well in the past. The us made the un a farce, because we did what the hell we wanted and really there is nothing they could do about it. The un was supposed to be like a police force/judicial system for the world, when we gave them the finger they lose all credibility. It should be renamed police force to keep the poor people in line, but the big countries ahh you can do what the hell you want.

agreed! the US has helped in making the UN a farce. now it is we who are acting as police force/judicial system for the world. that’s is not our role. we are not the only ones in the world with muscle or money. we use are wealth to force our ideology on smaller, poorer and militarily weaker countries. we think we are above approach. we will never fawk with China, Japan, Russia, North Korea, etc because we know they have the ability to put up a fight beyond our imagination. we need to stay out other peoples business; until which time they ask for our assistance. it is one thing to protect yourself from those who attack you. it is quite another to be the accuser, judge, jury, and executioner .you can only push people so far, until which time they will use whatever is within their means to destroy you or at the very least weaken you. did we not learn anything in Vietnam?? over 45,000 soldiers went home in boxes.. we will never learn...

[jtk4]

we do have a good ideology.

keep buying shit, you need more shit, if your shit is old buy more.

BUY BUY BUY BUY CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME. do not worry about anything else. you are a robot.