I sit here in the US. For the past week or so, I’ve been bombarded with all these ill-informed, shallow, self-referential “analyses” from people in the mainstream media here who two months ago couldn’t tell a Jumblatt from a Janjawid who’ve been frantically telling me that because of the “flowering” of (a certain kind of) democracy in Lebanon, then probably the US invasion of Iraq wasn’t such a bad thing after all.
(Okay, Walid Jumblatt himself fed into that kind of delusional fantasy a little bit with some of his utterances.)
You read David Brooks telling us to “Give Wolfowitz his due”; you read Fareed Zakariya; you read Jim Hoagland, crowing about how the Middle East ” has recently been jolted by a surge of positive political change (in a piece where, amazingly, he also confesses that he’s just been acting as Tony Blair’s shill for these past years)… And you read that great political thinker George W. Bush himself, today– “Today I have a message for the people of Lebanon: All the world is witnessing your great movement of conscience. Lebanon’s future belongs in your hands…” — Well you sit there and you listen in amazement to all this totally choreographed and totally phantasmagoric nonsense.
Nonsense on stilts, in the words of one of my gurus, Jeremy Bentham.
So today, something over half a million pro-Hizbullah Lebanese took to the streets to exercise their democratic rights. (I hope you read what I posted here yesterday.)
I have to admit, I found something fairly delicious in the fact that, even as Prez Bush was spouting off with those immortal words quoted above, half a million Lebanese (from a national population of some 3.5 million, remember) were indeed taking part in a “movement of conscience “, and in the process, according to every journalistic report I’ve read so far, completely dwarfing the movement mounted by the US-stoked anti-Syrian forces over the past two weeks.
One thing I learned, from my work on the upcoming Boston Review piece on Hizbullah is that Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the party’s 44-year-old secretary-general, is one heck of a wily political organizer. I go into his political biography a little in the BosRev piece. By my calculation, he was just 15 years old in 1976, when he became the party organizer in his home village of al-Bazouriyeh, near Tyre, for Imam Musa Sadr’s then-new Shiite political movement, Amal. After that, he was rapidly groomed by the network of Shiite mullahs that spans between south Lebanon and the Hawzas (seminaries) of Najaf and Qom, to become an exemplary Shiite organizer and leader.
Anyway, read the piece when it comes out in 2-3 weeks: it’s got some interesting little vignettes about him. It’s also got quite a lot about the incredible political organizing job the Hizbullah leaders as a group have done in the 20 years of the party’s existence.
In their work in organizing today’s demonstration, it was not just the numbers– pulled together, remember, within less than 48 hours. It was not just the incredible timing of having their demonstration happen the very same day as Bush’s totally asinine speech quoted above. It was also the clever political positioning that Nasrallah himself had insisted upon: the exclusive use of the Lebanese national flag, with the deliberate decision not to show any hint of Hizbullah’s trademark yellow colorings; the minute of silence for Hariri; the singing of the national anthem (which every schoolchild in Lebanon knows by heart, from daily airings of it.) Oh yes, indeed, whose “cedar” revolution now?
And of course, as noted yesterday, the party leaders’ insistence on discipline and nonviolence.
Who knows where all this lead? I’m looking at the story at at least two levels: the Lebanese national level, and then the US-influence-in-the world level.
For the Lebanese, I’m am just totally delighted that so far they have been able to pursue their disagreements this time round through peaceful political means. Long may that continue to continue.
As for George W, I shall mainly sit and watch how he deals with this new challenge to his triumphalist self-narrative. Today, his spokesflack, Scott McClellan, sputtered that,
- We always welcome peaceful demonstrations, and we welcome peaceful demonstrations by the Lebanese people.
Well, what else can he say?
But really, over the weeks ahead, will the Prez start backing off from some of his “empowering the people” rhetoric–seeing as where it is going to lead, in practically every single Arab country? Or will he carry on mouthing it even if–as is most likely to happen– it leads to the growing empowerment of a distinctly anti-American “people’s voice”?
Watch this space.
Is Musa Sadr a kin of the Iraqi as-Sadr clan? I do know that the as-Sadr clan in Iraq have been major Shia leaders in that country for generations, but I was curious if the clan (and its leadership of the Shia) extended/extends across borders.
thanks!
Helena, thanks so much for your commentary on what Juan Cole just dubbed Bush’s “master narrative.” For those of us who don’t have years of experience in the Middle East, there are very few places to turn to get valid, informed analysis at this point. I’m sure you have been seeing the NYT echoing Kennedy and others about the grand, democratic influence the war has had, after all.
Please keep at it. I feel at this point like it takes so much effort to counter the short-sighted simplicity about anything at all Middle Eastern…And this new myth in particular requires a LOT of effort to deflate.
… and don’t be afraid of filling in detail that you think many of your readers already know… Believe me, you are playing a key role right now, with so few intelligent sources out there.
I did even hear that grand neocons’ story on a French TV news channel… It went approximately on these lines :
1) The White House knew approximately nothing concerning ME; using our long experience in ME, we as French allies warned the US against a predictible disaster in Irak and the ME.
2) But we were wrong : sometimes naivety can pay back. There is now a large movement of arab people fighting for more freedom and democracy.
3) We knew how much the Arab country was anti-amrican and they are.
4) But we failed to recognize that in Arab countries, the expression of their frustration against the US superpower was also the allowed way to express part of their deeper frustration against their own authoritarian regimes.
5) However, it is still not clear where this wish for more freedom and democracy will bring the Arab countries, it may not end in the direction where the US wants them to go.
Well that was only one commentator. I hope it doesn’t meand the complete alignment of EU leaders on US policy. Nevertheless, I found point 4) to be interesting.
Which of the two demonstrations would Helena support, or march in, the big ones in Martyrs Square that demanded immediate Syrian withdrawal or the bigger one in Sohl Square that was pro-Syria?
I’d really like to know where Helena stands.
What irritates me about this is that everyone whatever their orientation seems to leap on the latest development as though it were the “wave of the future.” I guess journalists and pundits are under pressure to come up with a reaction to whatever is happening, but really, you’d think they could read some history. Even a small dose of Lebanese history would be useful here.
Even some Iraqi history since March 2003 might inspire a little humility about one’s ability to see the future.
sm, you write as if more in sorrow than anger.
You might not be in either if you were a regular reader of Just World News, which featured a full historical and comparative review of Hizbullah several days before the assassination of Hariri which took everybody else by surprise.
Helena Cobban compared the Hizbullah to the African National Congress of South Africa.
Recent events prove something for me in this regard, again. That is, you can buy a phoney “orange”-style movement if there is none there, and if you have plenty of money. But if there is a real movement in the field already and you try to kite a phoney one, you are going to lose all your money and end up looking stupid.
The ANC also saw off many phoney rivals pumped up with imperialist money. Hizbullah has proved itself to be a genuine mass movement of the people.
Viva Hizbullah, Viva!
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&71AF43173FCCE4A4C2256FBE004A4605
“”The local media said many of the protestors were bussed across the border from Syria to join the demonstration”
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&71AF43173FCCE4A4C2256FBE004A4605
I love the poster reading “NO FOR THE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE” right next to the big portrait of Assad. No cognitive dissonance there.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the dominant military presence in the city officially approved of one demonstration and disapproved and attempted to ban the other.
I’m sure if we were comparing a large pro-US rally in Baghdad to a small anti-US rally, it’s probably something you’d take into account.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=13245
“…the Phalange Party’s students department…” marching in a pro-Syrian rally. What’s the world coming to!
Dominic if you are in favor of Lebanese national liberation, why do you endorse the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which violates not only several UN resolutions, but also the Taif accords? Surely you understand that Syria’s occupation is justified in exactly the same terms as the US occupation of Iraq? Hezbollah is marching to perpetuate the illegal occupation of their country by a foreign power.
I hold no brief for Hezbollah, but I bet that what they think they are doing is backing one occupation to avoid an even less welcome one.
We’ll see what other Lebanese think. We’ll see how Lebanese deal with the conflict.
Let’s not extrapolate to infinity by drawing a line through the last two points on the graph.
Save that nonsense for the Social Security debate.
Syria has been in Lebanon for almost 30 years. I bet the US cannot stay a 1/4 that time in Iraq.
Assume a bus carries 75 people, and that 20% (many) of the people were bussed from Syria. That’s 100 000 people traveling in 1 300 buses on the Beirut-Damas highway.
Now assume that Hizbullah was able to get 325 buses to get these people fro Syria, and that the time to travel from the border to Beirut is about 2 hours. Finally assue that each bus takes 1 hour to load or download. That’s 6 hours for a trip back and forth.
Then, it took these 325 buses 24 hours of non-stop driving back and forth between Beirut and the Syrian border to carry these 100 000 people.
Surely, that would have been reported on EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER in the world…
So it was surely a much lesser number of people being bussed from the border. Let say 10 000.
32 buses…
I was amazed to see how many 3 meter high portraits of Assad there were. Who would imagine these were such common items among Lebanese Shi’a?
So it was surely a much lesser number of people being bussed from the border.
you don’t suppose any number may have come from among the 1million Syrian ‘guest workers’ living in lebanon do you?
It is extremely foolish and inflammatory to play the game that demonstraters have been bused from Syria. For those who are not familiar with the Lebanese scene, such statements harken back to an old history that some Lebanese (read Chrisitian, educated, pro-Western, upper classes, Gucci revoultionaries, French and English speaking etc etc) are more worthy than other Lebanese (read Mulsims especially shiaa, Arabic speaking, anti-western poor, lower classess etc etc). A bloody civil war later such coded, racist statments are neither illuminating nor conducive to creating bridges across very divided communities of a very divided nation.
I wonder if anyone saw the comments of ex-President Bill Clinton the other day: after talking about the “flowering” of democracy in Lebanon, he was asked about the Hizbullah demonstration. His reply was that he couldn’t believe the people of Lebanon would not want control of their own country…
I suppose it depends on the definition of “is” again.
to play the game that demonstraters have been bused from Syria.
It’s hardly a game. Not only was it reported on Naharnet and other local media sources, but Syrians bussed in for the festivities were interviewed by CNNI and were quite straightforward about who told them to come.
Is the possibility that those ‘guest workers’ are there to stay unreasonable?
The Hezbollah is just pretty damn organized to be able to pop up that many foreigners in just 2 days.
Imagine what these guys could have done in Florida in 2000…
“Is the possibility that those ‘guest workers’ are there to stay unreasonable?”
Only if you think exporting unemployed workers to work in an illegally occupied country is “unreasonable.” And guest workers certainly DID make up large numbers of the protesters, for obvious reasons.
ll admit to being a bit puzzled by all the charges and countercharges about busing in demonstrators. Even if people were brought in by bus, so what? Busing in demonstrators from out of town in order to boost the numbers is a common tactic even in democracies; it happens all the time in the United States.
The opposition could also bus in demonstrators if it wanted, and it
After 42 years of emergency rule domination of Syria and a 30 year occupation of Lebanon who can be so foolish to be impressed by an officialist demonstration? Even Paraguay’s Stroessner could pull that meaningless feat off (without the perpetual unifying cry of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America”).
Some day we should do a study of what fraction of global warming is attributed to these morons burning flags five days a week.
E. Bilpe
Folks seem to have a really difficult time understanding why many Lebanese prefer the Syrian presence in a country which has repeatedly been invaded by Israel. Anybody remember the Quisling “South Lebanes Army” of Maj. Haddad which did Israel’s dirty work in South Lebanon for decades? If it wasn’t for the superb Hizbollah campaign against Israel South Lebanon would be well on its way to becoming another West Bank. Israel is out because of Hizbollah accomplished this wonderful patriotic act thanks to material help from Syria as well as Iran. If you want Israeli domination of Lebanon just say so; don’t pretend that you really care about Lebanese sovereignty when you really support Israel’s little imperialism.
“Only if you think exporting unemployed workers to work in an illegally occupied country is “unreasonable.” ”
Halliburton in Irak. What’s that?
“Only if you think exporting unemployed workers to work in an illegally occupied country is “unreasonable.” ”
Halliburton in Irak. What’s that?
Or GIs…
How can you stand on your 2 feet by claiming that Syrian occupation of Lebanon is illegal (Bush administration), and not denouncing the current ILLEGAL occupation of the Golan Heights, Irak, West Bank, Cyprus, etc.
Freedom Fries, the occupation of the West Bank is illegal; this simple affirmation adds force to the argument that Syria should withdraw from Lebanon. Israel should withdraw from the West Bank, and Syria should withdraw from Lebanon. The occupation of Iraq is UN-sanctioned and therefore legal under international law; Juan Cole I believe has discussed on his website:
“[T]he role of the US military and other multinational forces in Iraq is now legitimate because it was explicitly sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This is true. Many readers appear to have forgotten all about UN SC Resolution 1546 (2004), which was adopted unanimously.”
In contrast the Syrian occupation of Lebanon goes against several UNSC resolutions. It also contravenes the Taif accord, as does the maintenance of Hezbollah’s armed wing.
Re: Halliburton:
There are somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million Syrian “guest workers” in Lebanon. How many Halliburton employees do you imagine there are in Iraq, a far larger country?
Al Seyasseh reporting 118,000 Syrian soldiers brought in civilian clothes to participate in demonstration. Link (in arabic) lists numbers and participating units.
Mahmoun, can you read Arabic? The headline there says “118,000 Syrian workers and soldiers took part in the Hizbullah demonstration”, and the lead ‘graph goes on to state that this was 38,000 soldiers and 80,000 workers who were (reportedly) gathered together from various parts of Lebanon.
Firstly, I highly doubt the accuracy of this “report”, which is not an eyewitness report, comes with no byline or dateline, and is attributed to only to a “report” by an (unnamed) western intelligence [agency]”. Funny that no “reports” approaching anything like that same degree of either alarmism or specificity have surfaced in any reliable western media, wouldn’t you say? It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that various hasbara ops (Israeli or US) have been perpetrated through Arabic-lenguage media.
But even, stretching one’s imagination as far as it can go, even supposing that were true– who were the other 380,000 (or more) participants in Tuesday’s demonstration?
These attempts to delegitimze the large segment of the Lebanese population that supports Hizbullah’s basic political stand against 1559, and against US and Israeli policy in the region, are really sad and degrading. Hizbullah and its political position exist and are well rooted in the Lebanese body politic. Even the US government has been coming to terms with that fact. What is your goal or desire in still seeking to deny it? Deal with it, man!
What is your goal or desire in still seeking to deny the terms of the Ta’ef agreement and Syria’s continued non-compliance? What is your goal in seeking to defend Hizb’Allah’s illegal army (illegal per not only UN resolution but also per Ta’ef!) Why do you, an American/British citizen, see fit to endorse a third country’s occupation by another, simply because of your personal animus toward Israel (which hasn’t been in Lebanon for half a decade?) I think you might examine your own personal biases a bit as well, Helena. Your Israel-hatred is blinding you. Assad is making a mockery of international law and Lebanese sovereignty, and further tu quoques directed as Israel do not mitigate this obvious fact.
Why does Bashar Assad so despise the Lebanese? .
1) It really doesn’t matter what resolutions the Bush administration manages to bully the U.N. into passing on its behalf. The U.S. occupation of Iraq can never be legal (or legitimate) because it resulted from the gravest possible war crimes, a war of aggression. That act of aggression was, in addition, undertaken despite the disapproval of the U.N. Since the Bush administration occupation of Iraq resulted from an illegal act, it is itself illegal, being the fruit of a poisonous tree.
(One ought to be embarrassed to use the term “multinational force”, which is nothing more than a pretense word concocted by one of the P.R. firms to which the Bush administration pays tens of millions of dollars to come up with ways to sell its wars. Its intention is to obscure the reality that it is a U.S. occupation with only the symbolic participation of a dwindling number of increasingly unwilling “Partners”.)
2) Unlike the occupation of Iraq (and of the OPT and the Golan Heights), the Syrian occupation of Lebanon is not the result of aggression on the part of the occupying power. It was undertaken at the behest of the Lebanese government. Its legality is further confirmed by the Taif accord.
And, of course, the U.S. government thought it was a fine idea until it no longer served the U.S. government’s interests, just as Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship and warlike ways suited the U.S. government’s interests until getting rid of him suited them nore.
It is telling that those on this board seem incapable discussing Lebanese sovereignty in terms that do not involve the US and Israel.
“Its legality is further confirmed by the Taif accord.”
The Taif accord does not guarantee an open ended Syrian occupation:
Similarly Syria which meticulously upholds the security independence and unity of Lebanon and the agreement between the two countries shall not allow any activity that threatens (Lebanese) security independence or sovereignty.
Taif also calls for “the disbanding of the Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and the transfer of weapons in their possession to the Lebanese government within six months”
The current legal status of the US occupation of Iraq is independent of the illegal actions that brought it about. By your logic, any Iraqi government would be illegal, having resulted from the same invasion.
“The current legal status of the US occupation of Iraq is independent of the illegal actions that brought it about.”
No, it isn’t. It is the fruit of a poisonous tree and cannot be legal.
“By your logic, any Iraqi government would be illegal, having resulted from the same invasion.”
Apples and oranges.
Posted
No, it isn’t. It is the fruit of a poisonous tree and cannot be legal.
At the very least, consistency should demand you oppose ALL foreign occupation, not merely those where the United States is responsible. Fruity analogies notwithstanding, the UN resolutions are what they are. Ignore them at the peril of UN credibility.
The UN credibility as a legal reference point is badly lacking (As if the Yuguslav and Iraq fiascos have not demonstrated that already) . As things currently stands and have stood since 1945, UN resolutions simply reflect the power alignments between the the permanent 5 with an uneven advantage to the US. To claim a role for the UN beyond that is stretching the facts (I know Helena may disagree but her optimism in a UN role in such arenas as nurturing democracy or human rights has for the most not been vindicated by precedent or current practice). Consistency should be demanded from those in US adminstrations who made and continue to make a habit of ignoring the UN resolutions unless they served US interests or those of its client states.
Why do you assume that I do not oppose all foreign occupations? It happens I do. I also oppose self-serving mischaracterizations of occupations. In addition, I oppose the utter hypocrisy of condemning one occupation (which began at the behest of the occupied country’s government, and which one supported when it suited one’s interests) while conducting a far less legitimate and far, far more brutal occupation oneself. I particularly oppose this when one’s own occupation is the result of a politically motivated war of aggression. I oppose the hypocrisy of stating that the Syrian occupation must end before elections because free elections cannot take place under occupation while not holding oneself to the same principles and standards.
The peril of UN credibility? You have got to be joking! When it comes to politics the UN is nothing more than a paper tiger with no teeth at all. Its every decision is subject to the power of the permanent members, mostly the US. The most credible thing the UN has done in a very long time is to refuse to give its imprimatur to the the sorry Bush administration aggression against Iraq. Unfortunately, it has caved in to the U.S. ever since in one wrong decision after another. If a decision is wrong there is no responsibility toward the credibility of the organization that made it.
I particularly oppose this when one’s own occupation….
Why do you continue to discuss Lebanon with the US as the sole reference point and centerpiece of discussion? There is nothing ‘self serving’ about my characterisations of Syrian occupation, since I am neither American or Israeli, I can’t imagine what interest of mine should be served by calling that spade a spade. The fact that the US justifies its occupation of Iraq in exactly the same terms as the Syrians seems to be lost on you. [this is not an invitation to catalogue US atrocities in Iraq, as the US is not on trial here -or is it always?. This thread is not about Iraq, or the Golan Heights, or even the UN, since UN resolutions you disagree with clearly hold no meaning.]
Since you oppose all foreign occupations you obviously oppose the illegal Syrian occupation of Lebanon, so I don’t think we disagree on any core point.
Actually, under international law, the Syrian military presence in Lebanon is not a “military occupation” as the US presence in Iraq or Israel’s in the OPTs or Golan all are.
A military occupation is what occurs when an army engages in combat and as a result of that finds itself in control of territory not its own. The Syrian troop presence in Lebanon was invited in by the Lebanese government in 1976 and has been maintained under a bilateral agreement with the Lebanese government ever since. Just as, for example, the US maintains a troop presence in scores of different countries around the world under bilateral agreements with the countries involved.
You could say–and I would agree–that the Syrians have often used their presence in Lebanon to pressure the Lebanese into urging them to stay longer. The US has also certainly done that in many countries around the world where it has military bases!
This is not to say the Syrian troop presence in Lebanon– which is diminishing as I write– has in sum been a good thing. The Lebanese people themselves are deeply divided on that. But it is to say that the presence does NOT, technically speaking, constitute an “occupation”. Neither resn 1559 nor any other UN resolution refers to it as such.
Bravo, Helena! You speak the truth.
Now, if there is to be parity between the US and Syria, let the yankee go home from all his bases and torture-gulags around the world.
When the US is down to one the last country where it has troops, then let us return to the question of the Syrian troops in Lebanon.
“Since you oppose all foreign occupations you obviously oppose the illegal Syrian occupation of Lebanon…”
I repeat that the Syrian occupation of Lebanon is not illegal. It was not forced on Lebanon by bombs and guns as were the U.S. and Israeli occupations of the various countries and territories they occupy and have occupied. It was undertaken at the behest of the Lebanese government. It continued under an agreement between the governments of the two countries. That makes it legal, not illegal.
What I oppose is the extent to which the Syrians have used their presence in Lebanon to interfere politically and economically. What I would also oppose would be a refusal by Syria to withdraw if asked to by the Lebanese government. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened yet.
“Why do you continue to discuss Lebanon with the US as the sole reference point and centerpiece of discussion?”
1) I do not agree that the US is the “sole point of reference” or the “centerpiece” of the discussion.
2) The US occupation of Iraq (and the rarely mentioned occupation of Afghanistan) are part of this discussion for the simple reason that the Bush administration is vociferously and hypocritically demanding the withdrawal of Syria, despite the fact that the US has no standing to do so.
It is entirely appropriate to point out that while the Bush and Sharon administrations are demanding Syria withdraw from its legal presence in Lebanon (Helena is correct in saying it is not a military occupation), they are using brutally deadly and destructive measures to maintain unwelcome military occupations of their own. It is more than appropriate to point out that Bush insists free elections cannot take place unless the Syrians leave, while presenting the American-designed and manipulated “election” in Iraq and the recent Palestinian election, also heavily manipulated by the U.S. and Israel, as free and fair and given as a golden gift to the world by George Bush himself.
“There is nothing ‘self serving’ about my characterisations of Syrian occupation, since I am neither American or Israeli, I can’t imagine what interest of mine should be served by calling that spade a spade.”
1) Sorry I did not make it clear that I was not referring to you as being self serving, but to the Bush and Sharon administrations.
2) You did not call a spade a spade. You called a spade a rake.
“The fact that the US justifies its occupation of Iraq in exactly the same terms as the Syrians seems to be lost on you.”
What seems to be lost on you is that the US occupation of Iraq and the Syrian military presence in Lebanon are two completely different things. One is a military occupation resulting from a politically motivated war of aggression and maintained by brutality, oppression, torture, and massively deadly and destructive military force. The other is a presence initiated at the behest of the Lebanese government and maintained as a result of a bilateral agreement between the two governments.
“Since you oppose all foreign occupations you obviously oppose the illegal Syrian occupation of Lebanon, so I don’t think we disagree on any core point.”
We clearly do disagree on core points.
“Now, if there is to be parity between the US and Syria,”
Once again, this inexplicable US-centrism that informs every other comment. There is never going to be parity between Syria and the US and holding Lebanon hostage to the fulfillment of this ridiculous condition is absurd.
“When the US is down to one the last country where it has troops, then let us return to the question of the Syrian troops in Lebanon.”
Arrogant partisan reactionary nonsense. Who are you to speak for the Lebanese people suffering under the hand of Syria? Who are you to hold them hostage to your anti-American agenda?
Shirin, have you read the Taif agreement? It hardly calls for an open ended occupation/presence. Please note again those portions I cited above. Also the following clause:
the Syrian forces shall thankfully assist the forces of the legitimate Lebanese government to spread the authority of the State of Lebanon within a set period of no more than 2 years
“No more than 2 years.” Not “fifteen years,” and certainly not “indefinitely.” The occupation/presence is illegal as it explicitly violates this term of Taif and others (as well as many UN resolutions you see fit to ignore altogether, logical consequences be damned.)
It’s a case of mote and beam, vadim.
Take the stick out of your own eye before you start complaining about the speck of dust in somebody else’s.
Yankee, go home!
Dominic, as I have already stated I’m not an American. “Yankees” are not occupying Lebanon, Syrians are. You seem reflexively incapable of criticising any government other than the United States. Your entire argument is a tu quoque irrelevance.
vadim, I am also not “American”. That is to say I am not from Argentina, Mexico, Canada, Paraguay, or any other country in either of the two American continents. I am South African.
Like many people outside and even within the USA I recognise the existence of a phenomenon called Imperialism, presently particularly associated with the USA. The “Just World” that many of us look forward to will exclude such Imperialism.
The whole world is affected by Imperialism and the whole world has a view on it. It intrudes everywhere. In the case of Lebanon, the introduction of Syrian troops was partly at the behest of the imperialists, to save their clients, the Maronites. You are not likely to be able to drive out considerations of Imperialism from a discourse like this.
Imperialism is a world phenomenon. It is entirely possible that its centre may shift from the USA to Europe. Perhaps it may be a comfort to you to know that, although not to me. So much for your “US-centrism” jibe.
What is entirely impossible is that Imperialism’s centre will shift to Syria. Syria is not, and never will be, an Imperialist power. So let’s not get involved in nonsense, please.
Vadim, Taif agreement and the Syrian presence (NOT occupation, as Helena has pointed out) in Lebanon is a matter between Syria and Lebanon. George Bush and Arial Sharon are not parties to the agreement and have no standing to declare it legal or illegal or to demand Syrian withdrawal.
As to the portion of the Taif Accord you quoted, I thought my English was pretty good, but I admit I don’t see any reference of any kind there to withdrawal of Syrian forces. This excerpt seems to be addressing something else entirely, and even reading between the lines very liberally does not yield a statement about Syrian force withdrawal. So, if this is the best you have, I am afraid you have not succeeded to support your case.
I decided to take a look at the Taif Accord, because though I don’t recall any specific time requirement for Syrian withdrawal – in fact, I don’t remember much there about Syria at all – it HAS been many years since I read through it. Sure enough, I couldn’t find a single syllable requiring Syrian forces to withdraw from Lebanon. Instead, this appears to be the bottom line: “An agreement shall also be concluded by the two governments to determine the strength and duration of the presence of Syrian forces in the above-mentioned area [i.e. parts of the Beq’a area and other points deemed necessary by the parties] and to define these forces’ relationship with the Lebanese state authorities where the forces exist.”
That sounds pretty open-ended to ME Vadim, and I don’t see any other way to interpret it.
I repeat that the Syrian presence in Lebanon is not an occupation, and is entirely legal by virtue of the fact that it began not by force, but at the behest of the Lebanese government, it is not being maintained by force, but by formal negotiated written agreement between the two governments.
Dominic, the sole focus and purpose of international law is not merely to restrain US imperial ambition. It is also to guarantee other nations’ sovereign rights. It relies on the uniform rule of law, not its selective application in reaction to US power.
Shirin, this is the text you have paraphrased: “After the political reforms are approved in a constitutional manner as stipulated in the Lebanese national accord and after the deadlines specified in this accord have expired the Syrian and Lebanese Governments will decide on the redeployment of the Syrian forces in the al-Biqa’ area and the entrance to western al-Biqa’ in Dahr as-Baydar up to the Haammanah-al-Mudayri-‘Any Dara line and if necessary in other points to be specified by a joint Lebanese-Syrian military committee.”
There is a specific deadline (2 years) and a designated withdrawal point (the Biqa area.) As for the other clauses in Taif, if you don’t think two ad hoc amendments to the Lebanese constitution, an open ended military presence, a million exported “guest workers,” complete control of its political structure intrudes somewhat on Lebanese sovereignty, I’m probably not capable of convincing you.
The USA has arrogantly self-selected itself to be exempt from international law by numerous acts, and most recently by the appointment of Bolton to be their ambassador to the UN.
We all understand that, vadim. Why don’t you?
You say you are not a Yank. Fine. So why don’t you support the good old slogan: “Yankee, Go Home!”?
You are the one with double standards. Take the stick out of your own eye.
So why don’t you support the good old slogan: “Yankee, Go Home!”?
Precisely because sloganeering and childish manichean reductions are not my idea of useful analysis, especially slogans as sharply off-topic as ‘yankee go home’ in a thread about syrian occupation. I view them in fact as unethical and counterproductive. You seem oblivious to the desires of most Lebanese; your entire programme revolves around the US and opposing its interests as you perceive them. This thread is about Lebanon, and the Lebanese people, and their sovereignty and dignity, Dominic. It is not about you or your vendetta against US imperial interests or Zionists or anyone else.
I see, vadim. It’s “Syria Go Home”, good, “Yankee Go Home”, bad, accoirding to you.
Well, that’s some kind of analysis all right, but not terribly useful I’m afraid.
Vadim,
I paraphrased nothing whatsoever. I copied and pasted verbatim the text I consider pertinent to the discussion.
I said that I can find nothing in the Taif Accord that requires Syria to withdraw, and nowhere and in no way does the material you copied and pasted refer to Syrian withdrawal. It refers to redeployment to points in the Beq’a valley and other locations deemed necessary by mutual agreement. The time frame is left open ended.a
And while you were bolding text for emphasis, you missed this very critical part: “the Syrian and Lebanese Governments will decide on the redeployment…“. Once again, redeployment will be by mutual agreement.
The Taif Accord is a bilateral agreement between the governments of Syria and Lebanon. It is true that Syria has not kept to the letter of the agreement. It is also true that neither has the Lebanese government. This remains an issue between Syria and Lebanon. To the best of my knowledge neither party has requested intervention therefore the U.S., Israel, France and the UN have no standing in the matter at this time.
“Yankees” are not occupying Lebanon, Syrians are. ”
No, they are not. The Syrian presence in Lebanon is not an occupation.
“You seem oblivious to the desires of most Lebanese”
You seem oblivious to the significance of the events of the last week or so. Based on that it is obvious that the desires of most Lebanese may not be the full immediate withdrawal of Syria. The only way to determine that for certain would be by referendum. At the moment it is at least very clear that the population is strongly divided on the issue.
Sorry, I noticed something that is quite unclear in my last post:
The time frame for the maintenance of a Syrian presence in Lebanon is left open ended.
Shirin, take it up with the 1 million+ lebanese marching today against Syrian occupation. I’m sure they’d find your presence/occupation hairsplitting rather amusing.
To borrow from Dominic’s (obviously limited) political vocabulary: “SYRIA GO HOME!!!!” Syria out now! etc….
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=579140
“Freedom, sovereignty, independence”! A slogan we should all be able to live with, some of us anyway.
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&4929DFD096D103CDC2256FC40052773D
“we want the truth, we want sovereignty, we want Syria out.”
You hear that, Shirin? OUT!
Curiously, no 3m high portraits of Bush or Sharon were to be found. I wonder why that is? Nor were any buses noticed traveling north from Tel Aviv to round out the numbers.
Slogans are important. Ours was “One person one vote in a unitary state!”
I recommend that slogan to Lebanon. Would you, Vadim?
I recommend that slogan to Lebanon. Would you, Vadim?
I’d say that’s THEIR BUSINESS. Not Syrias, not Helena’s and CERTAINLY not yours!
And tomorrow the other side will bring out 1.25 million. Vadim, why do you acknowledge only those who march “against Syrian occupation” (sic)? Why do you completely refuse to acknowledge the other Lebanese who disagree with those people, and who, for very good reasons, are opposed to immediate complete Syrian withdrawal? Don’t their views and desires matter to you?
Dominic, “Yankee Go Home” is bad and “Camel Jockey Go Home” would be just as bad. Dehumanizing terms like “Yankee” are only destructive.
“A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court” – Mark Twain. I read the whole book free on the Internet.
No Inkan, there is nothing offensive about “Yankee”.
It’s the “Go Home” part you don’t like, but I think you should get used to it.
It’s what most of us inhabitants of planet earth want.
Don’t tell me what I don’t like. “Yankee” is indeed offensive as you’re using it here, to dehumanize a group of people by parroting a cliche. And I don’t recall the majority of the world voting you as their spokesman.
Good, Inkan, so you don’t mind the “Go Home”, part.
So how about suggesting a nice polite substitute for “Yankee”?
“American” is ruled out, by the way. I’m sure I don’t have to spell out why.
Vadim, for the record and so there is no misunderstanding, as best I can determine the majority of Lebanese, including those who have attended the two enormous demonstrations that have been mislabeled “pro-Syria”, are unhappy with with many aspects of Syria’s presence there, especially its meddling in Lebanese politics. As best I can determine the majority of Lebanese want at the very least for the Taif Accords (which, despite your apparent efforts to claim otherwise) make no mention whatsoever of Syrian withdrawal, to be implemented. I know for a fact that a great many – perhaps the majority – Lebanese are convinced that if the Syrians withdraw immediately and completely as George Bush is demanding another civil war is extremely likely. They have a good chance of being right, and another civil war would most certainly be worse than having some Syrian troops remain in the country. I also know for a fact that many – perhaps a majority – consider the presence of Syrian troops in southern Lebanon a necessary deterrant to further Israeli aggression. They have a good chance of being right, and repeated Israeli aggression would be worse than having some Syrian troops remain in the country.
So, the argument is not pro-Syrian vs anti-Syrian, the argument is far more nuanced than that.
Why do you completely refuse to acknowledge the other Lebanese [sic] who disagree with those people
Because large numbers of those people were Syrians!
And virtually every news agency is reporting the rally as “anti-Syrian:”
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7FBCAA58-6439-40FF-A6AE-8CCE914623D4.htm
“Thousands rally against Syria in Beirut” reports Al Jazeera.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=lebanon&btnG=Search+News
find an exception!
Vadim, I’d be wary about that claim. I haven’t really seen much evidence that the Hezbollah rallies had large numbers of Syrian nationals, and I’m not convinced by claims that Syrians were bussed in. I find Hezbollah distasteful, but their popularity is undeniable. If the Lebanese opposition is wise it has to acknowledge Hezbollah’s standing and negociate with it in order to progress on its agenda. Point (1) in Helena’s most recent post implies that some in the opposition might know that this is important.
I’m not convinced by claims that Syrians were bussed in
CNNI was interviewing them on the air the day of the rally, if that helps. Look, I’m sure Hezbollah has a sizeable following, but I strongly doubt they represent anything close to a majority. And I think the majoritarian/confessional debate is a smokescreen, so long as VOTING is not restricted by denomination (ie so long as Muslim candidates are voted upon by Christians and vice versa.) Sunni and Druze are calling for Syria to leave as well. Jumblatt himself called Hezbollah a “frightening militia that can be used against us” and a “Syrian pressure levy.”
“Because large numbers of those people were Syrians!”
No, large numbers were ALLEGED to be Syrians in a desperate effort by the “opposition” and those allied with it to discredit that demonstration.
“And virtually every news agency is reporting the rally as “anti-Syrian:” ”
I am not illiterate or stupid, Vadim. I know today’s demonstration was organized by the “opposition”, so of course it will be reported as anti-Syrian. I am referring to the demonstration on Tuesday, and another one held on very short notice yesterday in which demonstrators showed their ID cards to prove they are not Syrian.
Why are you refusing to acknowledge the very large numbers of Lebanese who are opposed to the immediate and complete withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon, and who are asking instead for full implementation of the Taif Accords?
“CNNI was interviewing them on the air the day of the rally”
Well, THERE’s positive proof!
“Look, I’m sure Hezbollah has a sizeable following, but I strongly doubt they represent anything close to a majority.”
And many others, who are far closer to Lebanon that you are, some of whom are experts in the politics of the area, and not all of whom have the prejudices you appear to have, believe there is a good chance they do represent a majority, or at least very close to it. We may find out in time, depending on who manages to interfere with things, and to what extent.
“Jumblatt himself called Hezbollah a “frightening militia that can be used against us” and a “Syrian pressure levy.””
Jumblatt is and has always been a bloody corrupt opportunist who blows with the wind. He will make a 180 degree turnaround in 30 seconds if he thinks he will gain by it.
who are far closer to Lebanon that you are
I read every English language Lebanese news source I can find, and I correspond regularly with dozens of people close to the situation there, including 5 or 6 native Lebanese who live there now and quite a few expats who have lived there within the past 5 years. Everyone has prejudices of course (including you, believe it or not.) I also read Helena’s pieces regularly, and Juan Cole among other non-Lebanese mideast followers.
So are you Lebanese? Posting from Lebanon? Your “expertise” on lebanon (or mine) as a foreign observer is, happily, irrelevant to this discussion. There are plenty of amply informed Lebanese natives happy to share their opinions and personal knowledge with me. They are there in Beirut now: you (I am guessing) are not.
I freely acknowledge there are large numbers who want the Syrians to stay. I just think the numbers wanting them to leave are probably greater. As you say, the only way to settle the issue conclusively and fairly is via referendum. But Juan Cole is “an expert in the politics of the area” and he seems puts the Shi’ite population around 40%, of which only a fraction can be counted as backing Hezbollah (considering Amal & independent secular Shi’ites in the mix.) The remaining factions all want Syria out.
By the way, one thing your Taif agreement states with utter clarity is that Hezbollah needs to be disarmed. I am rather curious (given the occupation that isn’t, withdrawal that isn’t, sovereignty that isn’t etc etc) to see what manner of logical contortionism absolves them of this legal duty. Care to give it a try? (For extra credit, try not to use the words “Israel” or “United States”.)