Saturday, October 02, 2004

Tug of War over Lebanon

In his article "Syria: Time for Pragmatism and Statesmanship," Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid argues that: "For decades, it was Syria’s pragmatism that set it apart from other revolutionary Arab countries and enabled Damascus to come out unscathed from many difficult situations." After reviewing the interesting history of Syria's twists and turns to navigate the international obstacle course it has confronted over the last 20 years, al-Rashid councils Bashar al-Asad to get limbered up and ready to do the pretzel.

David R. Sands of the Washington Times has a good article on how "Israel and Syria battle over U.S. ties." At the center of their struggle is resolution 1559 and the struggle over Lebanon, the legitimate use of force, and the Golan. (Full disclosure: He quotes me.)

Most world papers cover Kofi Annan's much-awaited assessment of Syria's response to resolution 1559 demanding respect of Lebanese sovereignty. "Syria failed," is how most read the Annan's 17-page report. Annan said. "I cannot certify that these requirements have been met," Annan wrote. "The Syrian military and intelligence apparatus in Lebanon has not been withdrawn as of 30 September, 2004." Syria claims it's troops are stationed in Lebanon by the invitation of the Lebanese government, which is true. The UN says Lebanon is not free because Syria can manipulate it, which is also true. So what is the UN going to do about it? Annan finessed. He said there would be another follow up report in a week. The US is pushing hard to put some teeth into resolution 1559, and Annan is giving Washington extra time to see if it can agree with France on wording that will win UN backing. The US would like a permanent oversight committee, which would report regularly on the situation. Syria will pull out all the stops to avoid such a permanent thorn in its side. France occupied Lebanon for 28 years, Israel for several in the 1980s, and the US sent American troops into Lebanon twice during the past century in order to keep Lebanon out of Damascus' orbit and in the Western camp.

Syria may indeed be ready to make some small concessions in order to avoid paying a higher price down the line, but they probably won't be in Lebanon. Although, "the Syrian authorities have told UN special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen that they consider the Kofi Annan report honest and balanced." Sulaiman Haddad, a parliament member and former deputy foreign minister, said that solving the Lebanon problem is attached to solving the Middle East problem as a whole." George Jabbour, a former adviser of the late Syrian President Hafez Assad, said Annan's report was "tough," but "The Lebanese government is a legitimate government and the presence of Syrian forces can be decided only by the governments of Lebanon and Syria, not by the United Nations," Jabbour said.

US attempts to work with France for a Lebanon resolution may have been jeopardized, however. Didier Julia, an MP for French President Jacques Chirac's ruling party, said his efforts to release two French reporters kidnapped in Iraq failed after US troops opened fire on the convoy attempting to bring them out of Iraq en route to Syria. Six of the French journalists' Iraqi escorts were killed in the US bombing barrage near the Syrian border. Now the reporters disapeared back into the desert fastness. French authorities refuse to comment on the bombing, but they can't be very happy with the Freedom Fry eaters. (update: Sunday 10/3/04, This story appears to be fabricated. Le Monde has a front page article, "Mission Julia : l'hypothèse de la supercherie apparaît L'"opération de libération" des deux otages français détenus en Irak menée par le député français Didier Julia n'a peut-être été qu'un leurre." The Americans deny that they attacked the convoy. There doesn't seem to have been a convoy at all. See al-Nahar for added twists to the story. The head of French intelligence for the region seems to be traveling to Damascus and Amman to straighten things out.)

Meanwhile, the seriousness of the tug of war over Lebanon was driven home on Friday, when a car bomb nearly killed a Lebanese politician opposed to Syria's domination of his country. The intended victim was Druze deputy Marwan Hamadeh, one of four ministers to resign along with Walid Jumblatt in early September to protest the Lebanese parliament's three-year extension of pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud. The blame game has begun. Opponents of Syria do not doubt that it was a message from Lebanese and Syrian intelligence, angry over Jumblatt's vociferous opposition. Hizbullah and Syrian officials blame the bombing variously on Israel or the "context of resolution 1559." They have rushed to Hamadeh's bedside to pay their condolences.

Another storm cloud appeared on Syria's horizon, this time coming from Jordan. Officials of the pro-US Hashemite Kingdom are accusing Damascus of complicity in letting al-Qaida type jihadists infiltrate into the Kingdom in order to punish Jordan for its pro-West policies.

Rana Sabbagh-Gargour writes in the Daily Star that:

Jordanian authorities became alarmed earlier this year, when they detected what some called a "disturbing change in pattern," in terms of the profile of infiltrators, types of weapons and their final destination.

"In the past, infiltrators sent by radical Palestinian groups used Jordan to cross into the West Bank, carrying rifles and hand grenades, to stage attacks against Israeli targets as part of resistance operations condoned by these factions," said another source. "But in the first few months of this year, Jordanian authorities began detecting a worrying change in pattern, as several infiltrators were caught carrying more sophisticated weapons, such as anti-tank, and surface-to-surface missiles." "And they told interrogators that they were sent by Al-Qaeda to attack Jordanian and Western targets in the kingdom, to avenge Jordan's close ties with Washington, and its full support for the global 'war on terror,'" he said.

They also reportedly told authorities that their movement into Jordan was being facilitated by some members of the Syrian military intelligence.

Jordan is also demanding the return of some 125 kilometers of land that was "occupied" in batches after the Syrian Army rolled into Jordanian territory in 1970's, to assist PLO guerrillas fighting the Jordanian Army.

Only recently, with "Syria subject to U.S. and Israeli pressure," have Jordanian officials been emboldened to raise the topic of its "silent crisis" with Syria, writes Sabbagh-Gargour. But Jordanian officials are quick to make a distinction between President Bashar Assad and the old guard surrounding him, charging that the latter are trying to prevent a working relationship from developing among the new generation of leaders in Syria and Jordan. With such formulas, the Jordanians are keeping the door wide open for a diplomatic and face-saving solution. Due to strong friends, good timing, and cunning statecraft, Jordan may transform itself into a unintended beneficiary of resolution 1559. Once again the scrappy dynast in the desert may outdo the Lion of Latakia.

Another example of the difficulties Syria is likely to face in the coming months was exposed by the report a few days ago that Ismail Mohammed al-Khatib of the Bekaa suffered a heart attack in prison while being interrogated for his part in plotting with Islamist militant Ahmed Mikati. The two were charged a week ago with being part of an al-Qaida cell, which planned car-bomb attacks on the Italian and Ukrainian embassies in Beirut as well as the mid-city Justice Palace. The victim's enraged countrymen in the Bekaa went on a rampage, smashing and ransacking customs and police stations and blocking the Beirut- Damascus highway with burning tires in protest of what they claimed was his murder under torture. Samir Qasir in today's al-Nahar points out that Damascus' deadly game of encouraging jihadists in Iraq while repressing them at home is bound to backfire and build resentment.

Matein Khalid, a Dubai-based investment banker, writing in the Khaleej Times argues that the US should engage Syria in serious negotiations and not let its strategic vision in the region be blinkered by freedom based ideology. He argues convincingly that Syria is plyable and that it is important for "the US to engage Bashar in the geopolitical souk he knows so well." "Make deals, not war with Syria," he advises.


At 3/02/2005 02:39:00 PM, Anonymous Ahmed Al Nabulsi said...

Why France killed alHariri –

Lebanon 24/2/05

Ahmed Abdul Kareem Al Nabulsi

It was the U.S. who had brought and financed al-Hariri from Saudi, working in direct opposition to the mainly French backed Christian groups such as the Brigadiers, Phalange and 'Quwat al Lubnan'. By financially investing in and solving the nation’s immediate problems of education, food, employment and economy, the U.S. helped al-Hariri attain broad popular support. Furthermore the U.S. made al-Hariri directly responsible for the French backed opposition and Christian groups to rapidly lose their influence within Lebanon and consequently be deemed as the 'persistent causes of instability and economic stagnation.' Thus the French fully knew that al-Hariri’s supposed anti-Syria stance, resignation as Prime Minister and plans to form a new opposition party were under U.S. guidance. By using al-Hariri’s popularity and setting up a new opposition party loyal to the U.S., al-Hariri was concocting a strategy for the May elections to have the Lebanese detract away from one U.S. faction (Lahoud’s government) to another (Hariri’s new opposition party). Thus America’s hegemony would be maintained while at the same time further eradicating any French influence as well as withdrawing the Syrian troops in line with the U.S. instigated Taif agreement. The French had even acknowledged al-Hariri's insidious role through their Batroun MP Butros Harb (who is also a member of the Christian opposition Qornet Shehwan Gathering) when he commented "I think Hariri's position is still between the opposition and the government".

Accordingly the French tried to establish a strong opposition to both Hariri and Lahoud with its own man in France, Michel Aoun. But on Wednesday, February 9th, the exiled former army commander was informed that he would not be allowed back into Lebanon until May - after the parliamentary elections. Thus the delay of his trial by the Lebanese government was a deliberate ploy by the U.S. to thwart any potential French aspirations. This also came when after only a few days prior Aoun had held talks with the Beirut candidate and member of the Christian opposition Qornet Shehwan and the Gathering's Gebran Tueni to discuss opposition alliances for the elections. Stated Aoun, "We are definitely making efforts to have a joint opposition list in Achrafieh, Beirut, with Tueni, in addition to nationwide lists with all the opposition." Thus it was apparent that the French were planning a serious attempt at retrieving some influence within Lebanon. In an indirect response to this attempt Condoleeza Rice commented during a Paris News conference on Saturday February 12th, "It is not acceptable that Syria would continue to be a place from which terrorists are funded and helped to destroy the very fragile peace process in the Middle East or to change the dynamics of events in Lebanon." The latter part of this comment was a clear warning to the French not to interfere within Lebanon's internal situation…but the French had other ideas.

Al-Hariri's assassination by France was aimed at preventing the American plans for a U.S. loyal opposition group and instead paving the way forward for a French faction to take the lead in the fight against the U.S. Lahoud government. Only days after the assassination former prime minister Gen. Michel Aoun audaciously announced from France, that he would return from exile before the parliamentary elections to launch his own candidacy. Even on the day of the assassination Jaques Chirac instantly called for an international investigation swiftly before the U.S. or the U.N had made any official comment. It was apparent that the French desperately wanted to internationalize the situation thus focusing on the remaining opposition groups in Lebanon (who still have strong links to the French) and the sectarian rifts within Lebanon. In response the U.S. tried hard not to make any official accusations and played down the 'international investigation' by referring the matter to the United Nations knowing that making the issue boil over would only re-emerge sectarian differences the U.S. had tried so hard to resolve.

In addition the French have led the calls for an immediate Syrian withdrawal by pushing for the international accusation of Syria. This is a clear attempt by the French to disrupt the U.S. plan for the region of which al-Hariri was to play a pivotal role. As for this U.S. plan:

Firstly it must be noted that it was the U.S. themselves that were behind the Syrian intervention in Lebanon. Maurice Dipper, Henry Kissinger's aide in Middle-Eastern affairs, stated: "We invited the Syrians to enter Lebanon; had it not been for us, they would not have entered. I personally partook in the decision of making them enter Lebanon and in the agreement according to which they entered." The United States had used the Syrian presence in Lebanon to maintain a sectarian equilibrium, thus preventing one sect from intimidating the others. It was also aimed at undermining the political milieu in Lebanon, who had collaborated with France and Britain, thus giving the upper hand to the political milieu loyal to America. Thus the recent calls from the U.S. for the withdrawal of the same Syrian forces it pushed to intervene are for several reasons:

a) Firstly the U.S. need to convince the 'Israeli' public opinion of peace with Syria in order for the final stages of the peace process to go through as well as to solve the issue of the Golan Heights and eliminate the Syrian (U.S.) backing of the Hizbollah.

b) Furthermore a Syrian withdrawal in accordance with UN resolution 1559 will further pressure and emphasize to 'Israel' to act concurrently upon their own UN resolutions and avoid being seen as the obstacle of ‘peace’.

c) Thirdly the U.S. acknowledges that the composition of Lebanon has changed and is no longer a Christian majority. The U.S. therefore desires a Syrian withdrawal to challenge and change the ‘National Pact’, (the unwritten agreement on the distribution of power which is in line with French interests and gives the Presidency to the Christians). The U.S. vision is for the Lebanese to focus on adopting democracy and not sectarianism as a basis for the ruling system thus in turn consolidating further the American influence and culture within the region. One of the ways to achieve this and accordingly remove an obstacle to the Peace process is to push for some of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon to be fully integrated. With the U.S. fearing opposition from ‘Israel’ with regards to footing the bill for the return of the Palestinian refugees, the U.S. desire some of the Palestinian refugees being part of Lebanon thus changing the mainly French backed Christian percentage to a greater Muslim majority. Of course this would destroy any French aspirations of ever having any future role within Lebanon. Consequently the U.S. instigated Syrian withdrawal would have left al-Hariri in power to continue loyally serving his master.

What the French have achieved by assassinating al-Hariri, is that the U.S. no longer has a main opposition rival to Lahoud. Thus should the French push for an immediate Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon it will leave the U.S. having to rethink certain issues and plans. Even the U.S. response to this is clear as they try and use stall tactics by having Syria suddenly referring to the Al – Taif agreement, which calls for the withdrawal of the troops but doesn't give any immediate date for it. What this assassination showcases is that while George Bush is touring Europe, the back slapping and smiles cannot hide the deep rifts between Europe and America. Even Britain with its Foreign Minister Jack Straw commented on how Syria was under "high suspicion" thus adding to the burden of how the United States will allow a Syrian withdrawal while at the same time consolidating its influence. Al-Hariri's death was the retaliation of an attempted major operation to radically change Lebanon and remove all of the Christian opposition and in turn all of the European influence. It was this American cause that al-Hariri was burnt alive in a ball of blazing fire for. In a recent interview Baha Hariri (son of al-Hariri) stated in Arabic, "everyone knows who killed al-Hariri". He then paused and deliberately continued in French, "isn't it obvious?"

At 4/28/2005 10:34:00 AM, Anonymous ahmed al nabulsi said...

Voice of Ummah
by Ahmed Abdul Kareem al Nabulsi

America's final push for the U.N. to represent the New World Order

Kofi Annan's 63 page proposal to introduce a host of sweeping reforms to the United Nations on March 21st 2005, is the culmination of decades of planning and strategic manoeuvring alongside dirty Mafioso tactics by the United States of America. The primary objective of these insidiously U.S. pushed reforms is to eradicate any remaining presence Europe has within the international situation. Epitomising the American ideal, Bush's current nomination for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, boldly stated back in 1994: 'that there is no such thing as the United Nations and that here is an international community that occasionally can only be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States.' Thus America views her role and that of the former 'great' powers of Europe, Russia and China in the New World Order clearly – America leads and dictates while the rest of the "world including Europe" must follow.

The Entrapment of the Security General

The final status in the achievement of this objective is now approaching after a year of intense American instigated pressure upon the United Nations. The exposing of the fraudulent Iraqi oil-for-food program, sex abuse by peacekeepers in Congo as well as the verbal attacks of 'ineptness' and 'irrelevance' were accompanied with the U.S.' audacious questioning of the need for the U.N. to exist. Just recently on April 16th 2005, Condoleeza Rice stated, "The United Nations cannot survive if it doesn't reform". Incredibly what many have seemingly forgotten is that all of these scandals were enacted or overlooked under the auspices of America. Even the Secretary General was personally vilified by the exposure of his son’s links to the oil-for-food scandal. Ironically while the world called for Annan’s resignation, it was America that continued to support him. Thus sending a clear message to the Secretary General the extent to which his career was dependent upon the U.S. Consequently it was not long after, that Kofi Annan announced his proposal for reforms, which when scrutinised carefully are in direct accordance with the United States’ vision and plan to consolidate its international hegemony for the forthcoming decades.

Kofi Annan’s entrapment and predicament is a style often used by the United States as it has mastered how to monopolise on the debauched nature of Capitalism. Numerous incidents have showcased how the United States traps individuals via bribery and clandestine incentives which in turn are later used to blackmail them to activities within American interests. For example the 'Israelis' with Omri Sharon (son of Ariel) and Benjamin Netanyahu are just a few of the individuals who have suffered from accepting American instigated kickbacks which have come back to haunt them and their political aspirations. Hence when Kofi Annan submitted comprehensively to the American will of proposing reforms, he still couldn't contain some of his frustration while at the same time indicate how the United States themselves were fully behind the oil for food scandals. On 15th April 2005, Annan stated, “They (America & Britain) were the ones who had interdiction, possibly they were also the ones who knew exactly what was going on, and the countries themselves decided to close their eyes to smuggling..”

Removing the Veto & Consolidating U.S. dominance

As for the many proposals that are in line with American interests the following is the most fundamental i.e. The removal of veto power from the Security Council's permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France) alongside an expanded, more representative Security Council. Since the United Nations rejected the 1952 U.S. proposal for the right to veto to be removed, the Americans made persistent attempts to portray the veto as ineffective and a regular cause of stagnation. By cleverly utilising its own veto to consistently stall any international initiations made by the Europeans, the United States successfully managed to marginalise the Security Council and in turn the role of the European states. Furthermore the U.S. has endeavoured to show the world via its recent unilateral decisions, that the right to veto status, which puts the permanent members on a par with America, is no longer befitting of the reality. Therefore with the inevitable removal of the right to veto, the so called 'World War II Allies' will be reduced to being on equal terms with nations such as Brazil, India and Australia. This would consequently further reduce what international clout they have left while simultaneously consolidating America's domination of the International situation. It is this American vision that Kofi Annan referred to when claiming "a change in the Council's composition is needed to make it more broadly representative of the international community as a whole, as well as of the geopolitical realities of today, and thereby more legitimate in the eyes of the world".
It is also evident that the proposal to expand the Security Council will eventually evolve into more U.N. decisions being made by a majority vote from the General Assembly. This would provide the United States with unsurpassed control of the U.N. with the majority of General Assembly members being loyal or affiliated to American interests. This agenda was best summarized by 'Captain Africa' himself, American lickspittle Muammar al-Qathafi when he stated on 11th April 2005, "genuine reform in the UN, (that) can only be achieved through democracy in this international body, which requires shifting Security Council powers to the General Assembly, in which all world countries enjoy permanent and equal membership". Even the Security Council itself has been targeted for including nations which were once colonized by the 'Allies', thus placing them on an equivalent with their former demeaned colonial masters. As Annan clearly mentioned in his report, "..bring into the decision-making process countries more representative of the broader membership, especially of the developing world….. They should increase the democratic and accountable nature of the body"

U.S. encourages China & Russia's economies & diminishes their international aspirations.

While the former European Allies may be the primary target of America and her initiated U.N. reforms, it is also evident that China will also be severely affected. Through the eventual accession of India and Japan into the Security Council, America will succeed in diminishing the role and status of China within the Asian region. By removing the right to veto, China will soon be considered no different internationally to its Asian counterparts. Even the American fabricated North Korean missile crisis has served its purpose of inflating the tiny communist nation's significance on a par with China. This was achieved by making North Korea a focus of American foreign policy, consequently giving it precedence over other vital issues within the region especially those concerning China e.g. the unification with Taiwan. Moreover America's tenacious attempts to establish stable trade relations between the once warring Asian nations is aimed at building China into a powerful economic bloc while simultaneously removing any future aspirations the Chinese may have in influencing the International situation or the Asian region. China's accession into the W.T.O. as well as the numerous oil deals provided by the U.S. (Sudan being an example) is ample evidence for this ominous ploy.

As for Russia her current aspirations have also been confined to merely building herself into an economic bloc. With the United States slowly usurping influence from Russia over the former Soviet states e.g. Ukraine and Georgia, Russia is helplessly being pushed towards having to establish stronger economic ties with Europe. A vivid example is the recent gas deal between Germany's BASF and Russia's Gazprom which incorporates a 1’187-kilometer gas pipeline that will deliberately bypass Ukraine and Belarus despite more than 90 per cent of Russia’s current natural gas exports going through these two ex-Soviet countries. In order to safeguard her own economic interests, Russia will inevitably have to build further economic ties with Europe as she continues to be isolated by her former Soviet states that are now affiliating themselves with the U.S. Therefore the forthcoming U.N. reforms and subsequent removal of the right to veto will only further enhance Russia's rapid decline into being deemed as just another European state.

Just this week Kofi Annan again reiterated his push for reforms when he stated," The Security Council should be broadly representative of the realities of power in today's world". The reality of power in the world today is that the United States of America is aiming to create a Capitalist Empire in which she is the sole governor. The former 'great powers' are expected to watch, follow and pick up the crumbs of America's imperialist leftovers. So far, that is exactly what they have been doing. - صوت الأمة - الإدراك – Islam vs Kufr

At 7/04/2005 09:59:00 AM, Anonymous Abu Abdul Aziz al Sheikh said...


by Abu Abdul Aziz al Sheikh

Islam vs Kufr –
صوت الأمة –
الإدراك -

In an interview on Al Jazeera television, only a few days prior to his assassination, former Communist party leader Georges Hawi exposed several of America's political secrets...

Firstly he revealed that the 1977 assassination of Walid Jumblatt's father, the British agent Kamal Jumblatt was by none other than Rifaat Al Assad. He stated, "We knew for a long time who killed Kamal Jumblatt. And today I am going to disclose in a responsible manner the name of the killer. It is a Syrian Leader, and I am sure, the killing took place without the knowledge of Hafez Al Assad and this information is clear and very well known. Dr. Rifaat Al Assad is behind the murder of Jumblatt." It is well known that Rifaat Al Assad is just as subservient and loyal towards America as his brother Hafez was, thus Hawi's correct accusation was a direct finger at the U.S.

Himself a British agent, Hawi even elaborated on how the French, British and Americans were regularly assassinating each others' agents and how he desperately tried to rescue his British counterpart, Jumblatt from the U.S. targeting, "In Lebanon, assassinations were never executed by one party without the knowledge of others, but these parties took turns. One day one covers up and the other executes and visa versa. We failed to find at the time a safe haven for Kamal Jumblatt,…".

In addition Hawi openly exposed how farcical the U.S. pushed Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon was, as it was the Americans themselves who had organized the Lebanese occupation in the first place. He even elaborated upon how the U.S. guaranteed Syria's safety from 'Israel' prior to their troops marching into Lebanon, "The United States was not the only country that approved of Syria's invasion of Lebanon, Israel too. King Hussein of Jordan, met with the former Israeli PM Menahem Begin at the Israeli embassy in London and obtained Israeli approval. The King directly informed Hafez Al Assad of Israeli decision as a guarantee, that Israel will not attack Syria once Syria invades Lebanon".

Georges Hawi had falsely assumed that being out of the political sphere and witnessing the Syrian withdrawal somehow made it acceptable and safe for him to share some of his knowledge of the insidious nature of America. He was wrong. In fact his timely assassination was a message from America to all those within the Lebanese old guard and political mainstream to keep their 'knowledge' to themselves or face the same consequences. Indeed this should serve as a reminder that the Syrian withdrawal was not the removal of the real tyrannical regime within Lebanon, rather they were merely following orders, orders from the United States of America. As the French agent Michel Aoun stated upon Hawi's assassination, "we can't blame [President Emile] Lahoud every
time someone gets hit. Hawi's relations were not ordinary and are broad, whether they are international or regional. It is more likely that he was murdered on that political basis."

The U.S. occupation of Lebanon continues, only this time in a far more perilous manner as the masses are blinded into believing they are liberated. True liberation can only come to the land of Lebanon by restoring the law of Allah SWT and allying itself to the rest of the Islamic Ummah as an Islamic State. Only then will all of the sectarian strife be eradicated to the annals of barbaric history where it truly belongs, and only then can the colonial aspirations of America be challenged.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home