US misses its cue on Mideast stage
US misses its cue on Mideast stage
By Quentin Peel
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: September 14 2006 03:00 | Last updated: September 14 2006 03:00
Against the odds, peace in Lebanon seems to be holding. There have been violations, including the Israeli commando raid in the Beka'a valley on August 19. According to Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, there has been little visible activity by Hizbollah militias in the south of the country.
On the whole, Mr Annan says in his report to the Security Council yesterday, "the parties seem determined to uphold the agreement" set out by the UN in resolution 1701. By the weekend the UN peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon should have reached 5,000 personnel, at which time the understanding is that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) will go home.
Efforts are being made to enforce an international arms embargo, to prevent weapons and explosives reaching anyone except the Lebanese government's forces. European navies are providing a coastal patrol, Germany has sent in airport security experts and equipment to monitor the land border with Syria, and the Syrian government has promised to step up its own border patrols.
The deal could easily fall apart. If Iran and Syria, as Hizbollah's principal backers, decided to undermine the agreement by pouring arms back into the country, it could unravel. If Israel reverts to its attempts to kidnap or assassinate Hizbollah leaders, the same might happen. But it seems that neither side really wants to go back to fighting.
This brief and tragic war, which cost 1,187 lives in Lebanon, and 160 in Israel and turned more than 1m Lebanese into refugees, took everyone by surprise. It showed just how easily the region's simmering conflicts can explode into open warfare. It has wrecked the Lebanese economy, just as that country was starting to reap the benefit of its democratic revolution. And it has demonstrated to Israel that military power alone cannot provide its protection. In an asymmetric contest with the Hizbollah guerrillas, the mighty IDF failed to cripple or wipe out its opponents, as it had promised.
But can the peace in Lebanon provide a "window of opportunity" for a wider peace in the region? That seems to be the favourite phrase right now of every high-powered visitor, from Mr Annan himself to Tony Blair, the prime minister, and Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister.
Mr Annan certainly seems convinced that the peace process must and can be relaunched, to tackle the outstanding issues in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Syria. He hopes to get something moving even in his last four months in office as secretary-general.
"In order to prevent a resurgence of violence and bloodshed, the underlying causes of conflict in the region must be addressed," he said in his report to the Security Council. "Other crises cannot be ignored, especially in the occupied Palestinian territory, as they are all interlinked."
Mr Blair seems to be determined on much the same, to make a relaunch of the peace process a top priority of his twilight months in office.
But are they just the pious hopes of actors who are about to leave the stage? For one vital element still seems to be missing from any vigorous effort to bring all the contestants to the table: US engagement.
While Mr Annan, and half the foreign ministers of Europe, have been touring the Middle East to bring help after the Lebanon conflict, the silence from Washington has been extraordinary.
The Arab League has now put its own plan on the table, to get full backing from the UN Security Council for a relaunch of the peace process. Few give it much hope, unless the US gets engaged once more. Even the date for a Security Council debate, September 21, has yet to be finalised because of US hesitation.
In theory, Mr Annan and Mr Blair are quite right. The shock of Lebanon should provide a "window of opportunity" for a wider peace. In practice, Israel remains sceptical, and the US simply disengaged. It is not that they have an alternative policy. They seem to have no policy at all.
By Quentin Peel
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: September 14 2006 03:00 | Last updated: September 14 2006 03:00
Against the odds, peace in Lebanon seems to be holding. There have been violations, including the Israeli commando raid in the Beka'a valley on August 19. According to Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, there has been little visible activity by Hizbollah militias in the south of the country.
On the whole, Mr Annan says in his report to the Security Council yesterday, "the parties seem determined to uphold the agreement" set out by the UN in resolution 1701. By the weekend the UN peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon should have reached 5,000 personnel, at which time the understanding is that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) will go home.
Efforts are being made to enforce an international arms embargo, to prevent weapons and explosives reaching anyone except the Lebanese government's forces. European navies are providing a coastal patrol, Germany has sent in airport security experts and equipment to monitor the land border with Syria, and the Syrian government has promised to step up its own border patrols.
The deal could easily fall apart. If Iran and Syria, as Hizbollah's principal backers, decided to undermine the agreement by pouring arms back into the country, it could unravel. If Israel reverts to its attempts to kidnap or assassinate Hizbollah leaders, the same might happen. But it seems that neither side really wants to go back to fighting.
This brief and tragic war, which cost 1,187 lives in Lebanon, and 160 in Israel and turned more than 1m Lebanese into refugees, took everyone by surprise. It showed just how easily the region's simmering conflicts can explode into open warfare. It has wrecked the Lebanese economy, just as that country was starting to reap the benefit of its democratic revolution. And it has demonstrated to Israel that military power alone cannot provide its protection. In an asymmetric contest with the Hizbollah guerrillas, the mighty IDF failed to cripple or wipe out its opponents, as it had promised.
But can the peace in Lebanon provide a "window of opportunity" for a wider peace in the region? That seems to be the favourite phrase right now of every high-powered visitor, from Mr Annan himself to Tony Blair, the prime minister, and Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister.
Mr Annan certainly seems convinced that the peace process must and can be relaunched, to tackle the outstanding issues in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Syria. He hopes to get something moving even in his last four months in office as secretary-general.
"In order to prevent a resurgence of violence and bloodshed, the underlying causes of conflict in the region must be addressed," he said in his report to the Security Council. "Other crises cannot be ignored, especially in the occupied Palestinian territory, as they are all interlinked."
Mr Blair seems to be determined on much the same, to make a relaunch of the peace process a top priority of his twilight months in office.
But are they just the pious hopes of actors who are about to leave the stage? For one vital element still seems to be missing from any vigorous effort to bring all the contestants to the table: US engagement.
While Mr Annan, and half the foreign ministers of Europe, have been touring the Middle East to bring help after the Lebanon conflict, the silence from Washington has been extraordinary.
The Arab League has now put its own plan on the table, to get full backing from the UN Security Council for a relaunch of the peace process. Few give it much hope, unless the US gets engaged once more. Even the date for a Security Council debate, September 21, has yet to be finalised because of US hesitation.
In theory, Mr Annan and Mr Blair are quite right. The shock of Lebanon should provide a "window of opportunity" for a wider peace. In practice, Israel remains sceptical, and the US simply disengaged. It is not that they have an alternative policy. They seem to have no policy at all.
posted by Carlos T Mock @ 10:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home