Bush trying to entangle NATO allies in Lebanese strife?
I was trying to think through why the Bush White House and its Lebanese allies have been acting in such a provocative, escalatory way in Lebanon in recent weeks. There is no way the pro-US forces in Lebanon could ever hope to "win" a civil war if the country should indeed be tipped over the brink into one.
Actually, the history of the past 33 years in the country should prove that no-one wins if there is a civil war there.
So why do the US and its Lebanese allies currently seem so risk-happy?
Then it struck me. There are 15,000 UN troops, most of them from NATO countries, currently deployed in the south of the country; and most of them aren't doing very much there. (The peace is kept between Israel and Hizbullah much more by the deterrent power that they exert towards each other than by UNIFIL's lightly armed peacekeepers, as I wrote here, a long time ago.) But if a civil war should suddenly threaten to engulf the whole of Lebanon, maybe the Bushists would seek to get UNIFIL's mandate suddenly enlarged, so that its troops could intervene at short notice, and in support of the Lebanese side that the Bushists judge to be "legitimate"?
Obviously, I have no way of knowing if this is their plan. If it is, it would be a plan fraught with large numbers of dangers and uncertainties. For one thing, it's by no means certain the UN Security Council-- or indeed, most of the troop-contributing countries-- would ever agree to such an enlargement of the UNIFIL mandate. But if entangling UNIFIL in a Lebanese civil war is not part of the Bushists' plan, then what are they doing acting in such an escalatory and self-defeating way there?
What a frightening thought, there is an absurd sense to your idea, in the shadow of the present US administration.
I agree that it is curious that there have been so many assassinations, but Lebanon has not tipped over into civil war. It is evident that there is no will for war, whatever the provocation.
"the Lebanese side that the Bushists judge to be "legitimate"?"
Wasn't the current Lebanese government voted into office via democratic elections?
Doesn't that make it legimate, without parenthesis, until the next election?
Consider :
a)That UNIFIL now look to Hizballah as their eyes and ears against the attacks from the Sunni extremist groups
b)That UNIFIL witnessed first hand what Hizballah did to the Israelis
c)The history of what happens to Western armies that try to intervene on one side or the other
Taking the above into account, any country that agrees to "intervene" on the side of the March 14th alliance would be very foolish or very arrogant.
Nevertheless, the synchronicity of statements and the emboldened attitude defenitely means somethings up.
Was Mughniyehs assasination the first salvo in the "are hands are not tied"?
No bb. Surely you are aware of the rather arcane rules and conventions governing the Lenanese political system. In Palestine, on the other hand...
Wasn't the a Lebanese election held in 2005 by direct vote and universal suffrage? Didn't Hizbullah contest it? Isn't the next election due next year? What is it that raises questions over the legitimacy of the government? On what grounds is it unconstitutional?
not exactly bb. The Lebanese political system works on a secterian basis. Each voting area has a particular number of mps assigned to each sect and people vote in a "list" of people. Therefore Hizballah can "endorse" non-Hizballah candidates on their list.
Hizballah allied with the Hariris and Jumblatt as a sign of national unity. This meant that Hizballah voters were also voting for Hariris alliance. Without these votes they would never have had a majority in parliament. In return for this they recieved certain promises, esp. about their status amd their arms.
What raises questions about their legitimacy is that the Taif Accord (the unofficial CURRENT constitution) demands that each sect be represented in the cabinet. Since the opposition withdrawl there have been no Shia in cabinet, hence it is unconstitutional.
Hope that helps expalin the most complicated, byzantine electoral system in the known universe
Thanks for that mo, but what was it is about the VOLUNTARY resignation of 5 Shia ministers from Cabinet that rendered the government unconstitutional? Did the withdrawal of these ministers deprive the government of its majority (a) in cabinet and (b) in the parliament? If so, then a new election would have to be held, wouldn't it? If not, if the lawfully elected government still commands a majority in parliament, how can the government not be legitimate?
I understand the political point Hizbullah and its allies are pursuing, but the question of the legitimacy of the government in a democracy does not rest on the opinions of one political faction or another, but on its constitution. Were the UN monitored elections in 2005 unlawful?
"If the lawfully elected government still commands a majority in parliament, how can the government not be legitimate?"
When enough anti-Syrian parliamentarians are assasinated, their majority will be gone.
bb,
The withdrawl did not deprive the govt. of a majority either in cabinet or parliament and the elections of 2005 were not disputed by any party. And yes the legitimacy rests on the constitution which is currently framed around the Taef Accord. That accord states that each sect must be represented in the cabinet. Therefore, the opposition argues that the govt. is illegitimate as the Shia are not represented (even if their withdrawl was voluntary). The govt. could replace them with Shia who support them but that would be a very dangerous move as the Shia are the biggest single sect in the country and the opposition groups represent 95% of them. Add to the mix the fact that I stated above that the majority has its majority only as a consequence of its alliance with HA in 2005 and things get very complicated.
bb,
The withdrawl did not deprive the govt. of a majority either in cabinet or parliament and the elections of 2005 were not disputed by any party. And yes the legitimacy rests on the constitution which is currently framed around the Taef Accord. That accord states that each sect must be represented in the cabinet. Therefore, the opposition argues that the govt. is illegitimate as the Shia are not represented (even if their withdrawl was voluntary). The govt. could replace them with Shia who support them but that would be a very dangerous move as the Shia are the biggest single sect in the country and the opposition groups represent 95% of them. Add to the mix the fact that I stated above that the majority has its majority only as a consequence of its alliance with HA in 2005 and things get very complicated.
mo "That accord states that each sect must be represented in the cabinet. Therefore, the opposition argues that the govt. is illegitimate as the Shia are not represented (even if their withdrawl was voluntary"
again, I understand the political point Hizbullah is making! But in a parliamentary democracy the legitimacy of the government does not rest on the opinions of political factions but on whether (a) the government was elected lawfully according to the constitution and (b) whether the government commands a majority on the floor of the parliament. Since both these criteria are being met how can the present Lebanese government be described as being not legitimate in any objective sense?
as the Shia are not represented
MO, why Lebanon did not do any populations counting?
Did you know?
We saw in Iraq cheering the winers "majority" the political field , so why Lebanon not or Bahrain or other states that US considering them friendly regimes did not bother?
"A United Nations military observer sent e-mails home to Canada reporting that Israel was bombing schools and waging "a campaign of terror against the Lebanese people" shortly before he was killed by an Israeli bomb in Lebanon, said his widow."
Oops, The link
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/06/ot-von-kruedener-080206.html?ref=rss