Foreign Correspondence

[Amaunet]

Lebanon probe part of Bush game plan?

Mindful of the dissent its unilateral action against Baghdad caused, the US believed it could use the UN umbrella in its efforts to further reshape the Middle East.

This seems to be what the US is going for now.

It was necessary for the United States to undermine the effectiveness of the UN in order to pursue their own ambitions. Annan’s candidacy for the post of Secretary General was championed by the United States and its then Ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, really for only one reason - he was not Boutros Boutros Ghali, his Egyptian predecessor who had been expecting to serve a second five-year term. With his sometimes haughty and lecturing manner, Boutros Ghali had over time fallen far out of favour with Washington, never more so than when he chastised Western capitals for investing too much energy in the "rich man's" war in Bosnia while ignoring conflicts in more remote corners, notably in Africa. Against fierce opposition from France, Albright fought for Annan because he appeared suited to effecting a low-profile stewardship of the UN organisation; someone, above all, who would work better as a manager of the institution and not a maker of diplomatic waves. The United States wanted an efficient chief executive whose first task would be to instill some order into the morass of UN bodies and agencies and bring about the reforms that Boutros Ghali had been so reluctant to carry through, or a puppet.
#msg-918151

Although the United States purposefully undermined the effectiveness of the UN now Bolton vows to help strengthen UN.
http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/182362

"The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the U.N. as an important component of our diplomacy," Bolton said Monday.http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_UN_AMBASSADOR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPL....

Kepel goes on to explain that “the civilian extension of this campaign would encourage political reform that would put democratically elected representatives of civil society — preferably people well integrated with the global economy under US hegemony — in control”.

This also would seem so upon examining the recently installed pseudo democracies in Georgia, Ukraine and Iraq. These are subordinate governments put in power to do Washington’s bidding.
#msg-4696890

-Am

Lebanon probe part of Bush game plan? —Miranda Husain

Having toppled the Saddam regime in Iraq and increased pressure on Iran, Washington was on the lookout for a window of ‘legitimate’ opportunity to up the ante on Damascus. Thus it hid behind the UN umbrella and called for an international inquiry into Hariri’s murder

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously endorsed a draft resolution drawn up by the US, France and Britain to authorise an international investigation into the death of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri, who was killed in a car bomb blast in Beirut on February 14 of this year.

The resolution comes just one month after UN Secretary General Kofi Annan unveiled his proposals to reform the world body to respond to today’s global security challenges. Annan has called for the universal condemnation of terrorism, including suicide bombings. In addition, he urged member states to work together to finalise a resolution outlining cases where external military intervention can be employed to rescue people from genocide and other grave human rights abuses.

Since, in the words of the current US ambassador to the UN, Stuart Holliday, “the Security Council is treating Hariri’s death as a terrorist act”, it appears that the call for an international investigation into the matter complies with the new role Annan envisages for his organisation.

Lebanon had already conducted its own investigation into the murder, which was rejected by opposition groups as well as members of Hariri’s family as a cover-up job by the pro-Syrian government of President Emile Lahoud. Thus the UN preferred its own fact-finding mission, which concluded that Syrian military intelligence was responsible for the “lack of security, protection and law and order” prevailing in the country at the time of the assassination.

Many are still wondering why the UN involved itself in what is essentially an internal Lebanese matter — at the most, a matter between Beirut and Damascus. Does the UN intend to take a more pro-active approach to security, even at the domestic level?

Some believe that the organisation has learnt the lesson of the Iraq war. That is, it risks becoming irrelevant unless it colludes with its most powerful members.

Having already toppled the Saddam regime in Iraq and increased pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme, Washington was on the lookout for a window of ‘legitimate’ opportunity to up the ante on Damascus. Mindful of the dissent its unilateral action against Baghdad caused, the US believed it could use the UN umbrella in its efforts to further reshape the Middle East.

Bush has been blatant in his desire to repackage the region, creating an environment favourably inclined towards Israel. As Gilles Kepel notes in his book, The War for Muslim Minds, the neo-cons started lobbying for this back in the 1990s. “Their programme called for military intervention aimed at breaking the backs of those states considered a menace to Israel: Baathist Syria, Iran under the mullahs [and] especially Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

Kepel goes on to explain that “the civilian extension of this campaign would encourage political reform that would put democratically elected representatives of civil society — preferably people well integrated with the global economy under US hegemony — in control”.

Prior to 9/11, America had strived to maintain a balance between Israel’s security needs in a hostile Arab neighbourhood and guaranteed oil supplies from the region. However, the war on terror upset the balance, placing Israel’s security as the top priority. Thus the US saw regime change in Iraq as a means of defending Israel while flooding the market with Iraqi oil, reducing its dependence on exports from Saudi Arabia. Once regime change had been effected, Iraq would be governed by a democratic government well disposed to America and, by extension, to the Jewish state. Thus the scene was set for a shake up of the entire region meant to result in a welcoming of Israel to the fold.

Syria has long posed a problem for the US. It has no peace accord with Israel. However, an American military strike is out of the question at this stage since Washington is still bogged down in Iraq. Enter the UN and the call for an international investigation into the murder of Hariri that will point the finger of blame at Damascus.

Given the context, it is hard to imagine any other motive for the UNSC resolution. Neither the UN, nor the US, has a precedent for such involvement, even when a serving head of state died under seemingly suspicious circumstances.

Take the example of General Ziaul Haq. When his plane crashed minutes after takeoff in 1988, there were no calls for an international investigation, even though US ambassador to Islamabad, Arnold L Raphel, and the head of the US military aid mission to Pakistan, General M Wassom, too, were killed in the accident.

Never mind that Pakistan was a frontline US ally in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Never mind that the accident had removed Pakistan’s head of state and the top army leadership in a way that no coup could have.

Whatever the case, it seems the US has backed an international investigation into Hariri’s murder only because it hopes to use the conclusion to facilitate its foreign policy goals in the region. And the UN, while talking of undertaking the largest overhaul operation in its 60-year history, has simply sold out. As Thursday’s rejection by Washington of Annan’s proposals on introducing a timetable on aid increase and debt forgiveness shows, development is hardly given priority in the US agenda.

Thus Annan, with two years left in office, was right when he said this week that he would leave a lot of work for his successor to do.

The writer is a staff member

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_12-4-2005_pg3_6