 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2008, pages 63-64 Waging Peace U.S. Policy in Lebanon and Syria Criticized by Distinguished Panelists
U.S. POLICY IN Lebanon and Syria was the main target of criticism at an Oct. 25 panel entitled “Geopolitical Dynamics: Lebanon and Syria,” part of the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations’ 16th Annual Arab-U.S. Policymakers Conference. The panel, moderated by Georgetown University’s Dr. Michael Hudson, featured Syria’s Ambassador to the U.S. Dr. Imad Moustapha; Dr. Daoud Khairallah, professor of law at Georgetown University; and Martha Kessler, a former CIA intelligence officer. Dr. Khairallah outlined three main factors causing instability in Lebanon: the dysfunctional sectarian system; geography, which places Lebanon next to a state “whose rulers believe that its establishment and survivability require driving a large portion of indigenous Palestinians into neighboring countries”; and the “absence of a military power that can effectively maintain law and order and be a credible deterrence against foreign aggression.” As to the U.S. role in contributing to stability in Lebanon, Khairallah noted that “Lebanese society remains the least hostile to the U.S. and its policy in the Arab world. But any existing good will seems to be rapidly eroding,” he cautioned.The reasons for this are multi-fold: U.S. support to Israel during the 1975–90 Lebanese civil war, the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon until 2000, and the summer 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, as well as Washington’s role in the Syrian military intervention into Lebanon that lasted 15 years. “In the present crisis, the U.S. is perceived as intervening in Lebanon’s internal affairs in a manner that widens the divide within the nation and prolongs the life of the crisis,” Khairallah said, referring to the U.S. objective of disarming Hezbollah and putting an end to it as a resistance movement. However, Khairallah advised, “Regardless of how urgent or desirable it is to see Hezbollah disarm, this is an objective that is more likely achieved by the effort of internal parties perceived as trusted friends and respected nationalists than by politically discredited adversaries.” Ambassador Mustapha and Kessler confirmed the tone of Khairallah’s arguments. Strongly defending his country’s Syria’s actions in the Middle East, Mustapha said that far from the picture Washington has portrayed of Syria as a hostile state stoking conflict, Damascus actually desires stability and peace—because that is in Syria’s interest. “On the other hand,” he continued, “the USA…is the only country in the world that is not supporting a national consensus among the Lebanese” and fueling disagreements with Lebanon’s neighbor, Syria. Remarked Kessler: “It is time for us to face the reality that engagement, trying to work with the Syrians as opposed to threatening them, would be our best approach.” —Basem Awad |
|||||
