David Aaronovitch, writing in The Times last Tuesday, has produced one of the best pieces of analysis of Middle East politics that I've read in a very long time. I wanted to write an article about this excellent piece of writing but, dear reader, I think I'll just leave you to read Mr. Aaronovitch's work for yourself.
Enjoy!
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Murderous States
The murder of the anti-Syrian Lebanese politician, Pierre Gemayel, on Tuesday could well be the straw that breaks the Lebanese camel's back. As with the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Syria is the prime suspect and, yet again, the Syrian government has strenuously denied any involvement.
The title of Gideon Rachman's latest article on his international affairs blog for the Financial Times sums up the situation: "Lebanon on the Brink". Many used such words after the death of Mr. Hariri, but Hezbollah seemed to distract everyone with their renewed attacks on Israel, which eventually lead to the recent war.
While I say that Syria is the prime suspect, and while I don't want to prejudice the ongoing investigation, who else has a motive? If it wasn't Syria, it was Hezbollah - but then "Syria" and "Hezbollah" are virtually interchangeable terms. This is why I am not convinced by the change of policy in the United States, which now appears to wish to engage with Syria (as well as Iran). If Syria had lain dormant for a while - or at least refrained from murdering politicians who oppose its influence in Lebanon - then perhaps this could be seen as a sensible decision by the State Department but, given recent events (not just this murder, but also the almost constant stream of weapons flowing from Syria to Hezbollah before and during the war), would it not have been more sensible for the Bush Administration to have taken the line espoused by their Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton? He believes that "additional assassinations might be coming" and, when asked about possible Syrian involvement, he said, "We need to find out all of the facts, but you can take a look at the pattern of who gets assassinated in Lebanon..."
As with a great many people, I can't say I often agree with John Bolton but, on this occasion, he seems to be one of the more sensible voices around.
The title of Gideon Rachman's latest article on his international affairs blog for the Financial Times sums up the situation: "Lebanon on the Brink". Many used such words after the death of Mr. Hariri, but Hezbollah seemed to distract everyone with their renewed attacks on Israel, which eventually lead to the recent war.
While I say that Syria is the prime suspect, and while I don't want to prejudice the ongoing investigation, who else has a motive? If it wasn't Syria, it was Hezbollah - but then "Syria" and "Hezbollah" are virtually interchangeable terms. This is why I am not convinced by the change of policy in the United States, which now appears to wish to engage with Syria (as well as Iran). If Syria had lain dormant for a while - or at least refrained from murdering politicians who oppose its influence in Lebanon - then perhaps this could be seen as a sensible decision by the State Department but, given recent events (not just this murder, but also the almost constant stream of weapons flowing from Syria to Hezbollah before and during the war), would it not have been more sensible for the Bush Administration to have taken the line espoused by their Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton? He believes that "additional assassinations might be coming" and, when asked about possible Syrian involvement, he said, "We need to find out all of the facts, but you can take a look at the pattern of who gets assassinated in Lebanon..."
As with a great many people, I can't say I often agree with John Bolton but, on this occasion, he seems to be one of the more sensible voices around.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Afghanistan: A Violent Paradox
On this morning's "Today" programme (on BBC Radio 4), there was a report from a journalist embedded with a British patrol in Afghanistan. The reporter went on a patrol around a small village with them and, on the way out (after delivering some medicines), the group was ambushed by some Taliban fighters armed with machine guns. After a short skirmish in which the British returned fire with rifles and artillery, the patrol was approached by a resident of the village, who said words to the effect of:
"Every time you enter our village, you are attacked by the Taliban; and every
time you return fire, you damage our homes, our livestock, and our crops."
This is what I mean by a "violent paradox": on the one hand, the British forces feel a duty to protect the Afghan people and help reconstruct their country from the ruins created both by the Taliban and the war started in 2001; on the other, their very presence seems to beget violence, both against the troops themselves and Afghan civilians. This is precisely what annoys me about the level of argument currently portrayed in the media on this conflict (and, for that matter, Iraq). It is true that the presence of foreign troops antagonises a violent minority and irritates much of the rest of the civilian population, but much of the current debate is focused on a "rock solid" two-sided argument: do we withdraw out troops now (or at least according to a short-term timetable) or do we stay in for the long run - "until the job is done", to paraphrase President Bush?
This debate needs to rise above the level of pacifism versus aggression. As usual, the current two-sided argument is a gross simplification of the real range of views prevalent in the world and, as usual, I find myself torn between the two. On the one hand, the West can't leave its troops in Afganistan (and Iraq) indefinitely; on the other hand, withdrawing rapidly in the near future would almost certainly start a civil war. As I said: it's a violent paradox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)