Bush - Delays call for Sanctions
Lebanonwire: February 23, 2005
Bush turns up heat on Syria over troops, 'secret services' in Lebanon
by Olivier Knox
MAINZ, Germany, Feb 23 (AFP) - US President George W. Bush ratcheted up the pressure on Syria Wednesday, demanding that it pull its troops and "secret services" out of Lebanon but stopping short of urging immediate UN sanctions.
"Syria must withdraw not only the troops but its secret services from Lebanon," Bush said during a joint press conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Bush added that the upcoming parliamentary elections in Lebanon "need to be free, without any Syrian influence".
When asked whether he would try to urge European leaders to seek sanctions against Damascus, Bush said he would watch the reaction of the Syrians.
"The charge is out there for the Syrian government to hear loud and clear, and we will see how they respond before there's any further discussions about going back to the United Nations," he said.
Bush and his French counterpart Jacques Chirac made a joint call after talks late Monday for Syrian soldiers to pull out of Lebanon, with the European Union adding its voice Tuesday.
Schroeder said he agreed with the US position and echoed US calls for an independent probe of the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri on February 14.
UN resolution 1559 calls for all foreign forces to be pulled out of Lebanon and for militias such as Hezbollah to be dissolved.
Syria maintains 14,000 troops in the country, but has been facing growing pressure to pull out of Lebanon following Hariri's killing.
The United States has been hardening its tone with Syria on several fronts in recent months and last week recalled its ambassador to Damascus for urgent consultations as a strong signal of its displeasure.
The Americans are seeking a full and transparent investigation of the bomb attack that killed Hariri and 17 other people in Beirut. Washington has implicated the Syrians.
In addition to the withdrawal from Lebanon, Washington is also demanding that Syria end its support for insurgents in neighboring Iraq as well as Islamic militants seeking to torpedo the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa quoted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as saying Monday that he would soon withdraw troops under a 1989 accord that ended Lebanon's civil war.
But US officials have been unimpressed by the pledge.
"We'll judge it by the facts," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters Tuesday.
Meanwhile Syria's official state press lashed out at Washington's new pressure Tuesday, accusing the United States of hypocrisy.
Bush's position "throws light on what is being hatched against Syria and the region," said government newspaper Tishrin. "It demonstrates the American policy of double standards and preconceived ideas."
The paper said it was "illogical" to insist that UN Security Council Resolution 1559 be carried out and ignore other resolutions in the Middle East that have not been implemented.
posted by Joshua Landis @ 2/23/2005 05:44:00 AM
8 comments
links to this post
8 Comments:
Sanctions have little effect other than to allow some corrupt bureaucrats to prosper. Hurting the Syrian economy is counter-productive to achieving regime change in Syria.
tradesports.com recently listed a line allowing gamblers to place wagers on whether or not the U.S. will launch an air assault against any of the six countries the U.S State Department lists as sponsors of state terrorism(or is it states that sponsor terrorism?). Anyhow, the six include Syria,Iran,Sudan,North Korea and two others (Spain and Portugal?)
Anyhow, the line is 11 to 1 that the U.S. will launch an air assault against one of these countries by the end of June. Since Syria is only one of six, the odds the U.S. strikes Syria is probably no better than 1 in 50. That should be a relief to some. Atleast until the end of June.
To: jp... (and Josh):
Indeed, the UK site "Tradesports.com" is taking bets about a strike against one of the following countries: Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba. Why not?
There is probably a neocon who can rig this whole betting thing by attacking one of the above in order to fund somebody's assassination in yet another location of the globe. The line has moved from 11 to 1 to 10 to 1 or 9 to 1, but if I had money, I would rather bet it on Chelsea winning the English Premiership.
To go back to the question of sanctions, let us see what happened in Iraq:
a-A paranoid megalomaniac named Saddam Hussein attacks Koweit because his unjustified war against Iran created big budget deficits in his country
b-The whole world goes against him (except the delusional Yasser Arafat)
c-He loses and turns against Iraqi Kurds and Shia
d-Iraq gets sanctionned and Clinton (and the Brits...) get the Iraqi food-for-oil program after UN approval; the population suffers, but some people, including Saddam and his sons, make huge profits out of the situation
e-GWB decides to chase terrorism in Iraq and ends up performing regime change (he should have said so; that would have been better than showing that the UN, a tool of the US, becomes a farce when some members refuse to do exactly what the US have decided to do)
Note: The real farce, though, was what Colin Powell was given; he should have shown some cochones and quit, but he agreed to stay on just to piss off Dominique de Villepin
f-The regime is toppled, no WMD exist (are they in Syria? Please! The only WMD in Syria worth mentionning are undercooked falafels)
g-Insurgents of many types start going at it
h-Elections take place and the Dawa and other pro-Iranians are in power, keeping a low profile, because they know that step by step political action is the safe way for the Iraqis
Let us now look at Syria:
a-GWB puts Syria on the list of States that sponsor terrorism because of the link with the Lebanese Hezbollah (I guess the neocons who claim that the Hezbollah are nothing and did nothing against Israel are nonetheless pissed at them for Barak's Israeli withdrawal)
b-The US administration joins Black Jack (Chirac) to push UN 1559 (the US administration is just happy for Chirac to now be an after the fact endorser of the US action in Iraq)
c-GWB goes on his European Vacation after the Hariri blast and turns up the heat
What the future may hold:
d-Syria does not withdraw as fast as desired by GWB and elections turn in favor of the Lahoud Loyalists
e-A new UN resolution is voted to put more sanctions on Syria
f-Syrians rally around Bashar Assad (because Syria is not Iraq, and the Assads only resort to military action within Syria, such as in Hama, to keep the country from sliding into a civil war) OR there is civil war in Syria
g-A cornered Syria creates the conditions for a Lebanese civil war OR the civil war in Syria spills out into Lebanon
As a Lebanese patriot (I am not an Opposition Stooge, and I am certainly not a Lahoud Loyalist), I find it necessary to fight against anything that destabilizes Syria. Further, I think Lebanon can be the best example for Syrian Democracy as there are far more similarities between these two countries than between Syria and Iraq, and an appeased Syria can learn much more from Lebanon
The moral of the story: ask John Ritter who the most dangerous man on earth is.
PS: The Iranian government would be polite if a Thank You note is sent to the US for the outcome of the Iraqi elections.
How do you justify war and the inevitable toll it takes? How can you allow for such losses as a price worth paying? These are difficult questions to answer for most, and thank God for that or we would be fighting wars all too often. I believe, though, that in Iraq there was no opportunity for hope so long as that regime was in place, and that the only way for that regime to be removed and hope resotredA was by the United States and Great Britain invading and defeating Saddam Hussein.
I can not say that only noble causes were in consideration when so much oil was at stake. But the Iraqi people have seen the light at the end of the tunnel, and they are building a better future for their children. Look at Lebanon and see the courage of people who are convinced that their commitment to peace can overwhelm their leaders commitment to violence. That is the key to countering the cult of hatred that sent airplanes crashing into American buildings no so long ago.
What is terror? It is that dark force that takes away hope. It kills people, and leaves the survivors to wonder why. Atleast in Iraq I know there is some reason for this war. In the end there is hope in the hearts of Iraqis, and no one should compare U.S. soldiers to terrorists.
To: Anonymous at 7:51pm.
I was not justifying war, just plotting a worse-case scenario if the opposition stooges and the Emile Lahoud loyalists do not work with each other, and with Syria. As to the people in the streets, they are exerting their right; others will also stage huge rallies... The point is, we need to get a few good men to force the two camps to be reasonable; otherwise, there is no real dialogue with Syria...
I am, once again, against violence, against sectarian rule, and for real democracy (I hate to exert my freedoms without careful planning if it geopardizes the road to real democracy).
to kingcrane 9:20 PM:
I don't think you meant it this way, but the expression "a few good men" is a term for the U.S. Marines. I hope they will not be called upon "to force the two camps to be reasonable." The last time this was attempted it did not work out so well for Lebanon.
Dear Anonymous At 7:51 PM,
The Iraqis' had a chance to overthrow Sadaam in 1992 during the Shiia uprisal in the South but the United States betrayed them (no surprise) by permitting Iraqi air force to enter the no-fly zone and massacre the rebellions. Sadam's role was not over yet: Ten years of sanctions and the "liberation" war were still ahead.
One of President Bush I's admitted regrets was not ending Saddam's regime back in 1991.
The settlement of that conflict was negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi military officers. The U.S. side had all the leverage inthe world, but they bungled the negotiation and let Saddam continue to operate helicopters in the "no-fly-zone".
Perhaps the sacrifices of U.S. troops under President Bush II leading to a shiite led government in Iraq today makes some amends for past mistakes.
To: johnplikethepope
I stand corrected. The truth is: I did not mean the Marines or any other army; I feel that the Lebanese are sick of the violence.
My "few good men" term means obviously independent men who can honestly deal with all the parties in Lebanon and with Bashar Assad, without hidden agendas.
I should have said "a few real patriotic statesmen"
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home