Are the French and Americans putting on the Brakes? Perspectives by Nicolas & Lee
Nicolas, a reader, gives us the French perspective, which follows immediately on my editorializing. Peter Lee writes another analysis of the French perspective, which follows Nicolas' comments. Peter wrote his commentary about a month ago, just after resolution 1636 was voted in by the Security Council and when France was pressing its "Juan Carlos" option on Syria, hoping to split the Asad family and convert the regime to a form of constitutional monarchy and a democratic, or at least, free market opening in Syria. Read all of Peter's smart analysis. By comparing it to Nicolas’ more recent observations, it helps us to understand how much the collapse of Mehlis' evidence may effect French attitudes toward change in Syria.
The collapse - or temporary collapse - of Sharon's government may also add to France's wait-and-see attitude.
The Iraqi drama also restraining Western policy planners from making decisions. Any bold moves will be placed on hold while we await the outcome of the December 15 elections. The question that must be answered by the election results is whether the Iraqi Sunnis will successfully be drawn into a coalition government, or not. If the Shiite militias get their way and unleash the dogs of total war on the Sunnis, they will reassert a new form of the mukhabarat state in the region - only this time a Shiite theocratic one in the place of Saddam's Sunni Arab nationalist state. If the Iraqis can find a political solution to their factionalism along the lines of Lebanon, maybe the French will continue to move against the Syrian regime. If, however, the Lebanon model fails in Iraq, and we get a remake of Saddamism crossed with Iranism, Syria will look more like an island of stability and calm, in the surrounding sanguinary sea of uncertainty and barbarism.
In that case, Paris and Washington will have no choice but to heed the warnings of Middle Eastern leaders, who have been telling us, as the Saudi King recently did: "If you cannot do good, do not do harm." This Hippocratic approach to the Syrian problem seems to be catching on, as Nicolas argues, in part, because Mehlis seems to be floundering, but largely because the reform of the Greater Middle East is not going well. If Iraq collapses and the Lebanese fail to develop a stronger federal state, the major success of the Bush democracy project will be the victory of Muslim Brothers in Egypt - a bit of a poisoned challis.
See Roger Owen's op-ed in the Boston Globe: "What Iraq will look like after the elections," for a critique of what the Lebanon model may mean for Iraq.
Nicolas writes:
I’ll refrain from adding my own personal assumptions and will rather present a “Vision From France”. A couple of interesting developments took place over here that could contribute to this debate.
As you have noticed Washington and Paris have been surprisingly quiet lately on the Hariri subject. The waves are seriously starting to turn here on this subject. Since the Hussam Taher Hussam story came out the French have not commented. Or rather commented but in a different direction. Today, Le Figaro, a right-wing leaning publication (close to the current political power i.e. close to President Chirac) included two interesting stories on Syria. In the first one, it presented a “neutral” overview of the Hussam Taher story; a simple description of the facts and the TV presentation made by him. Yet the headline is interesting enough coming from such a newspaper: “The Mehlis Report based on two false testimonies”. The second article, more interesting, is entitled “Le clan Hariri aurait manipulé un témoin clé de l'enquête » (The Hariri Family could have manipulated a key witness in the inquiry). This article has been written by George Maibrunot, the journalist who was taken hostage in Iraq along with another of his colleagues, Christian Chesnot. The article includes some interesting comments, and questions the reason the French secret services continued to play along with both Saddiq and Hussam although the CIA and the Saudi’s and even the French interrogators themselves discredited both witnesses. The reply as quoted by an unnamed diplomat was that the “highest spheres of French politics wanted to help out (i.e. Chirac himself wanting to help the Hariris). I am including the links to the stories, it would be more interesting to read them directly rather than my commentary on them.
Here is one.
Here is the other.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20051130.FIG0237.html?170219
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20051130.FIG0238.html
[These links only take you to the international page of Le Figaro and not the actually story. Perhaps Nicolas can find the stories for us. Joshua]
The story of political manipulation of a judicial process, the Outreau process, coincidentally, came at the same time as a major French judiciary story took place today. A group of people where falsely accused of pedophilia and were finally declared innocent. The Minister of Justice himself took the rare step of going on French TV to apologize for the grave mistake and seek an inquiry in the mechanism of the investigation.
This is leading to believe that even France is not buying the Mehlis investigation/report anymore. Although politics is more complicated than this, but a good deal of shift in the French mood is taking place. I have sensed this in many conversations I have had on the matter with my French colleagues at work (who are normally Lebanese leaning) and even another friend (a Tory Brit with usual wit mostly directed against Syrians). On TV one commentator said mentioned that he fears that it might get too personal between Mehlis and the Syrians; most of his guests (no friends of Syria at all) seemed to agree with (maybe influenced by the Outreau story, but still…). Everyone, including myself, seem to believe that at the present moment where we stand today, the victor in this battle of wills in no-one else but Bashar Assad himself.
Coincidentally again, a story is being circulating that Total (the French oil giant), is in talks with the Syria n government regarding building an oil refinery in Syria. Maybe this is the olive branch that Syria extended to Chirac (btw: a lame duck president). But Total would not have started such talks with the Syrians without a green light from the Elysees, and in return the Elysees would not have given that green light had Chirac not started to turn the page on the Mehlis episode. This is also a strong signal that sanctions may not really be a top priority, and if this is coming from France, then... (however, this story still needs confirmation).
I hope this would help the interesting debate that is going on this forum…thanks for the opportunity Josh.
Regards to all, Nicolas
Here is Peter Lee's analysis:
Dear Prof. Landis:
Thank you, once again, for your excellent website collecting information and views on Syria.
Further my previous interest in what is (to me, at least) the unexpected French harshness toward Syria, I posted on my website a speculative analysis, France and the Emerging Levantine Axis.
The gist is contained in the following paragraphs:
France has decided to align itself with the cosmopolitan Middle East: sophisticated, open, vibrant free-market societies, like the society France imagines itself to be. These include first and foremost Lebanon. France has made the strategic choice to disregard Syrian aspirations in favor of Lebanese ones, to maintain France’s position as a respected and legitimate champion of Lebanese interests.
To further this agenda, I believe that France decided to make common cause with the United States—if the US would acknowledge France as the dominant Western power and agenda-setter in Lebanon. Accommodation with Israel—and acquiescence to the joint desire of the Bush and Sharon administrations to do away with Bashar Assad-- is certainly the quid pro quo that Washington would demand in return for respecting France’s aspirations in Lebanon.
Looking into the crystal ball further, I would say France is betting that a pluralistic, open, and free-market society can replace Ba’athist rule in Syria, perhaps with attention and assistance from France directly and through Lebanon with the help of the Hariri billions, and France will be able to exploit its favored position in Lebanon to midwife a cosmopolitan, coastal, and relatively non-aligned (or Euro-centric) Levantine axis of Lebanon, Syria, and, to a certain extent, Israel and Palestine.
...
The full post is reproduced below, as well as being available on my website at the link given above. I think it would be useful to air this article or at least its arguments on Syria Comment for comment, confirmation, or rebuttal.
To me, the French role in the Syria crisis is "the dog that didn't bark", i.e. the anomalous fact that may supply an insight into the dynamics of great power politics in the Middle East.
Sincerely, Peter Lee
France and the Emerging Levantine Axis: Thanks to France, we seem to be seeing a sea change in Middle Eastern power politics.
It can be seen most clearly in the rapid isolation of Syria as a result of the UN resolutions 1559 and 1636, co-sponsored by France and the United States.
Traditionally, France has positioned itself is a sympathetic rapporteur for Arab/Iranian nationalism in the West and in international venues, with a policy that was tilted away from Israel and toward the Palestinians.
Despite the close ties between Chirac and Hariri, one might have expected the US/Israeli campaign against Syria to recapitulate the one that occurred during the run-up toward the Iraq war. In 2002, the United States was determined to slake its thirst for the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Instead of adopting the Desert Storm narrative of George H.W. Bush—including the Arab world in the coalition by making nice noises about the Palestinians—the second Bush administration decided to insist--instead of implore--in creating its coalition. The US ostentatiously ostracized the Saddam Hussein regime, made no secret of its determination to affect violent regime change in Iraq, and went to the UN on the shakiest of diplomatic and evidentiary grounds to insist that the world side with the US or against it.
The world was also told that US action and Israel’s behavior would not be held hostage to any assumed need to conciliate the Arab states to the invasion on the issue of Palestinian aspirations.
As it transpired, most of the world made the wise choice, opting out. Leaving aside the gaping credibility problems of the US case—and the perilous unknown represented by the idea of invading and occupying a country on grounds that were not even preventive, let alone pre-emptive--it seems most nations were unwilling to underwrite a unilateralist campaign for American hegemony in the Middle East with their own blood, treasure, and prestige.
France, of course, infuriated the US government by opposing the invasion and apparently using the crisis to make political hay in the Middle East.
It would seem to be that history should be ready to repeat itself in the case of Syria. The US approach—harsh, inflammatory rhetoric, condemnation, marginalization and isolation, the use of the UN process to push Syria into a pariah status that would enable sanctions, legitimize regime change subversion, and could ultimately justify military action “to enforce UN resolutions”—is taken from the Iraq playbook.
But Syria is no Iraq.
Any assertion that Syria is a pariah state that threatens the security of the US is risible. The one area in which Syria could contribute to Middle East stability—positively as well as negatively—has been removed by its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Syria appears to be run by a hapless, reformist schnook. It has attempted to reach some sort of modus vivendi with the United States—by agreeably interrogating and torturing our prisoners and, perhaps, by awkwardly attempting to use the flow of jihadniks across the border with Iraq as a bargaining chip. (Syria’s overtures have been rejected by the US, which clearly smells the pungent odor of a regime change opportunity.)
In other words, Assad is no Saddam. And the US emphasis on regime change—and the degraded form of Middle East democracy it brings with it, corruption + fundamentalism + factionalism + sectarian violence—has been so discredited by the disaster in Iraq, one might expect that the French would step up once again to oppose the US and resist attempts to create an existential crisis for Syria by aggressively advancing the Mehlis investigation.
But it hasn’t happened. Russia and China do seem to be reprising their traditional roles—resisting US use of the UN process to assail independent-minded regimes in the Middle East that might otherwise lean toward Moscow and Beijing.
But the French cosponsored the October 31 resolution, which adopted Washington’s favored war on terror rhetoric and apparently pushes Syria to the point that Assad must either terminate his regime by gutting its leadership and prestige by complying with the commission, or resist and provide the US with sufficient casus belli and moral high ground to stigmatize Syria as an outlaw state and destabilize it as America sees fit through sanctions and military action.
France has gone out of its way to deny that Syria has any wiggle room on the issue of Mehlis and the onerous UN process, which appears to make a serious dent in Syrian sovereignty.
Of course, Chirac was extremely close to Hariri, personally, diplomatically, and perhaps financially. But two dozen innocent people (albeit not including in their number a charismatic billionaire politician) are routinely blown to smithereens by both US and insurgent forces in Iraq, and France doesn’t think of turning the region upside down as a result.
And it would seem, by the old calculus, the France would have something to gain by acting as mediator in the crisis, giving Syria some breathing space while a face-saving compromise was worked out, instead of pushing Bashar Assad into a corner.
The US-French collaboration might be an example of the superior Powellized subtlety of the Condi Rice diplomatic team. But it seems more likely the US is responding to—instead of creating—a new orientation in French foreign policy.
Certainly, French politics have lurched to the right in recent months, in domestic as well as foreign affairs.
Most strikingly, France and Israel and, more importantly, Chirac and Sharon, have set aside their personal animosity for the sake of a rapprochement. I would think that these events have been paralleled by a tilt toward US and Israeli priorities for isolation and destabilization of Syria.
The Why certainly has to do with Lebanon. But I believe there is a larger story here, one that explains why France believes that its interests in the Middle East are no longer served by supporting the status quo in Syria.
In recent years, Arab nationalism has lost its most effective practitioners: Hafez Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Yasir Arafat. The US and Israel, in effect, declared war on any state that opposed not only Israel’s right to exist but its prerogative to manage the Palestinian problem as an internal affair, and by sheer bloody intransigence seem close to achieving victory. The post-Arafat Palestinian authority has abandoned confrontation in favor of accommodation, removing the logical and moral keystone from a regional Arab nationalist foreign policy that relied on unity, European support, and a favorable hearing from the UN to provide the legal and political basis for internationalizing the Palestine issue.
France could have responded to these events with a purely tactical foreign policy, simply seeking to strengthen its influence with states opposed to US policy as something good in itself.
But I think Chirac has decided to embrace a different philosophical vision for France in the Middle East, one that takes into account the defeat of the Intifada, the final disintegration of Arab unity, and the failures of the Bashar Assad regime.
Doubtless, France is disappointed with the political and economic drift of Syria. A state seriously out of step with the military and economic realities of the Middle East and unable to reinvent itself through vigorous leadership and judicious reform, it is terribly vulnerable and a weak reed for France to lean on.
And Syria might be worth abandoning if an alternate scenario presented itself to France.
Here’s what I think it is: France has decided to align itself with the cosmopolitan Middle East: sophisticated, open, vibrant free-market societies, like the society France imagines itself to be. These include first and foremost Lebanon. France has made the strategic choice to disregard Syrian aspirations in favor of Lebanese ones, to maintain France’s position as a respected and legitimate champion of Lebanese interests.
The second society is Israel. With chances of Palestine becoming anything more than a degraded, miserable satrapy of Israel—and effective regional champions of militant Palestinian nationalism limited to the unnerving theocratic leadership of Iran—increasingly remote, Paris might have decided, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em and pursue conciliation with Tel Aviv and its open economy.
To further this agenda, I believe that France decided to make common cause with the United States—if the US would acknowledge France as the dominant Western power and agenda-setter in Lebanon. Accommodation with Israel—and acquiescence to the joint desire of the Bush and Sharon administrations to do away with Bashar Assad-- is certainly the quid pro quo that Washington would demand in return for respecting France’s aspirations in Lebanon.
It would appear that the Syrians didn’t get the message either, or chose to ignore it, relying on France’s traditional forbearance vis a vis Arab nationalist states in general, as demonstrated in 2002, and favored treatment of Syria in particular.
But perhaps the assassination of Rafik Hariri was two things: a final straw and a useful pretext. The Syrians discovered too late to their dismay that blowing up one of Chriac’s personal friends would not be brushed under the rug by France as collateral damage in the endless, Sisyphean struggle to achieve stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
Instead, France decided that a regime that had fumbled its reform opportunities and compounded the failure with such a gross political error –all in an environment of extreme flux and danger—could not serve as an effective vehicle for French interests even if it was somehow able to survive. Therefore, France took the bold step of abandoning Syria, allying with the US, and identifying its Middle East agenda primarily with the values and outlook of its Lebanese entrepot.
Looking into the crystal ball further, I would say France is betting that a pluralistic, open, and free-market society can replace Ba’athist rule in Syria, perhaps with attention and assistance from France directly and through Lebanon with the help of the Hariri billions, and France will be able to exploit its favored position in Lebanon to midwife a cosmopolitan, coastal, and relatively non-aligned (or Euro-centric) Levantine axis of Lebanon, Syria, and, to a certain extent, Israel and Palestine.
The risks are considerable. France is abandoning an existing Syrian regime that is, if weak, at least pro-French. In return it is betting on a future that might be foreclosed by a new Syrian regime beholden to US guns and money and firmly in Washington’s camp, or fatally compromised by America and Israel reneging on their promise to respect Lebanon as France’s sphere of influence.
Perhaps—though I don’t think the UK’s calamitous experience with the US on Iraq and the Road Map have been conducive to Gallic gullibility—France believes that by siding with Washington it can fill the poodle role more instinctively and gracefully than the pathetic Blair, thereby moderating Bush’s Syria policy, and forestalling violent regime change.
I suspect, in the end, Chirac believes he and France are smarter than George W. Bush and the U.S. and Paris will gain prestige and influence through nimble, clear-sighted policies in the coastal Middle East while Washington blunders from crisis to crisis in the big, screwed up petro-states of Iran, Iraq, and—eventually—Saudi Arabia.
One final note: I wonder if France’s turn away from what I would characterize as continental, big state Arab socialism and nationalism in favor of a vision of prosperous, urbanized, corporatized, and Westernized upper-class Middle East including Israel contributed in any way to the alienation felt by the downtrodden Arab underclass in France—and helped fuel the riots there.
It would certainly be ironic if France, which is now being excoriated by the US right wing for appeasement and unwillingness to acknowledge worldwide jihad on its doorstep, was instead experiencing in part blowback from its embrace of US-style regime-change foreign policy in the Middle East.
Copyright Peter Lee 2005-11-9
Peter Lee is the creator of the anti-war satire and commentary
website Halcyon Days. He can be reached at peter@halcyondays.info.
EHSANI writes:
Dr. Landis,
Peter Lee’s commentary can be summarized in one sentence. All he had to say was:
“France found itself on the wrong side of history and has therefore decided to switch”
He could have also said:
Chirac is a spineless leader (no offense to the many France lovers). He did not have the guts to join the treacherous terrain in Iraq at the time. Now that he found the U.S. in control of the agenda and future of the Middle East, he decided to join in on the cheap by beating up on a hapless Syrian regime. He at least admits to us that he is “the creator of the anti-war satire and commentary”. He brands Blair as “pathetic” and thinks that “Washington blunders from crisis to crisis in the big, screwed up petro-states of Iran, Iraq, and-eventually-Saudi Arabia”. With all due respect, this is a very amateurish commentary, which fails to understand the geopolitical reasons and rationale for America’s involvement in the Middle East. I would like to refer Mr. Lee to my comments on the subject in the previous post.
posted by Joshua Landis @ 12/02/2005 05:03:00 AM
32 comments
links to this post
32 Comments:
Dr. Landis,
Peter Lee’s commentary can be summarized in one sentence. All he had to say was:
“France found itself on the wrong side of history and has therefore decided to switch”
He could have also said:
Chirac is a spineless leader (no offense to the many France lovers). He did not have the guts to join the treacherous terrain in Iraq at the time. Now that he found the U.S. in control of the agenda and future of the Middle East, he decided to join in on the cheap by beating up on a hapless Syrian regime. He at least admits to us that he is “the creator of the anti-war satire and commentary”. He brands Blair as “pathetic” and thinks that “Washington blunders from crisis to crisis in the big, screwed up petro-states of Iran, Iraq, and-eventually-Saudi Arabia”. With all due respect, this is a very amateurish commentary, which fails to understand the geopolitical reasons and rationale for America’s involvement in the Middle East. I would like to refer Mr. Lee to my comments on the subject in the previous post.
Ehsani,
Are you rating leadership by bad quotes? ‘Cause then the "courageous" Bush has so many they made a damn book out of them.
Spineless can also equal to having a minute amount of morals. Your argument is pathetic from top to bottom. America and their bitches did not enter Iraq to promote democracy in the region and i would also disagree with some that state; oil was the main objective. Oil is only the gravy on top of the big meal. Which happens to be restructuring the ME into a totally American dominated region. Please note again that does not imply by any means democratic (i.e Gulf states, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, etc.). While I agree with you that Chirac’s ME policy turn-around is sleazy and cheap, it is still what some might call POLITICS and it’s working to his country advantage and Syria’s disadvantage. So please spare us the moral lecture because none of those players stand on a higher moral pedestal.
And then you uttered this gem “France found itself on the wrong side of history and has therefore decided to switch” uuhhmm… HUH??? You think? One can argue that the man has managed to get back into the game without sending a single soldier to Iraq. His country’s image in the Middle East (except in Syria) has improved while America and its puppies have totally demolished there’s. Which is obviously working to their disadvantage in the sense that their citizens have to face serious terrorist threats, which they didn’t have to deal with before. But im sure you would agree that the boys in Washington and Downing street feel its worth the prize they are getting in return ;)
And if you feel that we are witnessing history in the making then I would advise you to get off the hallucinogens because what we are witnessing is a simple recurring battle between the powerful and the weak. There is no good vs. evil here that only happens in the movies which you seem to be watching too many of.
Thank you for the spirited attack. I see that you hate America because it wants to “restructure the ME into a totally American dominated region”. What would you suggest they do? Which way would you like them to restructure such a lovely region? You think Baathism and Socialism works better for us? Or do you suggest Al-Qaeda type restructuring? Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
America is in this region for its own self-interest. What is evil and odd about this? You can hate them and keep listening to the CD all you want. My way is different. I threw the CD away. I want to improve the standards of living of my people who get one shot on planet earth. I want their kids to enjoy Toys-R-US stores not Baath party buildings and nationalistic empty slogans. Please spare us the 42-year old tired rhetoric.
"If the Shiite militias get their way and unleash the dogs of total war on the Sunnis"
That's the most outrageous claim you ever made Joshuah. You look more and more like the state-controlled Syrian press: inverting the roles and projecting your own flaws on your opponents.
The Shias are slaughtered by the Sunni militias each day, and have courageusly refrained from escalating the conflict into a civil war - and you accuse them of 'unleashing their dogs on the Sunnis'? Rubbish.
I can only wish that the Lebanese Shias become as responsible as their Iraqi cousins.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
"If Iraq collapses and the Lebanese fail to develop a stronger federal state"
Lebanon has been standing on his own feet for less then six months. I think it's too early to speak about a failure. And I think you have been deliberately ignoring all the signs of an Iraqi recovery for months (last one being a Sunni participation to the coming election).
Let me say that your fears that an Iraqi success will lead the neocons to resume their debate about a regime change in Syria are flagrant.
Let me also tell you that by analyzing Middle Eastern politics through the boring prism of 'MB might take over', you are endangering you credibility as a scholar.
Dr. Landis,
Since you believe that the region is better served by slow and deliberate reform from within, and that the status quo is therefore a better option than wholesale change, it would be interesting to hear when you expect the Assad term in office to be over in Syria. Based on your framework, you must advocate Hafez junior to be the next in line. After all, this must be the only sure way Syria can avoid chaos and destruction using your own logic. America is no good. Islamists are no good. Liberal Opposition is weak and not ready. Since no one is left, Assad and his regime is the only alternative left for you people.
There were several reasons for the US invasion of Iraq and removal of SH.
Principal - To maintain dollar hegemony after SH started seling pil in Euros as encouraged by Castro/ Chavez call for Ant Americanism in OPEC
Secondly - To shift a large amount of military effort to the Middle East where much was redundant in Europe and to improve their military control and economic influence in ME
Thirdly - To accede to Israeli interests in the region to de-stabilise Iraq and in the "fog of war" allow further theft of "Palestine" and further establishment of Greater Israel.
They have been successful in all three areas - but the claims for exporting Democracy, which have failed, were always bogus anyway. Uncle Sam has a long history of being content to deal with any bullies or demagogues. They did after all sneak mengistu out into Zimbabawe where he rests under Mugabes troubled reign.
Now we move into the next part of the game. Israel wants to consolidate the gains it has, Gaza will now empty through Rafah, The borders of Israel will swell to the Jordan - having annexed the Golan Heights, they now wish (having failed once) to control Lebanon - The first step has been the successful removal of the Syrian intel and military - at their behest the Mehlis charade was set - up - amply helped by Bolton and his crew.
(Also Note how Howell the (Welsh) UK FO Minister last week told the Lebanese to control Hezbollah - posted on Embassy websites world wide)
However this is where the plot falls apart at present.... and as we speak continues to do so - whilst Chirac holds , if not the key, an important mediating position.
The Hussam show has brought the absurd Mehlis enquiry to a shuddering halt. (They cannot even say what sort of explosive was used - but someone saw them loading it in a van whilst they watched !)
Perhaps Bashir is not as stupid as many say (and I don't think so) ....
My prediction is the Mehlis report will slip away like many UN initiatives... to be found later in some very long grass, beyond the boundary.
Meanwhile the poodle Blair will be adopting a position of Gallic entente cordiale and slowly , sweetly leaving Dubya to face the mid congressional elections nightmare, absorbing himself in the canine output that has spread around whilst he was absorbed as a mighty colossus bestriding the world.... like making sure that the lights go on when you switch them on in the UK ...English children learn how tpo read their own language...
As a result there will be a period of stasis in the Middle East whilst everybody (whatever the result of Iraqi Dec 15th elections) gets on with making money and pumping oil.
Gently the oil price will settle around US$40 a barrel, Iran will stop threatening their Euro oil bourse ... and China / Asia will export more to the US.
... and Khalilzad will have stitched up (if he hasn't already) a neat deal with Iran.
..meanwhile keep an eye on the Israelis in Kurdistan / Turkey, their capacity for mischief - even if it is only for frightening the shit out of Gazana by overflying supersonically all day - is legion.
But what do I know.
you know alot MR postman.
EHSANI2,
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but the "Toys R Us" culture you're so desperately coveting, is and will not be for you or for your kids, unless you stay right where you are. The very essence of the Golden Arch culture is to use 40% of the world's entire resources to serve and protect only 4% of its population (the Americans). So I wouldn't call anyone's analysis amateurish if I were you, since your presumptuous plan for prosperity of the Middle East is outlandishly superficial. Your role (in the aggregate sense and not you personally), as a Middle Eastern is to be a silent provider of resources, or you die in the name of democracy. So for the US to do what's best for its interest is not an inconsequential strategy that we should mimic. Its very essence is to use others, and I have bad news for you: You are the "others".
Well put and articulated attack, thank you. Would appreciate an alternative framework to my outlandishly superficial vision.
My dear postman, this is the dumbest thing I ever read.
And by the way, I believe that Syria's dictator is named Bashar, not Bashir.
EHSANI2,
No need to take it personally for it was not a personal attack. I'd just thought it was irnoic calling someone's vision amateurish, just as you were calling for a Toys R Us perks for all. I realize it was a metaphor for the well-being of Syrians, with which I believe no one would disagree. However, your angle about this whole well-being thing is faulty, for the US has never at any point in history delivered well-being to any foreign nation, especially if this particular nation does not share the same "values" as the US. Aside from the Marshall plan (which is unique in circumstances, location, and timing), the US has delivered nothing but destruction, from South and Central America, Asia, Europe, and now to the Middle East. You may very well have a legitimate framework for a potential solution (I don't know what it is really), but somehow looking at the US for salvation seems preposterous, especially now. And that's what I am attacking. Anything else may very well be a legitimate solution.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Even if one was to morally come to terms with the American example for a successful living, it is physically impossible to replicate. The world simply does not have enough resources to subsidize the life style of another 280 million people in such a fashion to provide 12 different colors of padded, scented, and quilted toilet paper. It is also a political impossibility for it is a reserved life style, and takes trillions of dollars of killing machines to make it possible. I do however understand how many who have lived in the US, have a tremendous appreciation of human rights, work ethics, integrity, etc. which have all become the hallmark of American living, especially when compared with the attrocities we have in our Middle Eastern countries. This of course leads to a simple conclusion that the American way works while the Arabic way does not. From Union Carbide, Agent Orange, Atom bombs, carpet bombing entire cities spanning different continents, Fallujahs, Ramadis, Abu Ghraibs, etc. etc., are all but a small price to pay for the 12 different scented toilet paper Americans wipe their behinds with.
These are the hallmark of American living, not Toys R Us.
Alterion,
First, thanks for realizing that the Toys R Us was used as a metaphor. May be I am influenced by my experience growing up and having to buy the worst Chinese and Syrian made toys in dimly lit ugly toy stores. What I am referring to is the need for Syria to immediately adopt a capitalistic free market economy. When I refer to the U.S., I am referring to the west in general. For our economy to prosper and for our standards of living to improve, we must turn to the west for help. Every time, one advocates closer ties with the west and the U.S., he is nothing but a slave and a puppet serving his western masters. At the height of Syria’s association with the old Soviet System, I bet none of you referred to it as a soviet puppet. The hate America and its values is a favorite past time of the Arab world. Your suggestion that the US has delivered nothing but destruction is preposterous. All you have assumed is that I am brain washed by American values. You are yet to provide your own thoughts or solutions. Incidentally, you sound too immersed in Marxist metaphors of Golden Arch exploitation of global resources. May I suggest the alternative readings of “the wealth of nations” by Adam Smith? Now I see you have moved to Union Carbide and the Atom Bomb. I will conclude by asking you again.
Now that you have heard my outlandishly amateurish and morally corrupt ideas, Please enlighten us with your nirvana world?
There is an english translation to the Figaro article on the Figaro site :
The Mehlis report trips over false testimony
Rafic Hariri, le premier ministre libanais
Sébastien SORIANO / L e Figaro
Georges Malbrunot
[01 décembre 2005]
The five Syrians that the Mehlis Commission wants to question regarding the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri had not yet departed for Vienna, Austria, as of yesterday evening (November 29th).
The five Syrians that the Mehlis Commission wants to question regarding the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri had not yet departed for Vienna, Austria, as of yesterday evening, November 29th. After the green light given by Damascus, however, their departure appears imminent. The list of persons concerned has not been published, but it is expected to include the names of Rustum Ghazalah, chief of Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon at the time the former Lebanese prime minister was liquidated on 14 February, and probably those of Syrian intelligence officer Jami Jami, responsible for the sector containing the Saint Georges Hotel, where the assassination took place, and Muhammad Khalluf, one of his collaborators.
On the other hand, the brother-in-law of President Bashar al-Asad, Asif Shawkat, who heads military intelligence, is not likely to be among the agents interrogated in Vienna by UN investigators. His name figured in an initial version of the Mehlis Report, the definitive text of which was presented to the UN Security Council in late October, highlighting Syrian involvement in Al-Hariri's murder. "A good synthesis report for diplomats," a police officer close to the investigation offers as analysis, "but it does not contain evidence to establish culpability," he adds.
If presumptions are converging in the direction of Damascus, the weakness of the evidence is indeed the main Achilles heel of the inquiry, which continues until 15 December. Damascus has begun to step into the breach. On Monday [28 November], the Alawite government presented a Syrian Kurd, Husam Tahir Husam, who acknowledged having given false testimony, under threat, before the commission. There, he had accused two close relatives of PresidentBashar al-Asad, his brother Mahir and Asif Shawkat, of being behind the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister. For its part, the commission declared that the man had come to it of his own free will on 1 September.
However, Tahir Husam sending them on the wrong track does not surprise the intelligence services, the French DGSE -General Directorate for External Security- in the lead, which were informed during the summer that an anonymous witness in the Mehlis report had been forced to implicate a high Syrian official during a colourful interrogation. This undoubtedly referred to Tahir Husam.
Damascus seeks to discredit the Mehlis report
After having equivocated a great deal, "Syria did everything it could to demonstrate that it was cooperating with the UN and to discredit the Mehlis report," a western diplomat in the Middle East underscores. Yesterday, Damascus warned against attempts by "certain Lebanese" to mislead the commission. In the eyes of the Syrians, the false testimony of Tahir Husam calls to mind that of Muhammad Zuhayr al-Sadiq, incarcerated in France. There again, Mehlis had been warned of the low credibility of the latter. "The UN should not undermine its credibility," warns someone who knows Syria well.
Damascus reportedly received assurance that the cadres interrogated in Vienna will go back to Syria, without risk that the commission will issue a request for arrest. In late September, in Syria, these same cadres had recited a well-learned script before UN sleuths, who were furious at such lack of cooperation. "Today, Damascus is no doubt prepared to drop Rustum Ghazalah," says an interlocutor from Syrian intelligence, "because he is not well liked by the government".
In spite of the flaws in the investigation, however, the problem for the Alawite regime remains the same: How can it limit at the highest level its implication in the assassination of Al-Hariri? "If he truly cooperates, the government is done for, because it will loosen people's tongues," the police officer says. "But if he does not cooperate, the commission is going to conclude once again that there is bad will on the part of Syria. That is not enough judicially, but diplomatically, it is enough for the United States to get a draft resolution circulated at the UN, with sanctions against Damascus at stake."
Vox--I was merely telling people the latest rumor swirling around in Syria. I of course did not believe it at face value and didn't say I did. So I do appreciate you clearing it up(thats what I wanted somebody to do)--would be better if you tell me your source because while I may trust you, my friend in Syria is more stubborn and probaly won't believe me...
I love how smug you are though! You just jumped at the chance to accuse me of falling for 'Baathi propaganda again'! And as if Baathi propaganda is the only one of its kind! Lebanese leaders would never ever dare mislead their public. And America tells only the truth. Wake up please! Every country has propaganda, it is usually more low key than in Syria.
EHSANI2,
I have no problem whatsoever with everything you said in the first half of your post (in fact I fully agree with it). As for the second half, I know labeling me would be convenient for you to counter-attack, but you're way off with your Marxist remark. To see the misdeeds of the consecutive US administrations is not trade-marked to Marxists, other Leftists, Rightists, Islamists, etc. It is common sense, EHSANI2. Don't you think?
I wish I had the answer to the world of nirvana. If I did, I am sure I would have done something more fun with my Friday afternoon :)
Again, please do not take what I write personally. I am all for a healthy exchange. Not sure why you keep getting offended. That's not my intention, I promise. I will try to share some of my thoughts per your request (space notwithstanding).
The Middle East in general, and Bilad al-Sham plus Iraq in particular, indeed have a unique character, message, and destiny. Tribalism is well-entrenched, and will be so 'til the end (albeit it is manifested differently in different regions and could be based on sect, city of birth, neighborhood within the city, etc. etc.) This is fact number one. Fact number two is, with this tribalism comes the need to idolize the tribal leader. Fact number three, the majority of inhabitants of this region are Muslims. Now, for any solution to work (historically speaking), the solution has to take into account the previously mentioned facts. And yes, prosperity and glory are possible even with the constraints of the above facts. Hey, I did not make up the facts, they exist and will continue to do so.
To answer your other question, no I don't think you're brain-washed. I just think that you've been gone for a long time and need to visit more often. I know this may depress you even further, but it helps me to realize how different people are and how they need to be different.
You reminded me of the dusty toy stores in Damascus. They were disappointing for sure, especially the immitation Lego. I cried myself to sleep so many times because the damn pieces would not hook properly. And you wonder why Syrian youths suffer from chronic frustration :)
Two points and I will pack it:
first, I did enjoy the exchange and I am not offended. To the contrary, I enjoy arguing with people who have a different viewpoint.
Second, my views of Syria have been shaped because I am there too often. I want to correct you impression that I was gone for too long. I am afraid it is the exact opposite.
My source is Mehlis himself.
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&39CFBDED41A99F14C22570CB00263EBC
Josh,
It's an honor to get published and quoted by you on this site...thanks and I hope to keep helping out.
Since the links did not work I am going to pase below both article in Le Figaro. I also found an English version of one of them, hope this help.
PS: Apologies to those who do not like to have full articles published.
Regards,
Nicolas
The Mehlis report trips over false testimony
Georges Malbrunot
[01 décembre 2005]
The five Syrians that the Mehlis Commission wants to question regarding the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri had not yet departed for Vienna, Austria, as of yesterday evening (November 29th).
The five Syrians that the Mehlis Commission wants to question regarding the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri had not yet departed for Vienna, Austria, as of yesterday evening, November 29th. After the green light given by Damascus, however, their departure appears imminent. The list of persons concerned has not been published, but it is expected to include the names of Rustum Ghazalah, chief of Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon at the time the former Lebanese prime minister was liquidated on 14 February, and probably those of Syrian intelligence officer Jami Jami, responsible for the sector containing the Saint Georges Hotel, where the assassination took place, and Muhammad Khalluf, one of his collaborators.
On the other hand, the brother-in-law of President Bashar al-Asad, Asif Shawkat, who heads military intelligence, is not likely to be among the agents interrogated in Vienna by UN investigators. His name figured in an initial version of the Mehlis Report, the definitive text of which was presented to the UN Security Council in late October, highlighting Syrian involvement in Al-Hariri's murder. "A good synthesis report for diplomats," a police officer close to the investigation offers as analysis, "but it does not contain evidence to establish culpability," he adds.
If presumptions are converging in the direction of Damascus, the weakness of the evidence is indeed the main Achilles heel of the inquiry, which continues until 15 December. Damascus has begun to step into the breach. On Monday [28 November], the Alawite government presented a Syrian Kurd, Husam Tahir Husam, who acknowledged having given false testimony, under threat, before the commission. There, he had accused two close relatives of PresidentBashar al-Asad, his brother Mahir and Asif Shawkat, of being behind the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister. For its part, the commission declared that the man had come to it of his own free will on 1 September.
However, Tahir Husam sending them on the wrong track does not surprise the intelligence services, the French DGSE -General Directorate for External Security- in the lead, which were informed during the summer that an anonymous witness in the Mehlis report had been forced to implicate a high Syrian official during a colourful interrogation. This undoubtedly referred to Tahir Husam.
Damascus seeks to discredit the Mehlis report
After having equivocated a great deal, "Syria did everything it could to demonstrate that it was cooperating with the UN and to discredit the Mehlis report," a western diplomat in the Middle East underscores. Yesterday, Damascus warned against attempts by "certain Lebanese" to mislead the commission. In the eyes of the Syrians, the false testimony of Tahir Husam calls to mind that of Muhammad Zuhayr al-Sadiq, incarcerated in France. There again, Mehlis had been warned of the low credibility of the latter. "The UN should not undermine its credibility," warns someone who knows Syria well.
Damascus reportedly received assurance that the cadres interrogated in Vienna will go back to Syria, without risk that the commission will issue a request for arrest. In late September, in Syria, these same cadres had recited a well-learned script before UN sleuths, who were furious at such lack of cooperation. "Today, Damascus is no doubt prepared to drop Rustum Ghazalah," says an interlocutor from Syrian intelligence, "because he is not well liked by the government".
In spite of the flaws in the investigation, however, the problem for the Alawite regime remains the same: How can it limit at the highest level its implication in the assassination of Al-Hariri? "If he truly cooperates, the government is done for, because it will loosen people's tongues," the police officer says. "But if he does not cooperate, the commission is going to conclude once again that there is bad will on the part of Syria. That is not enough judicially, but diplomatically, it is enough for the United States to get a draft resolution circulated at the UN, with sanctions against Damascus at stake."
Le rapport Mehlis bute sur des faux témoignages
Proche-Orient. Alors que cinq personnalités syriennes doivent être entendues à Vienne par la commission d'enquête de l'ONU sur l'assassinat de l'ancien premier ministre libanais Rafic Hariri, un témoin clé est revenu sur ses accusations.
Georges Malbrunot
[30 novembre 2005]
LES CINQ SYRIENS que la commission Mehlis souhaite entendre sur l'assassinat de Rafic Hariri n'étaient pas encore partis pour Vienne (Autriche) hier soir. Mais, après le feu vert donné par Damas, leur départ paraît imminent. La liste des personnes concernées n'a pas été publiée, mais elle devrait comporter les noms de Rostom Ghazalé, le chef des services de renseignements syriens au Liban au moment de la liquidation de l'ancien premier ministre libanais, le 14 février. Ceux de Jameh Jameh, responsable du secteur de l'hôtel Saint-Georges où eut lieu l'attentat, et de Mohamed Khallouf, un de ses collaborateurs.
En revanche, le beau-frère du président Bashar al-Assad, Assef Shawkat, qui dirige les renseignements militaires, ne ferait pas partie des agents interrogés à Vienne par les enquêteurs onusiens. Son nom figurait dans une première version du rapport Mehlis, dont le texte définitif fut présenté au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU fin octobre, mettant en évidence une implication syrienne dans le meurtre d'Hariri. «Un bon rapport de synthèse pour des diplomates, analyse un policier proche de l'enquête, mais qui ne contient pas de preuves pour établir une culpabilité», ajoute-t-il.
Si les présomptions convergent vers Damas, la faiblesse des témoignages est en effet le principal talon d'Achille de l'enquête, qui se poursuit jusqu'au 15 décembre. Damas a commencé de s'engouffrer dans la brèche. Lundi, le pouvoir alaouite a présenté un Syrien kurde, Hassam Taher Hassam, qui a reconnu avoir fait, sous la menace, un faux témoignage devant la commission. Il y accusait deux proches de Bashar, son frère Maher et Assef Shawkat, d'avoir commandité l'assassinat de l'ex-premier ministre libanais. De son côté, la commission a déclaré que l'homme était volontairement venu à elle le 1er septembre. Mais la fausse piste Taher Hassam ne surprend pas les services de renseignements, DGSE en tête, informés durant l'été qu'un témoin anonyme du rapport Mehlis avait été contraint de mettre en cause un haut responsable syrien au cours d'un interrogatoire haut en couleur. Sans doute s'agissait-il de Taher Hassam.
Damas cherche à discréditer le rapport Mehlis
Après avoir beaucoup tergiversé, «la Syrie fait tout ce qu'elle peut pour montrer qu'elle coopère avec l'ONU et pour décrédibiliser le rapport Mehlis», souligne un diplomate occidental au Proche-Orient. Hier, Damas a mis en garde contre les tentatives de «certains Libanais» d'induire en erreur la commission. Aux yeux des Syriens, le faux témoignage de Taher Hassam rappelle celui de Mohamed Zuher al-Sadiq (lire notre article ci-dessous), incarcéré en France. Là encore, Mehlis avait été averti du peu de fiabilité de ce dernier. «Il ne faudrait pas que l'ONU se décrédibilise», avertit un bon connaisseur de la Syrie.
Damas aurait reçu l'assurance que les cadres interrogés à Vienne regagneront ensuite la Syrie, sans risquer une demande d'arrestation de la part de la commission. Fin septembre, en Syrie, ces mêmes cadres avaient récité une leçon bien apprise devant les limiers onusiens, furieux d'un tel manque de coopération. «Aujourd'hui, Damas est sans doute prêt à lâcher Rostom Ghazalé, dit un interlocuteur des services syriens, car il est mal aimé par le pouvoir.» Mais malgré les failles de l'enquête, le problème pour le régime alaouite reste le même : comment limiter au plus haut niveau son implication dans l'assassinat d'Hariri ? «S'il coopère vraiment, le pouvoir est fichu, car les langues vont se délier, constate le policier. Mais s'il ne coopère pas, la commission va conclure de nouveau à une mauvaise volonté syrienne. C'est insuffisant judiciairement, mais, diplomatiquement, ça suffit pour que les Américains fassent circuler à l'ONU un projet de résolution avec des sanctions à la clé contre Damas.»
Le clan Hariri aurait manipulé un témoin clé de l'enquête
Le seul témoin nommément cité dans l'enquête sur l'assassinat de l'ancien premier ministre libanais n'était pas fiable.
G. M.
[30 novembre 2005]
Depuis l'Arabie saoudite, où il a trouvé refuge, Mohamed Zuher al-Sadiq se manifeste en juin auprès de la commission Mehlis. Dans un premier temps, le procureur allemand accorde peu de crédit à celui qui se présente comme un membre important des services de renseignements syriens au Liban ayant des révélations à faire sur l'assassinat de Rafic Hariri, le 14 février à Beyrouth. Circonspect, Detlev Mehlis n'ignore-t-il pas les conclusions des premiers debriefings effectués par les services de renseignements saoudiens puis américains ? «A une forte probabilité, l'homme est un affabulateur», écrit alors la CIA, qui lâche volontiers la piste al-Sadiq.
C'est Rifaat al-Assad, l'oncle du président syrien, en exil en Europe, qui avait convaincu les Saoudiens d'accueillir le transfuge. Rifaat, qui n'a jamais renoncé à exercer le pouvoir à Damas, veut donner des gages à ceux qui entendent profiter de la liquidation d'Hariri pour changer le régime syrien. Soucieux de garder de l'influence sur Bashar, Ryad ne tient pas cependant à abriter plus longtemps un témoin peu fiable. Sadiq est alors emmené dans une des résidences de Rifaat à Marbella, aux Baléares. Nous sommes en août. Pendant ce temps, à Beyrouth, Detlev Mehlis est à la peine dans son enquête. Les témoignages abondent. Mais les preuves d'une implication syrienne dans l'assassinat d'Hariri se font plus que rares. Seconde étape de la manipulation : le clan Hariri et la commission Mehlis demandent à la France d'héberger Sadiq pour pouvoir l'interroger.
Un témoin douteux, mais utile
Courant août, «la DGSE exfiltre Sadiq de Marbella pour le transférer à Paris», raconte un policier français proche de l'enquête. Des agents l'interrogent, avant de conclure eux aussi au manque de fiabilité du témoin. Sadiq est ensuite remis à la DST, qui à son tour le questionne, puis aboutit à la même conclusion. Protégé par une équipe de policiers, Sadiq réside alors à Meudon, près de Paris.
Pour l'équipe Hariri, même douteux, l'homme est utile. «On s'en est probablement servi pour lui faire endosser des informations recueillies par ailleurs», reconnaît un membre de l'entourage de Saad Hariri. En échange vraisemblablement d'une importante somme d'argent, Sadiq accepte de recycler des renseignements qui, espère-t-on, pourraient faire avancer l'enquête. Il ne se cache guère. Fin août, hilare, Sadiq appelle son frère Imad pour lui annoncer qu'il est devenu «millionnaire», rapporte l'hebdomadaire allemand Der Spiegel. Pour que son témoignage paraisse crédible, Sadiq s'accuse carrément d'avoir participé au meurtre d'Hariri.
Le 27 septembre, par écrit, il confesse aux enquêteurs onusiens avoir participé à la planification de l'assassinat. Que dit Sadiq dans son témoignage, repris dans le rapport Mehlis ? Il assure avoir mis son appartement beyrouthin de Khaldeh à la disposition des conspirateurs, parmi lesquels plusieurs hauts responsables des services de renseignements syriens. Sadiq prétend également que la décision d'éliminer Hariri a été prise en Syrie, avant une série de rencontres clandestines au Liban, de juillet à décembre 2004, entre sept officiers syriens et quatre Libanais.
«Quand Sadiq parle, Mehlis n'a pratiquement rien», constate un diplomate français, qui suit l'affaire. Le procureur va utiliser les aveux de Sadiq comme une arme psychologique pour tenter un coup de bluff. Le 30 août, Mehlis demande à la justice libanaise l'arrestation de quatre responsables prosyriens des services de sécurité (Jamil al-Sayyed, Raymond Azar, Ali Hajj et Moustapha Hamdane). «Mehlis pensait que les quatre hommes allaient commencer à se déballonner», explique le diplomate.
Aucun indice matériel
Après ses aveux, Sadiq est accusé de complicité dans le meurtre d'Hariri. Le 13 octobre, à la demande de Detlev Mehlis, un mandat d'arrêt est lancé par la justice libanaise. Le 16, il est arrêté par des policiers français. Depuis, Sadiq est écroué en région parisienne. Le Liban a demandé son extradition. Mais il peut faire valoir la loi française, qui n'autorise pas l'extradition vers un pays appliquant la peine de mort, pour s'y opposer.
Qui est finalement Mohamed Zuher al-Sadiq ? Un petit escroc, chauffeur d'un général syrien qui venait régulièrement à Beyrouth. Sur place, l'enquête montre que ses dires ne sont corroborés par aucun indice matériel (type empreinte digitale) retrouvé dans son appartement.
Dans ces conditions, pourquoi la DGSE a-t-elle «traité» Sadiq, alors qu'elle avait reçu des notes de la CIA le disqualifiant ? «L'ordre est certainement venu d'en haut», affirme le diplomate. Sous-entendu : de Jacques Chirac lui-même, qui veut aider la famille Hariri à découvrir la vérité sur l'assassinat de son ami.
Les fausses allégations de Sadiq pourraient être à l'origine du retrait in extremis des noms de Maher al-Assad et Assef Chaoukat, le frère et le beau-frère de Bashar, du rapport d'enquête remis à l'ONU par le procureur allemand fin octobre. Une reculade qui avait alors surpris les observateurs.
This article is totally manipulative and dishonest eg:
" the Alawite government presented a Syrian Kurd, Husam Tahir Husam, who acknowledged having given false testimony, under threat, before the commission."
Acknowledged? It means that Malbrunot implicitly endorse the position of the Syrian government. A professional journalist would have said 'claimed'
Want a good take on France & the Arab World ? I remember the BBC had an excellent 4-part series on that subject in September last year, well worth listening to, even if you only hear the one on Syria. .(http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/147_francearabworld/index.shtml)
It shows the French were proud of their “softly, softly” and dialogue approach in Syria, all carrots and no sticks (leave it to clever and charming and cultured us, we’ll reform Syria). France got off on being the toast of the Arab world, but it turned out it could not match its lofty rhetoric or sense of itself with real action or real achievement. Their failure in Syria is pathetically self-evident.
The French discovered that it cost nothing to take the high moral ground, but that this stuff proved a weak and pointless side show when the American juggernaut rubber hit the road...
Wrong side of history - that's the kind way of putting it.
Vox,
The translation maybe a bit misleading, in French it says “avoir reconnu” = “having admitted”. This is the problem wtth translation, the spirit of thr article gets lost.
This said, one has to admit that at the end of the day it is not about professionalism as you put it, but about the public mood. The story, regardless how you evalute it has been published by a known name in France, in the country’s leading newspaper that is close to the ruling party and to the Elyees. I read the article in the print version of the newspaper, and it was not on the front page, but printed in small font somewhere in the middle. This is quite different from the article published in big fonts, front page a short time ago stating that the Mehlis delivered to the UN “un rapport acablant” (I honestly don’t know how to translate this, but it roughly mean a damming report); yet no-one called this “totally manipulative and dishonest ».
Alerion and Ehsani, please keep this interesting thread going on (EngChange as well). These are the only quotes I read on this forum, the rest I just scroll down through.
Regards,
PS : Many thanks to Akhwat who spotted the English version of Le Figaro‘s article first and kindly published it.
Active Listner,
Smart and pointed comments, as usual
I persoanlly was not convinced of the guilt of the Syrian regime in this assassination, and furthermore was against this interference by the so called UN in the internal affairs of small states such as Lebanon, Iraq, or Syria. Yet, I blamed the regimes of Saddam and Assad for having led their countries to become toys by the so called International community.We all know there is no such thing as International Community, and in principle, the UN could be called for establishing Justice in the world if the UN itself was a Just organization, which is far from being. We see that big powers do what the wish, and are choosy of what International Treaties they can abide by, and then you have even small countries that get away from facing to UN resolutions, and defy them with such disregard to basic Logic which makes me feel that that humanity is very far from approaching its ideal existence or aspirations. There is still in my blog one old thread that speaks against Mehlis and the type of colonial mentality that such an interfernce in weak countries reminds us of. However, since no one cared about the issues of Sovereignty of nations, or International Laws and the respect for International Law, not on this forum, nor any where else, I thought that may be we should hope to take advantage of the Mehlis mission to punish the Assad Regime, and wished for France and America to not retreat and to stay the course.
Perhaps America listened to my earlier post this week when I wondered why it should even care about those retarded Arabs and wanting them to become democrats, and suggested that a Solution to the whole world would be to drop 22 terrific Atmoic Bombs in all of the 22 crazy Arab states.
Perhaps the US understood my comment in wishing to destroy those Arab states with nuclear bombs as a desire to just destroy them. Therefore they may have decided that the best and cheaper way to destroy them is really not to drop an atamic bomb on any one of them, but to let them continue to suffer from their dictators and regimes. Hence, they may have opted for letting Assad continue to rule and achieve his slow but steady destruction of Syria as the other Arab leaders are doing in the rest of the 21 Arab crazy States. Perhaps I convinced them to let these Arabs be destroyed, and they opted for the cheaper option. I really think that allowing those Arab States to even stay untouched for one more day hoping that their kings and dictators will continue to do the job on them and achieve their total destruction later on on is a mistake. Arab states must die now.
JAM
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just imagine the savage Arabs in Saudi Arabia telling people, some of them are married to Saudi women, and have worked and lived for many many years in Saudi Arabia to leave the country or be deported just because they reached the age of 60. Will the Arabs stay silent if France told all of its Arab population to leave or be deported just because they reached the age of 60? OR will they not oblige froeign wome in Saudi Arabia to wear the bag on their heads to respect the Islamic traditions while they shouted so hard against France for wanting the Muslim women there to respect the French Traditions and take that ugly black bag off of their heads?
Mostly I agree with you, JAM, because our common feelings. With every comeback to syria I feel shocked, but I love my homeland and I wish for my people to live in peace and wealth as I do in europe. It is really confusing me.
What about this here????
What Staying on Course Really Means
by Robert Dreyfuss
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DRE20051202&articleId=1387
>
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home