Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Bush orders withdrawal as Arab states seek solution

2005-03-03

The United States and France stepped up calls Wednesday for a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon as Arab countries attempted to strike a formula that combines United Nations Resolution 1559 with the provisions of the Taif Accord to help Syria avoid a showdown with the world. U.S. President George W. Bush bluntly ordered Syria to withdraw its troops and intelligence services from Lebanon immediately, dismissing Syrian President Bashar Assad's pledge to pullout "in the next few months". Bush said: "The world is speaking with one voice when it comes to making sure that democracy has a chance to flourish in Lebanon."

In an attempt to formulate an Arab initiative to the escalating international pressure on Damascus, Egypt's foreign minister said the United Nations should be involved in a Syrian pullout. Following a meeting with his Saudi counterpart Prince Saud al-Faisal Syrian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said: "A mechanism is being discussed for the implementation of Resolution 1559 and on ways in which the UN could be involved." In an interview with Reuters news agency, Syria's U.K. ambassador, Sami Khiyami confirmed Egypt and Saudi Arabia were among a number of Arab states seeking to combine Resolution 1559 with the provisions of the Taif Accord that ended Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.

Posted by:Fred

#11 the last time any french govt aspired to hegemony was under Napoleon. The end of a 150 year drive for dominance. They havent had a chance since, and they know it now.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-03 5:44:07 PM

#10 Maybe they have somewhat of the same thought process/feelings as some Brits, we took their birthright away.

--They want a multipolar world.-- When the lingua was franca do you think they wanted that?

Posted by: anonymous2u 2005-03-03 5:06:24 PM

#9 However, the paramount fear of the frogs is the ascendence of les Anglo-Saxons to a world domination

you are correct. But then through history the paramount fear of most states has been the ascendance of other states to domination.

they feel should rightfully fall to France.

There youre headed off into kool aid land.

They want a multipolar world. Ultimately we're willing to settle for one. But in the meantime we WILL pursue policies that we see as in our interests, even if they have the side effect of aggrandizing our overall power. They wont accept that aggrandizement, where they can avoid it. This means a long, built in set of disagreements, especially while the unsettled state of the Islamic world leads us to interventions we would not otherwise pursue. OTOH it leaves plenty of room for common ground.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-03 2:09:09 PM

#8 LH, You are correct about the fluidity of alliances in the current environment. However, the paramount fear of the frogs is the ascendence of les Anglo-Saxons to a world domination they feel should rightfully fall to France. What is particularly galling is that we do not aspire to it as do they, yet it falls to us, almost effortlessly, Therefore, France's default position on any international issue will be in opposition to the US. Should other French interests out weigh this, as they do in Lebannon, the French will not pursue their anti-American policy. However, we should never mistake these occasions with abandonment of what is fundamentally a hostile policy without hostilities.

Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-03 11:11:53 AM

#7 Au contraire, mon ami. UNSC 1559 has been instrumental - Hariri's support for that may well have been the action that provoked Syrian intell to off him, thus triggering the current revolt. Political action at the UNSC may continue to be helpful.

Now if you mean we shouldnt use UN troops, Id agree. Theyre not up to standards, and are overstretched in Congo and elsewhere anyway. Id prefer a NATO force, largely French, not a bunch of Bengalis, Nigerians, etc. Lebanon is too tough a place, and too important, not to use first world troops.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-03 10:54:21 AM

#6 Whatever we do, we should NOT involve the UN in this Lebanon/Syria situation. The important thing is to keep up the pressure on Syria and keep them on the defensive. They have had DECADES to get out of Lebanon. Now all they have done in that time is to become a safe haven for nutcase terrorist outfits and have supported Saddam and Iran. If France wants to help out in their two-faced way, well, OK. Just keep our eyes on 'em. The UN has done NOTHING to better the situation, so they should STFU. The more leveraging we can do for making the situation better without being the center of attention, the better. We conserve our assets and still achieve our goals.

Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-03-03 10:45:59 AM

#5 The French rulers fear a repetition of the Rwandan scenario: after the defeat of the genocidical Hutu regime backed by France they have been left with a regime who is no friend of France and the use of French in Rwanda is dwindling rapidly while English use is increasing. (Rwanda has three official languages: Kynyarwanda, French and English). This is an ill omen for France since the "Francophonie" has ever been a vector of long term influence over its former colonies

Posted by: JFM 2005-03-03 10:41:41 AM

#4 What I don't understand is France's position here. given the implicit French goal of *bleep*ing America at every turn, how did we end up on the same side of this issue?

Because international politics is not a zero sum game (even if its not the "noncompetive game" some on the left think), and the world already IS multipolar, despite the paranoid fears of some that the US is a hegemon. Ergo, while France would, all other things being equal, prefer a US loss, in many cases France can gain power at the expense of someone OTHER than the US. Or avoid a loss. In Lebanon, France has economic interests to protect, and prestige, given their historic role as protectors of the Maronites. And Hariri was a personal friend of Chirac, and to leave things be is an even bigger loss of prestige. At this point they are much better off getting on the bandwagon and pushing for Syrian withdrawl, and enabling it, and salvaging what they can for themselves. The US is best off taking advantage of this, using the French to enable the transition, while be wary of say, French reluctance to take on Hezbollah in a post-Syrian Lebanon.

Methinks some of us who grew up during the cold war have a tendency to see things in black and white. Frances role in international affairs now is NOT that of the USSR. It would be better to look back at 19thc international politics, when alliances were fluid and rivals often worked together against a common adversary, while keeping an eye out for the knife in the back.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-03 9:47:54 AM

#3 Mrs Davis

While I don't doubt Chirak is trying to double cross you and he will try to leverage the francophony cards the people will see who made the BIG contribution and who made the tiny, tiny, tiny one.

To understand the following joke you have to know that in French you don't say an aircraft carrier but an aircraftS carrier or a helicopterS carrier.

So during the tsunami relief operations I commented that America had sent the aircrafts (with an S) carrier "Abraham Lincoln" and the helicopterS (with an S) carrier "Bonhomme Richard" while France needed ages to send the helicopter (without an S) carrier "Jeanne d'Arc". :-) I love to disinflate the swollen heads of my dear compatriots.

Precision: The Jeanne d'Arc is the French school-ship for future Navy officers. It carries six helicopters but these are small and with limited payload since they are anti-submarine helicopters while the "Bonhomme Richard" carries 48 helicopters, 42 of them being big amphibious assault helicopters able to carry a squad or a far bigger payload than anti-submarine helicopters. And in addition there was the "Abraham Lincoln".

Posted by: JFM 2005-03-03 7:37:00 AM

#2 The frogs think that as the former colonial power they'll be the ones to rush in and re-establish order (and take all the business orders) when Syria falls apart. Just as they did in the Ivory Coast. If it weren't so close to Israel, I'd be tempted to let them have it so the world can see what its alternatives are.

Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-03 6:39:10 AM

#1 Once again our beloved Commander-in-Chimp(tm) confounds both enemies and allies alike by speaking in simple, declarative sentences. Get out. Now! Should provide fodder for diplomats, media analysts and pundits for weeks, or at least until Syrian forces depart.

What I don't understand is France's position here. given the implicit French goal of *bleep*ing America at every turn, how did we end up on the same side of this issue? Or to put it another way, what's in it for them?

Posted by: SteveS 2005-03-03 6:17:14 AM

00:00