The following is a translation from Arabic.
It is being observed that the intensity of the international conflict in Lebanon has somewhat subsided recently, and things are to an extent appearing normal. What are the reasons for this? Does this mean that the French-American conflict in Lebanon has ended and the solution to the problems of Lebanon is moving towards consensus?
To have a proper understanding of the situation, it is important to bear in mind the following:
1-America had been rather fruitlessly wandering in Lebanon for years and especially since the Taif agreement. It was only when the US prompted the Syrian army to move into that it became a serious contender as a major power broker in the country, thanks to the Syrian army’s surrogate role.
2-This was the situation until the assassination of Rafiq Al-Hariri, when Europe and especially president Chirac of France exploited the assassination as a great opportunity to raise local, regional and even international public opinion against America, Syria, and all their allies who were the de-facto rulers over Lebanon at the time of assassination. Chirac succeeded in harnessing the climate to his advantage and so embarrassed America that it was forced to instruct Syria to withdraw its army and retreat into background. Chirac successfully kept the situation on the front-burner and was aided by the British who, true to their tradition, fuelled the conflict from behind the scenes. It has always been Britain’s policy of keeping the US in good humour in public but has worked from behind the scenes to embarrass its major ally, the United States! Thus Chirac was able to stand his ground well and confront the US in Lebanon.
3-The conflict between American and French has continued in Lebanon and both parties have used whatever means available to them. America wants to retain its hold over Lebanon as in previous years, while and Europe, particularly France and its president Chirac had dreamed of restoring its old colonisation of Lebanon, and saw an opportunity in the Hariri assassination crisis to escalate the conflict against America and its ally Syria and thus realise its dream of hegemony over Lebanon.
4-This was the situation until early 2007, specifically until Sarkozy’s election as president of France. Sarkozy has been known for his American leanings and his political inclination has been towards the Neo-Conservatives than towards the Democrats. He is known to be inclined towards the Jews as his mother is a Jew herself.
5 - Sarkozy began his tenure as French President and made efforts to close the chapter of French hostility towards America which was the hallmark of French policy during Chirac’s era. He considered the US invasion of Iraq as fait-accompli, and saw the need to treat the situation as such rather than to oppose the US.
6 - Most importantly, he eased the French-US conflict in Lebanon, and increased official visits between America and France.
7-Thus they moved towards closer cooperation in Lebanon instead to trying to eliminate one another from Lebanon.
8-Therefore, it may be said that America and France are now looking for a solution that allows each one to play its role as much as they can afford and are not exploring ways to work against the interest of other which was the case during Chirac’s presidency.
9- It is now only the British and their followers in Lebanon who would try to precipitate trouble against the French-American cooperation.
10-Thus, during the era of Chirac, the conflict was between the US and France which was fuelled by Britain from behind the curtains.
The core issue in the conflict was either the France retained Lebanon exclusively for itself and pushes the US out, or the French fail in Lebanon leaving it completely under the American influence. This situation ensured that the conflict remained hot as there were no middle grounds for a compromised solution. This intensity of conflict was reflected in the Lebanese events with each party trying to use its armory fully to ensure its hold.
Sarkozy on the other hand eased the conflict between America and France and now they share interests between them according to the influence of each of them internationally. This situation is in sharp contrast to the earlier confrontational attitude of only France to the exclusion of US or vice-versa.
If America and France are thus now safe from Britain’s interference in the conflict thorough which Britain and its allies often embarrassed them, it is due to their willingness for compromise and cooperation with each other in Lebanon.
As for the second part of the question about the imminent end to the French-American conflict, it is not so, and if it appears to be as such, then this is only a temporary phase and will not last beyond a short term. The reason is that America’s arrogance and conceit will not allow it to share the spoils with others, and this will result in renewed struggle.
America has come to accept this situation for the simple reason that it is already in trouble in Iraq, in trouble now, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but for this, it would not have agreed to share the spoils with Sarkozy, but would have turned him away as is the practice with such countries.
The last question about the possibility that things are moving towards a consensus, it is a correct perception to the extent that America, France are aware of Britain’s scheming. We know that Britain is quite skillful in such matters and has men and means in Lebanon just as America and France have.
11 - The Conclusion:
The French-American conflict in Lebanon which was intense during the Chirac era has now subsided to an extent and the solution is a compromise that can preserve their interests in proportion to their global clout.
It is only to frustrate the plans of Britain and her allies that the US and France have come to a compromised truce and this is well reflected on the ground situation in Lebanon. Although Britain's ability to intensify the conflict between America and France is limited, it should nevertheless be underestimated and must be taken into account.
It was announced yesterday that the American Congress, by a majority of 75 votes to 23, has adopted a (non-binding) law to partition Iraq into three entities (Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni)...
The question is how a law approved by an overwhelming majority is passed by the Congress and yet remain non-binding? What is the rationale behind this?
Indeed political actions have several forms, which if used judiciously, are as lethal & even more effective than the military means.
The major countries that aspire for domination and influence do not resort to such means for nothing, even if their aims are not immediately apparent. Further, the potential strength and greatness of such political maneuvering is to conceal its real motive and thus confuse the rivals who will be in no position to counter its effect, because it was designed in the first place to keep them guessing. Sometimes the aim is to plant misinformation and is timed to gauge reactions and according plan strategies.
The present case of this ‘non-binding’ law is one such; the Congress did not meet to merely discuss its merits, the uproars in the house, and then the voting and opposition to it, all for nothing. Sometimes even the White House has to appear opposed to such bills. All this is not in vain; there is a purpose to it all.
The purpose is that the US wants to study the response to the proposed division of Iraq, which is not a simple matter, either locally, regionally or globally. America wants to study the responses of this complicated proposal and has worked on its research and proposed it to the Congress for voting.
The US is now monitoring the reactions around, and will see how it is reflected locally among the Shi’a and Sunni Muslims; as well as its effects regionally: the reaction of Turkey on the Kurdish entity, as well as the reaction of the surrounding countries and the impact of the partition, as well as international reaction and acceptance of the idea vis-a-vis the generally accepted notion of not altering the international borders, which developed after the World War II.
In this light of these responses, America is contemplating the next step, to convert this ‘non-binding’ law to a binding one!
Therefore, if Muslims did not take a firm stance on this issue, they need to stand up and remove their rulers who care for nothing other than their own seats, even if it such seats were shaking. The rulers are only concerned with their power and not about the countries or their people. If the Muslims did not realise the seriousness of this further division, then they must be prepared for their destruction, the countdown to which is already set in motion by the enemy.
Indeed, the Muslims are capable of thwarting the conspiracies of America and its allies, their lands are rich in manpower and resources, and more importantly, they have the Book of Allah (swt) and His Prophet’s Sunnah, which has obligated upon them the Khilafah system of ruling which is the only cure for all their ills and problems, by the will of Allah (swt), the Muslims shall thwart the enemy Kuffar’s army and end their occupation of the Islamic lands. Not only this, but the Muslims are also strong enough to reverse the situation and instead, take the call of Islam to the enemy’s doorsteps, remove the darkness and thus restore the dominance of Islam! the guarantor God that they are able not only to prevent soldiers infidels to Islam wrong country, but also to catch up to their own doorstep for the dissemination of Islam and remove the darkness.
Finally, this ‘non-binding’ law is intended to minimize its threat perception and camouflage its potential as a destructive conspiracy.
15th Ramadan, 1428 A.H
27th September, 2007 C.E