Syria, Lebanon and the road to Globalization

[Stvn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/opinion/16FRIE.html

read the article and tell us what you think.

-stvn

 

[Legion]

can't read it.

 

[Silent_One]

IMHO I think Mr. friedman is one of the best columnists writing on the Iraq / Middle East issues today.

There are many good reasons for the U.S. to promote reform or regime change in Syria, but we have no legal basis to do it now by military means and are not likely to try. Yet Syria, and countries like it, will be a problem, and we need a new strategic doctrine in the post-Saddam era to deal with them.

I agree.

Aggressive engagement in support of triple self-determination — for Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinians — would be a great way to follow up, and help consolidate, the liberation of Iraq.

I agree in concept. Difficult to accomplish.

 

[Stvn]

Sorry, it was brought to my attention shortly after posting this that some people may not have or want a NYTimes registration. I resitsted it myself for a very long time until giving in.

So for those who do not want or have the NYTimes reg. I have cut and pasted the entire text of this article below.

-stvn

Roto-Rooter
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

I was chatting with an Egyptian friend in Cairo two weeks ago when she got a joke e-mailed to her cellphone, which she immediately shared with me. It said: "President Bush: Take Syria ? get Lebanon for free."

Now that it's become apparent that the Syrians have given military help to Saddam Hussein's army, and are alleged to be providing sanctuary for members of his despised clique, the question has been raised as to whether the Bush team might take out Syria's regime next. After all, when the Roto-Rooter truck's in the neighborhood, why not take advantage?

My short answer is this: There are many good reasons for the U.S. to promote reform or regime change in Syria, but we have no legal basis to do it now by military means and are not likely to try. Yet Syria, and countries like it, will be a problem, and we need a new strategic doctrine in the post-Saddam era to deal with them.

Let's explore this in detail. For me, the best argument for pressuring Syria is the fact that France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said on Sunday that this was not the time to be pressuring Syria. Ever since he blocked any U.N. military action against Saddam, Mr. de Villepin has become my moral compass: whatever he is for, I am against. And whatever he is against, I am for.

Yes, Mr. de Villepin did say, while actually visiting Lebanon, that the world should focus not on Syria, but on rebuilding Iraq and advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process. But what he neglected to mention is something I am also for, and France should be for and the world should be for: the end of Syria's occupation of Lebanon, which has been going on since 1976.

And that leads to the second-best reason for regime change in Syria: it could set Lebanon free. Lebanon is the only Arab country to have had a functioning democracy. It is also the Arab country that is most hard-wired for globalization. Trading and entrepreneurship are in Lebanon's DNA. Lebanon should be leading the Arab world into globalization, but it has not been able to play its natural Hong Kong role because Syria has choked the life out of the place.

Iraq is the only Arab country that combines oil, water, brains and secularism. Lebanon has water, brains, secularism and a liberal tradition. The Palestinians have a similar potential. Which is why I favor "triple self-determination." If Lebanon, Iraq and a Palestinian state could all be made into functioning, decent, free-market, self-governing societies, it would be enough to tilt the entire Arab world onto a modernizing track.

The third reason for taking on the Syrian regime is the fact that next to Saddam's regime, Syria's is the most repressive in the region, and the one most deeply implicated in protecting terrorists. Syria must get out of Lebanon, and Israel also needs to get out of Syria (the Golan), but that is going to happen only if there is a reformed Syrian government that no longer needs the conflict with Israel to justify its militarization of Syrian society.

But, as I said, we're not going to invade Syria to change Syria. So what to do? The Middle East expert Stephen Cohen offers a useful concept. He calls it "aggressive engagement ? something between outright military engagement and useless constructive engagement."

Bush-style military engagement with Syria is not in the cards right now. But French-style constructive engagement, which is just a cover for dancing with dictators, is a fraud. The natural third way is "aggressive engagement." That means getting in Syria's face every day. Reminding the world of its 27-year occupation of Lebanon and how much it has held that country back, and reminding the Syrian people of how much they've been deprived of a better future by their own thuggish regime.

Aggressive engagement of Syria also feels right to me because a U.S. attack on Syria right now would make many Iraqis feel very uncomfortable about working openly with America. Iraq may be liberated from Saddam, but never forget that it is still an Arab country, dominated by an Arab narrative. Iraqis are not watching Fox TV.

Which is why I would also apply "aggressive engagement" ? in different ways ? to Yasir Arafat and Ariel Sharon. The Arabs need to force Mr. Arafat to retire, and the Americans need to test Mr. Sharon's professed willingness for a fair deal with a reformed Palestinian Authority.

Aggressive engagement in support of triple self-determination ? for Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinians ? would be a great way to follow up, and help consolidate, the liberation of Iraq.   

 

[Pete]

This is my favorite part:

Let's explore this in detail. For me, the best argument for pressuring Syria is the fact that France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said on Sunday that this was not the time to be pressuring Syria. Ever since he blocked any U.N. military action against Saddam, Mr. de Villepin has become my moral compass: whatever he is for, I am against. And whatever he is against, I am for.

 

[kyleb]

i like that part too Pete, it is refreshing to see someone actually admit that their position is based on bias and moral relativity; on the other hand i am disappointed that so many people don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[pascal]

i like that part too Pete, it is refreshing to see someone actually admit that their position is based on bias and moral relativity; on the other hand i am disappointed that so many people don't see anything wrong with that.

I agree.

 

[Silent_One]

So, Kyle & Pascal, what do you know about Mr. Friedman? It is apparent that you feel his "position is based on bias and moral relativity". But what do you realy know about his position? Do you know why he said that? Do you have any qoutes or information that further explains your position that Mr. Friedman is bias?

 

[pascal]

On Bias right now:

whatever he is for, I am against. And whatever he is against, I am for.

Please read the context of what we agreed.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Um, It's called being "tongue in cheek."

 

[Silent_One]

Vote France Off the Island
by Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times
February 10, 2003




Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council could be chosen like the starting five for the N.B.A. All-Star team — with a vote by the fans. If so, I would certainly vote France off the Council and replace it with India. Then the perm-five would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United States. That's more like it.

Why replace France with India? Because India is the world's biggest democracy, the world's largest Hindu nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation, and, quite frankly, India is just so much more serious than France these days. France is so caught up with its need to differentiate itself from America to feel important, it's become silly. India has grown out of that game. India may be ambivalent about war in Iraq, but it comes to its ambivalence honestly. Also, France can't see how the world has changed since the end of the cold war. India can.

Throughout the cold war, France sought to differentiate itself by playing between the Soviet and American blocs. France could get away with this entertaining little game for two reasons: first, it knew that Uncle Sam, in the end, would always protect it from the Soviet bear. So France could tweak America's beak, do business with Iraq and enjoy America's military protection. And second, the cold war world was, we now realize, a much more stable place. Although it was divided between two nuclear superpowers, both were status quo powers in their own way. They represented different orders, but they both represented order.

That is now gone. Today's world is also divided, but it is increasingly divided between the "World of Order" — anchored by America, the E.U., Russia, India, China and Japan, and joined by scores of smaller nations — and the "World of Disorder." The World of Disorder is dominated by rogue regimes like Iraq's and North Korea's and the various global terrorist networks that feed off the troubled string of states stretching from the Middle East to Indonesia.

How the World of Order deals with the World of Disorder is the key question of the day. There is room for disagreement. There is no room for a lack of seriousness. And the whole French game on Iraq, spearheaded by its diplomacy-lite foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, lacks seriousness. Most of France's energy is devoted to holding America back from acting alone, not holding Saddam Hussein's feet to the fire to comply with the U.N.

The French position is utterly incoherent. The inspections have not worked yet, says Mr. de Villepin, because Saddam has not fully cooperated, and, therefore, we should triple the number of inspectors. But the inspections have failed not because of a shortage of inspectors. They have failed because of a shortage of compliance on Saddam's part, as the French know. The way you get that compliance out of a thug like Saddam is not by tripling the inspectors, but by tripling the threat that if he does not comply he will be faced with a U.N.-approved war.

Mr. de Villepin also suggested that Saddam's government pass "legislation to prohibit the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction." (I am not making this up.) That proposal alone is a reminder of why, if America didn't exist and Europe had to rely on France, most Europeans today would be speaking either German or Russian.
I also want to avoid a war — but not by letting Saddam off the hook, which would undermine the U.N., set back the winds of change in the Arab world and strengthen the World of Disorder. The only possible way to coerce Saddam into compliance — without a war — is for the whole world to line up shoulder-to-shoulder against his misbehavior, without any gaps. But France, as they say in kindergarten, does not play well with others. If you line up against Saddam you're just one of the gang. If you hold out against America, you're unique. "France, it seems, would rather be more important in a world of chaos than less important in a world of order," says the foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum, author of "The Ideas That Conquered the World."

If France were serious about its own position, it would join the U.S. in setting a deadline for Iraq to comply, and backing it up with a second U.N. resolution authorizing force if Iraq does not. And France would send its prime minister to Iraq to tell that directly to Saddam. Oh, France's prime minister was on the road last week. He was out drumming up business for French companies in the world's biggest emerging computer society. He was in India.

 

[pascal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2848593.stm

France moots rival Iraq plan


Paris has outlined rival proposals to achieve disarmament in Iraq after the US and UK suggested that French "intransigence" was bringing war even closer.

The announcement came after Paris rejected outright Britain's six "tests" for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to pass - before war can be launched - in the hope of winning wider support at the United Nations Security Council.

Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said France wanted "benchmarks" against "a realistic timeframe".

But the US immediately dismissed the idea as "illogical", saying it would give Saddam Hussein unlimited time.

The current resolution gives Iraq until Monday to disarm and, even though the US and UK have agreed to continue efforts for a new resolution until then, speculation is mounting that they may not bother to seek UN backing at all.

France has said it will veto any resolution containing a military ultimatum.

Hitting back at allegations of intransigence, Paris said it was interested in setting a series of tests if consensus could be found.

"We are prepared to move forward in the search for a solution, and we are in constant contact with all of our partners in the UN Security Council," Mr de Villepin said.

He said the aim was "to try, within the logic of the inspectors' work, to determine both a work programme with benchmarks, with criteria, and a realistic and reasonable timeframe, that will allow forward movement on the path of peaceful disarmament of Iraq".

But it remains highly improbable that the French would accept any tests which, like the British proposal, involved the immediate threat of war.

"If you reject the logic of ultimatum then you are saying Saddam has forever to disarm," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer shortly after the French statement.

"France seems to think Saddam will disarm on his own. The United States and many other countries do not agree."

In other developments


A UN weapons inspector is killed in a car crash outside of Baghdad

Iraq says it will present a report on its disposal of VX nerve agent on Friday and on anthrax in a few days.
The US has consistently made clear that it is prepared to go to war without explicit UN backing, but its ally, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, has been keen to get a fresh resolution.

However, on Thursday Mr Blair - who faces deep domestic opposition to war - said that the resolution appeared now "less likely than at any time", and war was getting closer.

In Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress that even though negotiations were continuing, the US might not go for a vote at the Security Council.

"We are still talking to the members of the Council with respect to coalescing around a position that wouldn't draw a veto, but the options remain: go for a vote and see what members say, or not go for a vote," Mr Powell said.


'Moral victory'

Russia insisted it would veto any resolution which paved the way for military intervention in Iraq, but appeared to leave space for compromise.

Speaking on Thursday, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said Iraq would need a "certain amount of time" to meet the tests presented by Britain.

According to the BBC's UN correspondent Greg Barrow, privately many diplomats say that discussions in the corridors are less about disarming Iraq and more about saving Mr Blair's skin.

B-2 STEALTH BOMBER

Crew: Two
Payload: 40,000 pounds (18,140 kilograms) of conventional or nuclear weapons
Wingspan: 172 feet (52.12 metres)
Range: Intercontinental


Click here for the B-2 fact file

Even if a resolution is vetoed, analysts say the US and UK could still claim a moral victory if nine of the 15 council members back its resolution.

But there is no guarantee of this at present.


White House officials are meanwhile reported to be gearing up for a presidential address - possibly as early as this weekend - preparing the nation for war.

The speech is said to be likely to include an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein, giving him a date after which military action could be launched.

This would allow weapons inspectors and humanitarian workers to leave Iraq before hostilities start. The UN has already evacuated all of its observers from the Iraqi side of the demilitarised zone with Kuwait.

The US has deployed B-2 stealth bombers for the first time.

The bombers have been used in combat before, but only flying sorties from their base in the US. A spokeswoman did not say where the planes would be based.

 

[pax]

I dont think its Syrias fault for the ethnic internecine chaos that hit that country. Syria took over Lebanon in part to stop the bloodshed which had lasted for years... If a new gov can prove it can run the country without a return to civil war then Syria should step aside but again not many in the international community did much about lebanon other than Syria...

Syria is authoritarian and not totalitarian like Iraq was. I think constructive engagement is called for in this case.

 

[Silent_One]

pax wrote:

Syria is authoritarian and not totalitarian like Iraq was. I think constructive engagement is called for in this case.

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
1.) Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom
2.) Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

Sounds similar, no?

 

[MrsSkywalker]

bias: n. a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment

opinion: n. belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

It's an opinion column. Opinion implies bias, one way or the other, because it is not fact. There is absolutely nothing objectionable to someone giving their opinion, in an opinion column. It frankly boggles the mind that Mr. Friedman's biased is an issue of debate!

it is refreshing to see someone actually admit that their position is based on bias and moral relativity; on the other hand i am disappointed that so many people don't see anything wrong with that.

What other way is there to think about things? It is fundamentally impossible for humans to think without any emotion or past experiences involved at all. That is why we remember things. Our past experiences and emotions shape who we are. There is nothing wrong with that, because it is something that humans cannot help. I refuse to feel bad about a homosapien shortcoming. There is no such thing as zero bias in human nature, no matter how much people wish there was.

You cannot even try and claim that you are unbiased and impartial. So don't condemn the rest of us who are human enough to admit we are.

 

[kyleb]

i meant bias in the sense of prejudice, of course such things are inherent to our nature as individuals, but i do not see that as an excuse to revel in it. also, i find it funny to hear you say that i "cannot even try and claim" such things when i never did, and even more so considering i have seen your support for FoxNews.

oh and Silent_One, i you will find definitions more suitable towards what pax said if you dig a little deeper into the field of political science.

 

[Silent_One]

oh and Silent_One, i you will find definitions more suitable towards what pax said if you dig a little deeper into the field of political science.

i you? Who

Edited

 

[kyleb]

scratch the "i".

 

[MrsSkywalker]

i meant bias in the sense of prejudice

But, Mr. Friedman's article isn't prejudiced. He's voicing his differences of opinion about a few specific peoples' policies as they relate/related to foreign affairs. This is not prejudice. He's not against these people just because they are French, or Christian, or bald....he is against them because in his opinion, they are being stupid.

 

[kyleb]

prejudice as in a predisposition.