UNSC Resolution 1559 and the so-called "greater Middle East"

(Editor's note: The following two articles by analyst ADIB S. KAWAR are highly informative not only about the aims of the United States, Israel and France, but also on the position of the Lebanese government regarding "Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias" at the time UNSC Resolution 1559 was imposed on 2 September 2004 by the Security Council, calling for their removal.)

UNSC Resolution 1559 and the so-called "greater Middle East"

What! a new Sykes/Picot Agreement?! The United States supported by France wants to impose this on the Arab states?

MidEast Web - http://www.mideastweb.org

(5 November 2004) - DURING WW I, actually in 1916, the British Sykes and the French Picot met and decided on a new colonialist movement, by force of which the two parties agreed to divide the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire between the two colonialist powers. This took place at the time when these territories were still under Ottoman rule, and while the colonialist allies were promising Arabs an independent Arab united state. The British insisted on getting Palestine, Trans Jordan and Iraq while they were already in control of the Arabian Gulf and Egypt and Sudan, because they had in mind to indorse Palestine to Zionism as a "national home for the Jews". The French got what they called the Levant, and they divided it later into two states, Syria and Lebanon, and in 1939 they cut out of northern Syria the Sanjak of Iskandaron and gave it on a golden platter to Turkey; so as not to join the war with the axis, namely Germany, Italy and Japan.

After WW II the two imperialist powers, the victorious allies France and Great Britain, imposed their will on the "League of Nations", which they created to grant them mandate, a polite polished terminology for colonies, over the "liberated" Arab territories.

The new mini Arab states got their independence and sovereignty after a long struggle, but unfortunately they did not try to unite into a big and strong enough viable state. The problem was not the people, but the puppet rulers the colonialist powers imposed as heads of states. Since then, abolishing the borders drawn by these colonialists powers became a violation of world security.

France, after an awakening of conscience, apologized from its old colonies for its colonialist past, and its policy towards them was considered progressive. France led the opposition camp against the neocolonialist policy of the United States especially in its war of aggression against Iraq, which made the leaders of its neo-conservative camp label the Europe of France and Germany the "Old Europe" while European states which supported its invasion of Iraq, especially the old Soviet satellites, were "the new Europe".

The Franco/American draft of the Security Council resolution 1559 calling on Syria to immediately withdraw from Lebanon and dismantle the Palestinian resistance organizations, so-called "terrorist organizations", namely Hezbollah, shocked and astonished us. It is not strange that the neo-conservative U.S. Administration would take this step; on the contrary this was expected. The cause of our shock is France's involvement, in cooperation with this administration. France had been in conflict with it and critical of Israeli terrorism towards the Palestinians, and we had never heard of it criticizing Lebanese resistance led by Hezbollah, which liberated South Lebanon from Israeli occupation and reunited it with Lebanon anew.

It is worth mentioning that the French resistance to the Nazi occupation of France during WW II was highly esteemed by the Free French and the allied forces led by the United States of America. The resistance men and women were rightly considered heroes. After the liberation of France from Nazi occupation, French resistance organizations killed tens of thousands of collaborators without trial, and they were not considered terrorists or killers. On the other hand, after the liberation of South Lebanon was partly achieved, with the exception of areas including the Chibaa Farms, the Lebanese resistance, unlike the French resistance, did not take revenge from the Lebanese collaborators with the Zionist occupation who killed a large number of resistance fighters. On the contrary Lebanese resistance handed over the collaborators, who did not flee to the Zionist enemy state, to the Lebanese Governmental authorities to be tried by the Official Lebanese judicial authorities, who received unbelievably light sentences although they committed war crimes against their Lebanese Arab compatriots while acting as stooges to the Zionist enemy occupation.

In our opinion the major purpose of the Franco/American and other European powers campaign and their resolution of the Security Council (No. 1559) of August 2nd is to impose their control over the two rebellious Arab states, Syria and Lebanon, and put them under the Zionist / American umbrella.

Experts confirm that this move, especially by the United States, comes under cover of its project to reform the Middle East politically, religiously and economically, and is claimed to introduce democracy, the so-called "New Middle East"!!!

U.S. envoys, whether dropping in Beirut during their tours in the area, or stationed ambassadors, visit the Lebanese president of the republic, the parliament speaker, the prime minister, the minister of foreign affairs or any official, and during their press conferences lecture their hosts on what they should do or not to do. How to elect the president of the republic, disarm resistance organizations, settle Palestinian refugees where they are, and as for Lebanon create a Palestinian canton for them, which is against the Lebanese constitution, tell them to give-up the idea of the right of return of Palestinians to their homes and land......... Endless orders and orders from the U.S. Administration envoys and visiting congressmen...... "Israel has the right to defend itself" through terrorizing occupied and subjugated Palestinians as well as other Arabs.

This comes at the time when we thought that France a close friend of the Arabs. France is simply considering that its relations with the Western bloc is more important than its good and honest relations with the Arabs, which we believe do not contradict. We believe this is a result of the Zionist/American pressure to give a blow to the Lebanese resistance (so called militias), and in this case Hezbollah, not to speak about Palestinian resistance.

"An member of the French delegation to the Security Council told The Daily Star (Lebanese English language daily) Tuesday Aug. 31st. afternoon that one of the points already written and agreed upon by Washington and Paris was the disarmaments of all militias in Lebanon, of course meaning in particular Hezbollah and Palestinian resistance organizations." As well known Hezbollah is not a militia, it is the resistance organization.

Hezbollah, which was the major contributor to the liberation of South Lebanon and the West Bekaa that is ten per cent of the total area of Lebanon, which lasted for 22 years, was and is still performing its duty with the blessing of the Lebanese Government and people. Without its sacrifices and those of other resistance parties, this part of Lebanon would have been still occupied by the Zionist enemy, if not colonized as the Palestinian West Bank. It is without doubt a Zionist interest to concentrate on the disarmament of the resistance forces (Israel hailed the resolution, and its minister of foreign affairs, wrongly called shalom that is "peace" in Hebrew, saying this will lead Lebanon to be the third Arab state to conclude a "peace treatment" with the Zionist entity). The resistance forces are a necessity for the security of Lebanon against the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty, and a vital need to proceed with the final and total liberation of the country and hopefully Palestine. On this basis the Zionist entity and its ally/supporter the United States see in the Lebanese resistance a threat to their interests in the region, that is their military, political and economical interests, namely their total domination of the area. Still the United States ask, why do the Arabs hate us?!

Second is to corner Syria and Lebanon, the two Arab states that did not yet fall under the yoke of the Israeli / American coalition subjugation as was the case of some other Arab states. As we said above, the U.S. law for the Accountability of Syria and Lebanon's sovereignty was not passed by the U.S. Administration and Congress that are under the strong influence of the Zionist lobbies, because their hearts ached for Lebanon's freedom sovereignty and independence.

The Franco/American Security Council resolution, which called for immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon should mean Israeli Zionist occupation forces, and cannot mean Syrian forces, because Syria as an Arab state is not foreign as far as Lebanon is concerned.

Where were these supreme powers to condemn Israeli violations of the security of Arab countries and terrorizing Palestinian Arabs, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq and dominating most other states when:

? Zionist occupation and almost the annexation of South Lebanon were done by Zionist forces.

? Zionist forces invaded Lebanon and reached its capital, Beirut.

? Zionist forces collected the Lebanese members of parliament from their homes by force "to elect" a "Lebanese President", Bashir El-Jmayel in 1982.

? Zionist forces occupied the Syrian Golan Heights, which is still occupied and annexed to Israel.

? Zionist forces overran the remaining 22 per cent of historic Palestine not occupied in 1948, which is being fully colonized.

? Zionist forces are applying Israeli state terror, which had been systematically demolishing everything built and planted by the Palestinians, not to speak about occupation the worst type of terrorism.

? Zionist forces are assassinating Palestinians of all ages and sexes, on the pretence of targeting "terrorists" who are fighting for their existence, future and dignity as human beings.

? The Zionist enemy violated tens of U.N. resolutions, and the U.S. vetoed tens more condemning Israeli state terrorism.

? The United states waged two wars on Iraq, after putting it under siege for over a decade, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people by bombardment, use of uranium depleted shells and malnutrition caused by its sanctions imposed on it. This not to speak about the Korean, the Vietnamese and Afghanistan wars waged by "the greatest democracy in the world", and they are threatening now Syria and Iran accusing them of various false pretences.

? The United States had been supporting and financing Israeli state terrorism and occupation of sovereign states.

? The United States had been overlooking Israel's WMD especially its huge arsenal of atomic bombs.

This issue became a part of the American election campaign and the fight for the presidency between the two candidates, Bush and Kerry. The latter said: "The Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs is unacceptable." Kerry, like his competitor, is justifying their interference in the internal affairs of all sovereign states around the world, waged wars on some and threatening others with use of force and/or putting economic and other types of sanctions on them, all without endorsement from international organizations; on the contrary the two candidates take pride in unilateral acts of war. President Bush during his four years in the White House waged two wars, first on Afghanistan then, after a short time, on Iraq, which he could not justify, or his justifications proved to unfounded.

Syria and Lebanon were one of a whole, which was divided into two states by the former French "mandate" imposed on them. The Franco/American resolution considers the relations between Syria and Lebanon as an interference of the first in the internal affairs of the second. Although they have a political, economical and security cooperation agreement officially signed and approved by their respective parliaments, and a copy of which was received without complaint by the United Nations. If this claim is justified why don't these supreme powers give the good examples to the regional powers not to acts as such? There is a long record of Israeli air-raids and many other acts of state terrorism committed by this rogue state, Israel, which are blessed by the United states and considered as " self defense." Is it possible to compare such "Syrian interference" in the Lebanese internal affairs even though some mistakes were committed by Syrians and their Lebanese supporters who turned to become the anti-Syrian opposition, and Israeli intervention!!!? If the resolution that came as a complaint against this relationship is justified, why don't those who passed it give the good example to the regional powers not to act as such? Where is the comparison with the Israeli interference, which involves invasions, occupations and the use of state terror against so many Arab states extending between Tunis in the West and Iraq in the east, and as we mentioned above, and the Syrian presence in Lebanon?

Nobody should think we do not believe in democracy. We firmly believe that the lack of democracy in Arab states, with the partition of the Arab land, are among our most serious problems, which also include Zionist occupation and colonialist domination.

We also believe that constitutions should not be drafted and tailored to fit a certain ruler or party and should not be amended to serve the interest of a person or a ruling party. On this basis even though we believe that president Lahoud of Lebanon, due to his patronage of the Lebanese resistance, is the most suitable for the country, but we believe that the Lebanese constitution should not have been amended to extend his term in office.


UN Security Council Resolution 1559 W

2 September 2004

MidEast Web - http://www.mideastweb.org


RESOLUTION 1559 was an attempt to discourage Syrian meddling in Lebanon. Syrian troops had been in Lebanon since the spring of 1976, putting an end to the Lebanese civil war and making a semblance of order in Lebanon under the Taif accord...

Since 1990, the Lebanese constitution has been amended for every presidential election: once in 1995, allowing then President Elias Hrawi an extra three years, and again in 1998 - allowing Lahoud, who was army commander at the time and thus ineligible, to seek the post.

In the summer of 2004, the Syrians initiated a move to amend the Lebanese constitution so that their favored candidate, Emile Lahoud, could continue to be president. The United States and other countries objected to continued Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs, and the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1559 calling for non-interference in Lebanese affairs, for disarming of militias and for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon in accordance with previous UN resolutions.

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 9 in favour (Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) to none against, with 6 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation)

A Lebanese representative made the following remarkable statement, quoted in the UN Press Release.

MOHAMAD ISSA, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, said that there were no militias in Lebanon. There was only the national Lebanese resistance, which appeared after the Israeli occupation and which would remain so long as Israel remained. The resistance force existed alongside the Lebanese national forces. Lebanon determined the presence and size of the force, depending on the country's need. The authority of Lebanon extended to all parts of Lebanon except those areas occupied by Israel.

He said that submitting the draft resolution confused two matters. The first was the distinguished relations linking Lebanon and Syria, which achieved their joint interests, particularly the interests of Lebanon. Friendly Syria had helped Lebanon to maintain stability and security within its borders. It had warded off radicalism and violence, fed by the violence exercised by Israel against the Palestinians. Secondly, the matter was purely internal, and related to the presidential elections to be held in Lebanon. Syrian troops came to Lebanon in accordance with legitimate requests. Their presence was guarded by an agreement concluded by two sovereign States. Those troops had been redeployed several times. They contributed to rebuffing the radical reactions emanating from repulsive Israeli actions.

There was no justification for the draft resolution, which constituted an interference in the internal affairs of a Member State

Hence, saying that Syria supported radical movements in Lebanon was not true. To the contrary, Syria supported the Lebanese national resistance, which desired to liberate the territories occupied by Israel. The draft resolution was talking about supporting free and just elections in Lebanon. He did not believe that internal matter had ever been discussed in the Council relating to any Member State. It was an internal matter, he stressed. The United Nations had not interfered in that matter with regard to any other State. There was no justification for the draft resolution, which constituted an interference in the internal affairs of a Member State.

In addition, it discussed bilateral relations between two friendly nations, neither of which had filed any complaint concerning those relations. He called for the withdrawal of the draft resolution.

The Lebanese parliament ignored the resolution and voted for the constitutional amendment, amid widespread reports of arm-twisting and Syrian threats. Beirut MP Nabil de Freige stated, "Of the 96 people who voted for the amendment, I can guarantee not even seven are really for it." Four ministers resigned to protest the passage of the amendment. One of whom, former Economy Minister Marwan Hamadeh, was wounded in an assassination attempt on October 1.

Subsequently, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned that Syria was not complying with the resolution. Lebanese and Syrian spokesmen declared their defiance of the resolution, but Syria shifted a small number of troops (estimated at 300 to 3000) out of Lebanon and moved troops away from Beirut to the Bekaa region near the Syrian-Lebanese border. Following the assassination of popular Lebanese politician Rafiq Hariri in February of 2005, widely attributed to Syria, pressure grew on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon, and Syria withdrew its troops, but not its intelligence agents.

A key provision of Resolution 1559 was disarmament of militias:

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 9 in favour (Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) to none against, with 6 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation)

Slightly edited for this publication

For your information:

Full text of United Nations SS/RES/1559 (2004) Security Council


      Home |  Archives  |  Write On! |  Dossiers |  Search |  Boutique | Donate

Comments to : shunpike@shunpiking.org Copyright New Media Services Inc. 2006. The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of shunpiking magazine or New Media Publications. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. Copyright of written and photographic and art work remains with the creators.