Washington's policy on the Middle East facing test

The conflict of the past week between Israel and Lebanon shows no sign of stopping. The United States, which have always been influential in the Middle East, have stayed out of the conflict, instead sending aircraft and warships for the largest evacuation since WWII. However, pressured by calls from the international community for a ceasefire, President Bush sent Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to the Middle East on July 23 to facilitate mediation. Rice said before her departure that she was not seeking an immediate ceasefire. Her goal is to provide a framework for resolution based on politics, security and economy.

The US, in accordance with the 1959 UN Security Council Resolution, wants the Lebanese government to extend sovereignty to the southern border, currently controlled by Hezbollah militants. The US has been given leave to assist Israel in weakening or destroying Hezbollah forces, and will attempt to chase them out of the Lebanon-Israel border areas to ensure the safety of Israelis. It intends to raise funds from the international community to help the Lebanese government rebuild infrastructure damaged by Israeli forces. When Rice goes to Rome to attend an international conference on issues in the Middle East, she will to put in a good word for Israel when discussing the proposal of sending a peacekeeping force put forward by Secretary General Kofi Annan.

As Rice put it, the US is not interested in an immediate ceasefire; its ultimate goal is to solve the "fundamental problems" underlying the conflict. In the eyes of the US, those "fundamental problems" are the Hezbollah militants active in southern Lebanon, silently backed by Syria and Iran. The US does not want a ceasefire, it wants Israel to take advantage of this ˇ®golden opportunity' and wipe out its opponents. This is why the US has not attempted to stop Israel; rather, they have added fuel to the fire. An article on the front page of Saturday's New York Times stated the US is "hastily sending precision-guided bombs to Israel".

However, the US takes a great risk by adopting this strategy. The country may forfeit its standing as a just and fair mediator for the region. A noted columnist for the Washington Post pointed out that the US has never bound itself so tightly to Israel before. While it acts on Israel's behalf, it is hard for the White House to win the trust of Arabian countries and the Muslim world.

Furthermore, the US accuses Syria and Iran of providing weapons to Hezbollah, while the US itself provides a large amount of munitions to Israel. This will fan anti-American sentiment among the Arabic and Muslim public. A New York Times article on July 22nd pointed out that US' policy in the Middle East is doing nothing but creating more fundamentalists, extremists and anti-US activists, therefore aiding Osama Bin Laden in his recruitment efforts.

If the US does not prevent Israeli troops from entering Lebanon, the Lebanese Siniora government will be faced with a major dilemma. If it doesn't order resistance it may lose the support and trust of the people it represents. In that situation, this already vulnerable pro-American regime will be endangered.

The effects of the US' failure to intervene in the conflict are already visible. The conference initially scheduled to be held in Cairo has had to be moved to Rome; Rice has had to cancel her original plan to stop in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, and will not visit any Arabian country. There is only one reason for this: no sensible Arabian government will invite trouble at a time when Israel looks set to begin a ruthless fight with Lebanon while the US looks on. So, a visit from Rice, a most welcome figure in the past, was declined. Nevertheless, it is hoped that Rice's Middle Eastern tour will prompt the US to rethink its policy in this region.

By People's Daily Online