UK-US meeting is a disappointment

In recent years, whenever a major international crisis broke out, British Prime Minister Tony Blair would fly to the United States and discuss matters with the US President George W. Bush on related policy issues. As a result, Blair would always follow Bush's lead. It is no exception for the two leaders' to talk about the Israel- Lebanon conflict this time. When the international community was looking towards a ceasefire, Tony Blair paid a lightning visit to the United States once again on July 28th. Yet the results of the meeting were disappointing. George Bush continued to tell his old story, insisting that the two countries had to settle the "fundamental problem" first before considering ceasefire. Blair picked up the pace and chimed in with President Bush.

First, the two have fully consistent policy objectives. Both sides are not in favor of immediate ceasefire, stressing that Hezbollah should be fully disarmed and expelled from south Lebanon. At the same time, both sides issued a stern warning against Lebanon's supporters Syria and Iran. Second, the two reached a consensus on the implementation steps. The first step was to send Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East on the 29th to meet with the Lebanese government leaders, proposing on stationing international stabilization force in the region. Second, to submit to the UN Security Council on setting up the International Stabilization Force on July 31st, discussing its composition and authorization. Third, to implement the UN Security Council Resolution 1559, disarming the Hezbollah forces with the support of the International Stabilization Force, and assist the Lebanese government troops in stationing in the border region between Lebanon and Israel.ˇˇˇˇ

In fact, this is only the short-term objective of the United States and Britain. Quoting Blair's speech, this is only "a part of a larger picture." What is the big picture then? Blair believes that the Middle East is, "just like us, marching towards democracy, freedom, and human rights." US President Bush also said that "for a while, American foreign policy was just, let's hope everything is calm, a kind of managed calm." The United States now has to promote democracy and defeat the ˇ®anti-democracy' ideology. "You defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom", said President Bush at a press conference. "This is a moment of intense conflict in the Middle East. Yet our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for a broader change in the regionˇ­ The United States is committed to using all of its influence to seize this moment to build a stable and democratic Middle East."

However, either for a long-term goal or a short-term objective, people still have doubts over whether the great picture of the two can be realized. Regarding the short-term goal, suffering a setback in attacking the Lebanese, Israel has agreed to have the international forces entering the position. Disarming the Hezbollah is also what they desire. The Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora may also wish to get some help to extend their jurisdiction to the southern region. However, he expressed the fear of disarming Hezbollah. He said, ˇ®Hezbollah is a legal resistance forces. To disarm Hezbollah by force would lead to national split. His concern can be justified. Hezbollah occupies seats in Lebanon parliament and has a profound basis in the Shiite Muslim population. If the superior forces of the Israeli troops can hardly destroy it, then how can the International Stabilization Force conquer it?

Inferring from Iraq's current impasse, the United States and Britain's long-term goal in the Middle East is nothing less than a fairy tale. The United States has lost its credibility in the Arab world by showing undue favor to Israel during the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Many Arab public opinions believe that although Hezbollah made provocative actions at first, the "root cause" of the conflict lies in Israel's occupying Arab territories, which undoubtedly has given Hezbollah and Hamas a reason for "resisting the occupation". Now, the Bush administration whilst talking about their "deep concern for civilian causalities" bombastically, it also opposes an immediate cease-fire and is allocating and transporting a large amount of bombs. When there is such a discrepancy between words and deeds, how can the people of the Middle East be convinced and accept their preaching for "freedom" and "democracy" and "human rights"?

By People's Daily Online