What's Britain's real position on Lebanon?

snowflake5 Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 01:26:03 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

What's Britain's real position on Lebanon?



At his press conference this morning Mr Blair said:

"There's no point in us saying there's got to be a ceasefire but only on one side," he said. "If the ceasefire is not on both sides, Israel will continue to take action. That's the reality."

But here's a snippet that gives insight into what is going on behind closed doors at the Security Council:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746083.html

Ghana's UN Ambassador Nana Effah-Apenteng, president of the Security Council for August, said he told members they should let the United States and France try to bridge the gap in their negotiations this week. He said he doubted there would be a meeting on the Israel-Lebanon conflict this week.

......Effah-Apenteng said the United States was the only member in the 15-nation Security Council that opposed the French demand for an immediate halt to fighting. Asked if any other council member shared the U.S. view, he said: "From my reading of the situation, no."

It's quite possible that behind closed doors Britain has been pushing for a ceasefire and has been rebuffed by the USA. But how to explain Blair's public position? He has a collosal ego and a view of himself as World Leader and Great Persuader. He'd rather stick pins in his eyes than admit that his influence isn't that great. In fact it looks like he'd rather people thought he agreed with the USA, with all the flack and anger that elicits, rather than say, "Look, I've been trying to get a ceasefire but the USA disagrees and is ignoring my advice".

That's just my view on things of course. Anyone has another theory?


tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
What's Britain's real position on Lebanon? | 6 comments (6 topical)

Re: What's Britain's real position on Lebanon? (#1)

by Glass House on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 03:07:34 AM GMT

How about...

1. Effah-Apenteng has a colossal ego and, as Ghana is President of the Security Council right now, he'd rather stick pins in his eyes rather than admit that his country's influence is minimal compared to the great powers. He's therefore trying to publicly isolate the US, regardless who is actually on one side or the other, to try to get a deal and save face.

or

2. Effah-Apenteng, doing his duty as the representative of the president-nation of the Security Council trying to publicly isolate the US, regardless who is actually on one side or the other, to try to get a deal.

or

3. Blair wants a ceasefire but, understanding the political reality in the US, knows that if the US public feels like 'everyone is against them' it will be much harder for President Bush to be seen to compromise to get a deal on a ceasefire. He is therefore standing by him publicly in order to smooth US public opinion and give Bush the political cover to compromise with France.

or

4. Behind closed doors, Britain is acting as the middle-man to broker a deal between France and the US. British diplomats are therefore, behind closed doors, remaining rhetorically impartial so as to maintain their ability to deal with both sides. This could give off the impression that they do not agree with the US position.

or

5. Ghana is completely out of the loop in the talks between the great powers in the Security Council and has no idea what is going on.

or

6. There is some evidence that the British Foreign Office is much more pro-ceasefire then Blair. The British diplomats could be giving off much more 'moderate' vibes than Blair is publicly, giving the impression, in diplomatic circles, of a different British policy than the one that Blair is espousing.

or

7. Blair has wanted a ceasefire from day one but feels that there is some strategic-diplomatic advantage to making Hezbollah think that a ceasefire is not a certainty until the very last minute. Having two Security Council states refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire is a much better way of putting this doubt into the minds of Hezbollah's senior people that just having the 'stubborn' US doing it.

Any one of these theories could be correct. Or your theory could be correct. I have no evidence for any of them - as you have no evidence for yours.

What I certainly will not do, without any evidence, is imply that one theory must be correct just because it fits with my personal prejudices against a certain politician.


Re: What's Britain's real position on Lebanon? (#4)

by snowflake5 on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 06:56:07 AM GMT

You disagree with my theory, then? ;-)

FWIW, I think that Britain has been working behind the scenes for a ceasefire and has been struggling to persuade a stubborn USA. I also think that if that's what we've been doing, Blair should say so. I can't see any sense in sacrificing the the standing of the Labour party or the Labour government and allowing public anger to stew, just because Blair can't bring himself to admit that as a medium European country we're struggling to influence the USA. Or worse, he's protecting George Bush from the humiliation of "his ally" disagreeing with him - but who cares about George Bush, he'll be gone in two years. It would be a different story if this was his first term but he's a lame duck now and shouldn't be worth a second thought. Surely the interests of Britain's reputation should come first. As should the need for the British public to have realistic expectations and an understanding of how difficult it is for Britain to influence the rest of the world - Empire is long gone and people need to come to terms with it.


[ Parent ]

Re: What's Britain's real position on Lebanon? (#6)

by snowflake5 on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 08:22:30 PM GMT

Just an update on the "stubborn America" aspect, here's Charles Krauthammer, arch-neo-con, in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301258.html

Israel's leaders do not seem to understand how ruinous a military failure in Lebanon would be to its relationship with America, Israel's most vital lifeline

.........America's green light for Israel to defend itself is seen as a favor to Israel. But that is a tendentious, misleadingly partial analysis. The green light -- indeed, the encouragement -- is also an act of clear self-interest. America wants, America needs, a decisive Hezbollah defeat.

Unlike many of the other terrorist groups in the Middle East, Hezbollah is a serious enemy of the United States. In 1983 it massacred 241 American servicemen. Except for al-Qaeda, it has killed more Americans than any other terror organization

...........Hence Israel's rare opportunity to demonstrate what it can do for its great American patron. The defeat of Hezbollah would be a huge loss for Iran, both psychologically and strategically. Iran would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It would lose its major means to destabilize and inject itself into the heart of the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to establish itself as the regional superpower.

.........The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later.  

..........His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence -- and the relationship it reinforces -- is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.

I don't know what an Israeli would think reading that. I'd be infuriated. First of all, cheeky to say that the Americans are "disappointed", given how badly their war in neighbouring Iraq is going. Wars are nasty, horrid things and very difficult to win, which is why the sane part of the world doesn't start them. The bit about air-power - Israel is forced to spend their $3bn grant from Washington on American weapons, which don't have any relationship to the type of wars Israel fights.

I feel sorry for both Israel and Lebanon - they are pawns in other people's games. Haaretz this morning shows signs that Israel is starting to realise this. See the following article "Ending the neo-con nightmare":

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746312.html

Finding themselves somewhat bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, the neoconservatives are reveling in the latest crisis, displaying their customary hubris in re-seizing the initiative. The U.S. press and blogosphere is awash with neocon-inspired calls for indefinite shooting, no talking and extension of hostilities to Syria and Iran, with Gingrich calling this a third world war to "defend civilization."

Disentangling Israeli interests from the rubble of neocon "creative destruction" in the Middle East has become an urgent challenge for Israeli policy-makers. An America that seeks to reshape the region through an unsophisticated mixture of bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel. The sight this week of Secretary of State Rice homeward bound, unable to touch down in any Arab capital, should have a sobering effect in Washington and Jerusalem.

......Israel does have enemies, interests and security imperatives, but there is no logic in the country volunteering itself for the frontline of an ideologically misguided and avoidable war of civilizations.

........Israel and its friends in the United States should seriously reconsider their alliances not only with the neocons, but also with the Christian Right. The largest "pro-Israel" lobby day during this crisis was mobilized by Pastor John Hagee and his Christians United For Israel, a believer in Armageddon with all its implications for a rather particular end to the Jewish story. This is just asking to become the mother of all dumb, self-defeating and morally abhorrent alliances.


[ Parent ]

2 questions here. (#2)

by exlabguy on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 05:50:34 AM GMT

question 1. What is Labours & Britains position

Like most people the average labour member wants a ceasefire and a solution which protects both the lebanese people and the israeli people.
This means a ceasefire and a strengthing of the lebanese gov to allow it to drain the hezbollah support , which the current israeli actions are strengthing. Almost certainly this means an international peacekeeping force with a mandate to stop attacks on both sides  of the border.

Q2. What is Blairs position.
Whatever Bush(his current boss) and murdoch (his next boss) want.


Re: 2 questions here. (#3)

by Glass House on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 06:42:08 AM GMT

What evidence do you have for answer number 2?


[ Parent ]

Re: 2 questions here. (#5)

by Joe S on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 02:48:28 PM GMT

"Q2. What is Blairs position.
Whatever Bush(his current boss) and murdoch (his next boss) want."

Grow up.

If you want to post this rubbish go to "comment is free".


[ Parent ]

What's Britain's real position on Lebanon? | 6 comments (6 topical)