8-8-06, 7:30 pm
The Lebanon-Israel conflict has been upgraded which shows a signal of the danger of an uncontrolled situation. Regarding this utter misery, the United States and Western Europe have defined different positions towards the cruel war which were particularly noticeable.
It was firstly noted that both the United States and Europe claimed that the Resolution 1559, approved by the UN Security Council in September 2004, should be implemented, according to which efforts should be made to disarm Hezbollah, help the Lebanese government control the entire territory, and, get prepared for sending international forces to the area. Moreover, in a deeper sense, both Europe and the United States wanted to weaken the Muslim extremist forces and adopt a western-style democracy in the entire Middle East region.
However, at the very beginning of the Lebanon-Israel conflict, Europe has shown a clear different attitude with the United States on how to perceive and how to resolve the conflict. The United States declared directly that the conflict was actually 'a new opportunity for creating a new Middle East'. It has been firmly supporting Israel to fight against the 'terrorists' Hezbollah. Although the conflict has been escalated all the way, the United States has always refused to ask Israel to cease fire immediately. In fact, the United States has long been focusing on the areas beyond the Lebanese borders. According to the US 'new Middle East plan', the Palestinian Hamas, Lebanon's Hezbollah and their supporters Iran and Syria are all 'terrorists', which are major obstacles for the United States to fulfill its interests in the Middle East. Thus, the prerequisite for ceasefire should be creating conditions to eradicate these obstacles instead of repeating the 'rampant terrorism situation.'
However, immediately after the Lebanon-Israel conflict broke out, Europe, on the one hand, condemned Hezbollah's provocative actions, on the other hand, criticized Israel for having 'overreacted'. When the Israeli army launched the 'Ghana Incident' and massively moved forward towards the Lebanese territory, the vast majority of European countries condemned Israel for its abusive force and for killing innocent people, and strongly demanded 'an immediate cease-fire'. Regarding the deployment of the multinational force issue, the United States and Israel requested to deploy the NATO-led troops in accordance with the 'Afghanistan model' and addressed that Israel will only cease fire after these international forces are stationed in. But the EU countries rejected 'NATO-led' troops and clearly indicated that they would not send troops to participate in international forces until Lebanon and Israel cease fire and reach a lasting peaceful political agreement. Europe will not act as a cat's paw for Israel and will not risk becoming 'a part of the war'. As for the attitude towards Syria and Iran, the United States refused to have any dialogue with them. However the EU has begun to communicate with the two countries. What is particularly noteworthy is that Europe has withstood the pressure from the United States and refused to add Lebanon's Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas into the 'list of terrorist organizations'.
All these differences between Europe and the United States actually reflect the different strategy and interests of the two sides in Lebanon and even the entire Middle East region. First, Europe believes that the Lebanon-Israel conflict is an extension of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which should be differentiated from 'anti-terrorism war' that the United States has been strongly advocating. Second, the mainstream forces of the European countries believe that democracy can not be exported by force. The painful experience of the Iraq war should be an object lesson to everybody. Third, most importantly, despite the twists and turns, the European integration has never been broken off. The EU has shown an increasingly strong and overall aspiration to play a major role in the international arena. As a close neighbor of Lebanon and the Middle East, the EU has been reluctant to allow the United States to continue taking the lead in pursuing its own interests in the region, which obviously includes economic and political interests.
On August 1st, 25 foreign ministers of EU countries held a special session on Lebanon. Instead of their earlier version of 'immediate cease fire', EU foreign ministers agreed on a statement calling on Israel and Hezbollah to 'immediately end hostilities', to be followed by a sustainable cease-fire. This 'change' is not, as some media described, a 'compromise after fierce controversy'. It is a wise choice made in accordance with the status quo of the Middle East and the circumstance of Lebanon battlefield. The EU foreign minister meeting also incorporated the above claims into a coherent resolution. Generally speaking, despite certain differences of the positions, EU members, for the first time, 'spoke with one voice' concerning the crisis in the Middle East. This in itself shows that the EU has played an important role in resolving the crisis in the Middle East and it will also have an influence on the future political structure in the region. Under the intense pressure from the international community, the United States had to coordinate with Europe and even give way to it.
By Daily Online
