MO, Italia, Libano, UE, missione militare Wsws 06-08-31
L’Europa
invierà 7 000 soldati in Libano
Peter Schwarz
Il ministro italiano degli Esteri DS, D’Alema, intervistato
dal Frankfurter Runschau (Qual è la posta in gioco in Libano?): «È una grande
opportunità per l’Europa, che non ha mai avuto una forte presenza in MO e ha
soprattutto pagato per tutto, ma non è mai stata riconosciuta come attore
principale».
Intervistato da FAZ (come si presenterà il nuovo scenario
politico internazionale): «Si tratta di contribuire alla pace in un’area dove
né ONU né UE hanno molta influenza. Non c’è un ruolo né per ONU né per la UE in
Irak. Non possiamo permetterci di perdere questa nuova occasione».
D’Alema spera che grazie alla missione in Libano la politica
estera europea possa avere una ruolo maggiore nel Mediterraneo e aumentare il
peso dell’Italia. A FAZ: Credo «che l’Europa debba prestare maggiore attenzione
al Mediterraneo. Negli scorsi anni l’Europa si è molto preoccupata per
l’allargamento ad Est ed è comprensibile. Ma in questo modo ha dimenticato i
propri compiti nel Mediterraneo».
A soli tre mesi dalla formazione il nuovo governo italiano
ha organizzato il maggior dispiegamento militare dalla Seconda GM, allo scopo
di assicurare gli interessi dell’Italia e dell’Europa.
I paesi europei, nonostante gli alti costi umani e materiali
dell’attacco israeliano, non hanno espresso alcuna critica contro
l’aggressione; hanno mostrato solo esitazioni temporanee sulla risoluzione ONU
nel timore di trovarsi tra due fronti opposti nel caso il conflitto riprendesse
vigore.
L’Europa fornirà il grosso delle forze ONU per il Libano, si
tratta del maggior dispiegamento militare della storia UE: circa 7000 sul
terreno + altri 2000 per supporto aereo
e marittimo.
L’Italia fornirà il maggior contingente (3000), e prenderà
il comando a febbraio, dopo la Francia;
La Francia 2000 soldati; Spagna 1200-1500; Polonia 500,
Belgio 400, Finlandia 250.
Parteciperanno anche Germania, GB, Danimarca e Grecia, senza
inviare forze di terra.
La Germania ha offerto 1200-15000 uomini per le unità navali
per il controllo della costa libanese;
la GB pensa di inviare 6 aerei Jaguar e 2 ricognitori AWACS,
offre inoltre per la missione la base navale di Cipro.
La Turchia ha dichiarato di voler partecipare, ma non ha fornito
cifre (forse 10000 soldati secondo i media), il parlamento sta ancora discutendo.
Alcuni paesi non europei hanno dichiarato riappoggiare la
missione, ma il loro contributo sarà più simbolico che sostanziale.
Sotto la pressione dell’iniziativa italiana … anche il
presidente francese Chirac ha infine accettato di inviare un contingente
maggiore, giustificato per l’interesse della Francia e dell’Europa nella
regione.
Si rammarica che l’Europa «è stata troppo assente nella
crisi libanese».
Wsws 06-08-31
Europe
to send 7,000 troops to Lebanon
By Peter
Schwarz
Europe
will provide the backbone of the force currently being assembled by the United
Nations to supervise the ceasefire in Lebanon. This was
decided last Friday at a meeting of the European Union’s 25 foreign ministers
in Brussels, and 3,500 troops are due to arrive in Lebanon this week.
–
Altogether, the European Union
countries have agreed to make about 7,000 soldiers available for deployment on the ground, with a further
2,000 to provide marine and air support. It is the largest military deployment
carried out in the history of the European Union.
–
The biggest contingent (3,000 soldiers) comes from Italy,
which will take over command of the UN force in February next year.
–
France, which has command of the
existing UN observation mission in the region, is sending 2,000 troops and will retain command until then;
–
Spain has agreed to send 1,200 troops; Poland, 500; Belgium, 400; and Finland, 250.
–
Germany, Great Britain, Denmark and Greece will also take part,
but will not send ground forces. Germany has
offered to send naval units
(between 1,200 to 1,500 men) to guard the Lebanese coast and prevent any
weapons from reaching Hezbollah.
–
Great Britain plans to send six Jaguar planes and two AWACS
reconnaissance aircraft, as well as making its military basis in Cyprus available for the
mission.
On Monday, the Turkish government also announced its intention to participate in
the UN force but gave no
concrete figures, although media reports indicate it will contribute approximately 1,000 soldiers. Such an intervention, however, is highly
controversial in Turkey and the parliament in Ankara must first approve
it. The body already voted down Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s proposal
to allow the US military to use Turkish territory for its war against Iraq.
UN resolution 1701, which was passed in the
middle of August, envisaged a force comprising 15,000 men in Lebanon, but it is not clear whether or not
this figure will actually be reached.
–
A number of non-European countries have signalled their
support, but their contributions are likely to be more
symbolic than material in character. In any event, Europe will provide the
mainstay of the force.
The UN force will be intervening in a country
that was devastated by the 34-day bombardment carried out by Israeli forces. The Israeli siege has cost the lives
of an estimated 1,200 Lebanese, mainly civilians. Villages have been
flattened; roads, bridges, power stations, water plants, airports and petrol
stations have been destroyed. Thousands of unexploded cluster bombs provide a
continuing threat to the population, and oil pollution has devastated the
coastline. All this has taken
place in a geographically tiny area with a population of less than 4 million
inhabitants.
Lebanon had only just begun to recover from
the 15-year civil war which ended in 1990 and the Israeli occupation of the
south of the country. Now, according to the figures of the Lebanese council for development and reconstruction,
80 percent of the infrastructure in the south and the east of the country has
been destroyed. The total
damage has been estimated at a cost of at least $6 billion. The repair of the
estimated 7,100 destroyed dwellings alone would cost $1.4 billion. The
tourist industry, which had picked up in past years and is the country’s most
important source of foreign income, has come to a complete halt.
–
There has not been a word of criticism from European
capitals of this barbaric aggression, which patently
violates international law and had been prepared over a long period of time by
Israel with American support. Instead, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has
received a warm welcome in the course of her tour of European capitals aimed at
discussing the details of the deployment force.
Israel and the US had only agreed to a
ceasefire when it was clear that the Israeli army had failed through military
means to achieve its aim of smashing the Hezbollah movement, which has deep
roots in the Lebanese population. Both countries now expect the UN force to
take up this task and disarm the Hezbollah militia. In the course of her
European tour, Livni made quite that Israel was quite prepared to renew its
attacks on Lebanon should Hezbollah retain its weapons.
–
In Europe, fears that the war could reignite, leaving
European forces between the two opposing fronts, led to temporary hesitation
regarding the implementation of the UN resolution.
France, which had played a leading role in formulating the ceasefire resolution
and had been expected to provide the “backbone” of the UN force, only offered
400 soldiers initially, thereby threatening the entire deployment.
Paris demanded a more precise mandate with
regard to the task to be carried out by the force. In particular, it sought to
ensure that the UN troops would not be made responsible for the forcible
disarmament of Hezbollah. In the meantime, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has
given this assurance: the disarmament of Hezbollah planned in the UN resolution
is to be carried out by the Lebanese government and through political means.
Israel is also no longer insisting on the
immediate disarmament of Hezbollah. In Berlin, Foreign Minister Livni said that
the success of the international force in the initial stages depended upon
working with the Lebanese army to prevent the smuggling of arms to Hezbollah.
The disarmament of the movement would constitute a second, more difficult step.
This does not remove the danger of a
reigniting of the war, however. So far Hezbollah has refused to agree to
voluntarily give up its weapons. Even if a political agreement with the
Lebanese government were possible (indications that such a deal would be
possible were given by a recent conciliatory television interview by Hezbollah
leader Hassan Nasrallah), it could take the form of integrating the Hezbollah
militia into the Lebanese army. With Israel and the US intent on the complete
subordination of Lebanon to their own interests, it is hardly likely they would
accept such a solution.
The risks of renewed fighting, therefore,
remain.
–
Nevertheless, Europe was
eventually swayed in favour of an intervention because it provides an
opportunity for European powers to assert their militarily presence in the
Middle East under conditions where the US had dominated in the region following
its war and occupation in Iraq. Following the problematic result of the Lebanon
campaign for Israel and the US, European powers now see a chance of playing a
greater role in the region. This has been made clear by statements justifying
its commitment to Lebanon by the Italian government in particular.
–
In response to the question: “What is at stake in Lebanon?” the
Italian foreign minister, Massimo D’Alema, told the Frankfurt Rundschau: “It is
a great opportunity for Europe, which has never had a large presence in the
Middle East and mainly paid for everything, but was never recognized as a
principal player.”
D’Alema is a leading member of the Left
Democrats, which emerged from the Italian Communist Party. In Italy’s recent election campaign
the Left Democrats had criticized the predecessor government of Silvio
Berlusconi because of its support for the US-led war in Iraq. Italy’s
new government under Romano Prodi has since withdrawn Italian soldiers from
Iraq.
–
It is now clear, however, that the problem for Italy was
not the stationing of Italian forces in the Middle East, but rather their
political subordination to the US. Only three months after taking office the
new government has organised the biggest Italian military deployment since the
Second World War, acting to secure the imperialist interests of Italy and
Europe.
–
In this respect, D’Alema is absolutely clear. When
asked by the F.A.Z. newspaper how “the new scenario of international policy
should look,” he answered, “It concerns a contribution to peace in an
environment where neither the United Nations nor Europe has much influence.
There is neither a role for the United Nations or for the European Union in the
Iraq scenario. Now we cannot afford to miss this new opportunity.”
D’Alema
also hopes that through the Lebanon deployment European foreign policy will
play a greater role in the Mediterranean region and increase Italy’s weight. He
told the F.A.Z. he believes “that Europe must pay much more attention to the
Mediterranean area. During the past years Europe has been much concerned about
the extension toward the east and that is
understandable. But in so doing its obligations in the Mediterranean were
neglected.”
Following Italy’s initiative, and after hectic
diplomatic activities between Paris, Rome, Berlin, Washington, Tel Aviv, Beirut
and the UN headquarters in New York, the French president Jacques Chirac
also finally agreed to a larger contingent. This step is also justified in
Paris as being in the interests of France and Europe in the region.
In a speech to diplomats Chirac expressed his
hope that in future Europe will play a stronger role on the international
stage. He regrets, he said,
that Europe “had been too absent in the Lebanese crisis”. The French
foreign minister, Philippe Douste Blazy, explained to Le Figaro that in
Lebanon, “the defence of our values and the retention of our own ability to
think and act” were at stake.
It can already be said with some certainty,
given the very one-sided backing of Israel, that the European intervention will
not bring peace to a battered Lebanon.
–
Germany in particular has openly acknowledged its
partisanship for Israel. According to Berlin, any
situation in which Germans could confront Israeli soldiers must be ruled out
for historical reasons. At the same time, increasingly aggressive terminology
is being employed in Berlin. The
German defence minister, Franz Josef Jung, insists on describing the envisaged
blockade of the Lebanese coast carried out by the German navy as a “combat
mission”. The term is clearly provocative. Its use has been carefully
avoided in connection with previous German military deployments, which have
always been described in terms of defensive engagements.
The
notion that Europe could liberate itself from American supremacy through its
military intervention in the Middle East could also prove to be mistaken.
Shocked by the chaos which the US has brought
about in Iraq, and by the increasing popularity enjoyed by the Hezbollah
movement due to its resistance against Israel, the Europeans have repeatedly
stressed their intention of “stabilizing” the Middle East. However, as D’Alema
himself noted as he wondered out loud how to “restrain radicals and extremists”
and “promote moderate forces” in Iraq, “The idea that one can stop terrorism
with war, and afterwards comes peace and democracy, was obviously not successful.”
Wars have their own dynamic. As soon as the UN
force is located in Lebanon and becomes involved in any conflicts—and such
conflicts can easily be provoked—then the situation can quickly spin out of
control. Then the European
forces would face the same fate as the Americans in Iraq—an escalating spiral
of violence and retaliation—and end up once again in the wake of the US.
Copyright 1998-2006
World Socialist Web Site