Paris Meetings :Drawing New Geopolitical Map Using the “Lebanese Pen”

By Mahmoud Raya

Lebanon seems to be a hybrid as it lives a stage in which its citizens see that “their capital” lies thousands of kilometers away from their homeland, in velvety Parisian exile, whereas their major cities, including the old capital Beirut, experience a state of concern and tension, awaiting news from the French-American “supreme door” which will release decisions that will draw the future and define the choices of this country.

Meetings are taking place in Paris. Everything becomes is in a state of confusion, causing confusion for the observers as they pursuit news about who met with whom, who received whom, and who bade farewell to whom. However, each observer keeps in mind the main objective behind these meetings that generate day after day. This is the drawing of the new geopolitical map of the region. In other words, this is a kind of a new Sykes-Picot agreement, the lines of which are being drawn by directors and producers of great capacities whereas the rest of the people play the role of the extra actors.

Amid the two UN resolutions 1559 and 1595, coupled with the two reports, one of which is still to be released, issues seem to have entangled. “Separating between the paths” of the two UN resolutions, as wished by UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan, seems to have become an issue of the past because of the interlacing data of this and that report. The position has become similar to the situation where one seeks the implementation of a phrase of one decision with a word of the other decision, and so on.

Since Lebanon is the party concerned directly with the two resolutions and with the reports released on them, yet the happenings inside closed and open meetings inform that the two resolutions are being employed as a “roadmap” to achieve the goals of a project, the threads of which are being schemed in Paris, New York and Washington.

At the core of this turmoil, Lebanon seems to exist, certainly on the table; but it doesn’t seem to be existent around the table. It is unclear whether the meetings with Lebanese officials in the French capital were being held to “confer with them” and discuss their opinions and their evaluations of the situation or to inform them of agreements that were reached at the meeting that was held last week between French President Jack Chirac and US Foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice, as well as at the unexpected meeting that was held in New York between UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan and Rice. One must not forget the current communications that are taking place behind the scenes between officials who emerge openly to crow claiming that they were the ones who drew the map of the present situation more than a year ago (Zionist Foreign Minister, Sylvan Shalom).

On the other bank, there is a question concerning how the Lebanese officials, presidents, ministers, MPs and political figures, are receiving orders. Will they react obediently or will they agree in support? On the other hand, will they react out of a nerve wrecking opposition regardless of its outcomes? Therefore, are these “multiple tones,” which express the stances and the changing temperature of the statements between the inside and outside parties and between one Arab capital and another European, the result of a flexible coordination of expressing one united stance? Alternatively, is this a drifting towards an environment of this or that current which will render the entire Lebanese policy blown to the wind, coming from here and there?

All these questions are beaming inside the mind of the Lebanese citizen who expects that the image, overwhelmed by ambiguity, will be cleared. However, the ambiguity is expected to overwhelm the image increasingly over the coming days.

Although the Lebanese cabinet has changed to a council that is the last to be informed on decisions being launched by those who are supposed to express the opinions and decisions of the cabinet, yet the future is expected to clarify the process that is required to deal with the main causes of the cabinet, especially the issue of the border demarcation between Lebanon and Syria – including Shibaa Farms – as well as the exchange of embassies between Beirut and Damascus coupled with the agreements that have taken place and are taking place regarding the issue of the Palestinian weapon in Lebanon.

Within this framework comes the coincidence of the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, being present at the same time in Paris in order to meet and negotiate the Palestinian weapon outside of the camps as well as to find ways for disarmament inside the camps. This means an approach to solve one of the problems that encumber the implementation of the UN resolution 1559 with all of its details.

Within this framework as well comes the comprehensive and full support of France to Lebanon on all political, economic and security levels. This issue was declared repeatedly by more than one Lebanese senior official, synchronized with tips from Paris that there was a new French “initiative” that aims at stirring the reconciliation process between Lebanon and "Israel".

Within this framework also, one can add the information – with the countering information – on a “deal” between Syria and America in the case of the assassination of martyred Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. This information was refuted by Syria and was followed by the US Foreign Secretary talk on increasing the pressures on Syria on one hand and on emphasizing the rejection of excluding the military option in dealing with the “Syrian case’ on the other hand.

In the ocean of these thunderous events, which overwhelm Lebanon, there is the Arab stance which remains famous as ever for its absolute negativity in dealing with the developments. This attitude was expressed by the Egyptian wish not to stir up the case of the regime in Syria, which may mean the creation of another focal point of instability in the region, which is already suffering a “constructive chaos” which has been sprouting in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other countries in the region, reaching Syria in the end. Still, this Egyptian protest did not indicate the existence of any change in the imagination of the schemers.

Those administering the spreading of this chaos cannot hide their aim, which is the provisioning of security for "Israel" and the accomplishment of the American and European aspirations in the region, far from “finding the truth” or making an approach to apply justice. This issue was expressed by the UN special envoy “assigned to the implementation ‏‏of UN resolution 1559”, Terry Rod Larsen when he mentioned directly the resistance weapon in Lebanon, considering that it was no longer justifiable; and that it has not been so since 2000, the year when the Zionists withdrew from the larger part of south Lebanon.

Perhaps, this issue incited Head of the Future bloc in Parliament MP Saad Rafik Hariri to say – after meeting the Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and the Arab League Secretary-General Amro Moussa in Cairo – that he refuses to change the case of the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri to a case that can be employed to achieve aspirations other than the truth.

Since this stance of Hariri expresses his real fear of the occurrence of such issue, it may also mirror his knowledge of the threads that are being drawn in Paris and other capitals in the world, which aim at nothing but changing the nature of the entire region and diverting its path towards the American and Zionist age.

This is a new geopolitical drawing of the region’s map, using the “Lebanese pen.”