Washington Allies: From Supervision to Receiving Direct Orders

By Mahmoud Raya
ــــــــــــــــ
The visit of the “2-headed” delegation to Lebanon took place early last week declaring Lebanon’s position at the heart of the troubled American control of the allied forces. The issue occurred after a process of empowering the decision of these forces had continued for the past several months.

One can simply say that the visit of this delegation – headed by the assistant of the US Secretary of State for the Middle East Affairs, David Walsh, knowing that his actual boss is the White House Deputy Consultant for National Security, Eliot Abrahams – is regarded as a decisive point in the course of the (relation) between the American administration and the allied forces, which still prefer to call themselves “the forces of the majority.” These forces emerged as an “official declaration” under the American hand—in the past, they hid beneath different Arab and international covers.



Perhaps it is now unfair to describe that which is happening between the allied forces and the American administration as “tutelage” over the allies, because the issues passed this categorization a long time ago reaching the level of the administration officials’ direct and supreme control – beginning with the US ambassador in Awkar, Jeffrey Feltman, reaching the master of the White House, George Bush – of the allies with their different trends and parties. It reached the point where these allies would no longer follow “in the steps” of the American guidance. Instead, they receive direct orders that may even touch on the articulations coupled with extreme reprehension for the past failure, and perhaps the future one.

This new environment in dealing with the allies left the circle of the closed rooms. Now it can be noticed through the dailies that began circulating the “wonders” of the occurrences during the meetings between the American officials and the leaders of the allies inside and outside Lebanon. It reached the level of mentioning an “international cooperation” with Lebanon, which was a repugnant joke, the resonance of which sickened the Lebanese.

The recent visit of Walsh-Abrahams was an example of this pattern of handling. The leaks from its corridors opened the way to draw a clear picture about the amount of freedom which is being enjoyed by the “independents” in their dealings with the developments of the Lebanese arena.

The American delegation has come to offer support to Lebanon in its march towards freedom, said the official head of the delegation (Walsh) repeatedly, as he visited the leaders of March-14 with all of their spectrums. The aim of this visit expanded to give “reassurances” to these leaderships that “no deal at the expense of the truth” will be sealed. The deal here refers to any American-Syrian agreement or American-Arab-Syrian agreement in exchange for “the backing off from reaching the complete truth” on the assassination of former Prime Minister, martyr Rafik Hariri.

The talk concerning this kind of deal began leaking from the statements of the allies’ leaders who saw the conversations that took place in two stages in Saudi Arabia as part of an agreement that seeks to “protect the Syrian regime” in exchange for its full cooperation with the investigation – on a regional level – in addition to the return of the ministers of Hizbullah and Amal movement to the cabinet after reaching an understanding on several points including the resistance and the mechanism of taking decisions inside the cabinet coupled with the issue of the primary appointments.

As the understanding on these items was making its way into the open, American communications were taking place with the active leaderships of the allies in a condensed form. The main issue behind these communications was to “damage” the deal pertaining to its internal element, and prevent the occurrence of reaching an understanding pertaining to its external element.

At the center of the direct communications with Saudi Arabia and the mediatory communications between Washington, Beirut and Riyadh, other communications were taking place, which complicated the environments of the consensus, which almost reached an outcome in more than one field.

In the middle of the statements of the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice in Washington, and the movements of the American ambassador Jeffrey Feltman in Beirut, the “family visit” of Walsh-Abrahams delegation took place to complete the circle of the international-local siege of these harmonic environments by blowing the spirit of enthusiasm within the allied leaderships on one hand, and by reprimanding them for their slackness and tardiness in executing their promises to utterly and finally control the developments in Lebanon, on the other hand.

The beginning of the American attack began with Rice herself who over a week ago issued a statement which bore violent threats against Syria, and practically denied any talks about a deal which the U.S. may approve pertaining to the relationship with Syria.

This American escalation mirrored itself through the condensed movements of Feltman throughout the internal Lebanese lines. It began with the capital city of Beirut to reach the extremities of Mount Lebanon, north and south, carrying one message that stipulates the necessity of merging the lines of the allied opposition and the uniting of their efforts in order to lead the Lebanese situation on the way that suits these allies far from cooperation with the forces that represent the other part of the quadri-alliance, referring to Hizbullah and Amal movement.

Feltman worked on expressing this American vision in more than one meeting, the articulations of which appeared in all the papers of the Lebanese dailies.

In the framework of these environments, the provocative visit of the “senior” American delegation to Beirut took place. It lasted one day and included meetings and visits which the delegation conducted by visiting the “primary figures” of the allied team in Mokhtara, governmental house and the other figures of March-14 in Bkirki and Rabye. There were also meetings inside the US embassy in Awkar, which revealed an eye-catching assembly of three candidates for the presidency. They were Nayla Moawad, Naseeb Lahoud and Boutros Harb.

These meetings were concluded with another meeting that took place in Paris. It included the American delegation and Future Bloc leader, MP Saad Hariri – where the standpoints were “congruent” – and Hariri himself continued his meetings with the Americans including an important one which was held with the deputy US President Dick Cheney in Riyadh.

The leaks from these wide meetings clarify that American attempts at uniting the Lebanese allies have been blown to the wind. This is not because of the lack of the susceptibility of the majority of the allies to respond to the American demands, but it is because of the factual circumstances existing on the Lebanese arena, which obstruct these forces from their quest in executing the American demands.

In spite of the attempt of these forces to make Mr. American understand that his demands are unachievable on the ground (as this is actually impossible, but cannot be admitted directly), still, the Walsh-Abrahams delegation refused to hear any excuses. It also directed a series of harsh words to its hosts and guests equally, stressing on the implementation of resolution 1559 as well as preventing the return of Hizbullah and Amal Movement to the government. The declaration, mirroring the recent wish, synchronized with the emergence of a senior American official of the US foreign office, through one of a Lebanese visual screens, to decide that “Hizbullah and Amal movement do not represent the Shia in Lebanon, and that other Shiite figures can be brought in to replace the present ministers of the cabinet!”

The week did not end without the beaming of a new signal of the American attack on Lebanon. Rice declared the cancellation of more than one hundred jobs in the US embassies in Europe in order to move them to developing countries like “Lebanon, China and India.”

Apparently, the Lebanese people have to await the arrival of other indigestible guests who disembark from that isolated Villa in Awkar, in order to deliver the dictations and terms of Mr. American to the “Lebanese officials” and leaders who can master listening to these dictations, while others see in these dictations a great delight, although they represented direct threats to the media (the recent impudent words of ambassador Feltman to Assafir newspaper). Others see them as a kind of sedition that seeks to create tumult among the Lebanese people with all of their sects and groups, (the words quoted by Assafir from Feltman) in favor of the American scheme that does not take the Lebanese interests into consideration.