Is there a moral equivalence between US involvement in Lebanon and that of the Syrians and Iranians? Our English daily thinks so
Mr. Meddler ( Photo credit: Yahoo! )
The “pro Americans” regularly argue that while Syria and Iran send bombs and missiles to and launch wars from Lebanon, the US is simply propping up the legitimate government and helping lebanese institutions get up on their feet.
Lebanon’s Daily Star, the largest English daily, won’t have any of that. The editorial page this morning accuses assistant secretary of state David Welch who’s visiting Lebanon of being a Hypocrite:
Welch – and his counterparts in places like Damascus, Paris, Riyadh and Tehran – should not be able to get away with such naked duplicity. That they do is a measure of just how dysfunctional Lebanon’s own politicians are. It is also a nauseating tribute to the respective propagandistic achievements of those who attach conditions to the dialogue they propose and of those who reject any engagement out of hand.
My personal opinion is that The Daily Star — an English language Daily trying to sell newspapers in an anti-American region — is trying too hard to overcompensate by bashing the English speaking straw man.
But their argument should carry at least some weight, shouldn’t it?
Hello, my name is Mustapha and I've been blogging about Lebanese society, business and politics since February 2005.
Can’t follow their logic! If USA is supporting the opening of state institutions and operating democratically; that’s interferance? How? Daily star’s editorial is devoid of any logic!!!
My thoughts exactly, I gave up on the Daily Moron a long time ago.
This is just knee-jerk US bashing and stupid moral equivalence.
The DS has ZERO right to criticize our political class, this stuff and many other idiocies puts them on the same level with Berri and Wahab etc: part of the problem.
Desperation.
For Mroueh to act so brazenly is a sure sign of the growing desperation of Berri, whom he tends to support.
This is one of the most retarded articles I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. Supporting state institutions is “interfering”?
It is the job of diplomats and amabassadors, all over the world, to represent their country’s interests, within the framework of the state institutions of the host country. An Ambassador’s JOB is to meet with leaders in the host country and convey messages from his/her own government. There is nothing wrong with that.
Maybe if the Lebanese leaders spent more time actually working on their own problems, instead of blaming foreigners and then going on world tours to visit foreign capitals…..
I mean, why is Berri out in Saudi Arabia and Damascus and wherever else? Is he off interfering in Saudi affairs? It’s not even his job to be touring the world meeting diplomats (and then, ironically, lecturing them about how diplomacy should work).
Get a load of this Berri quote:
“The talks centered around the priority of elections, opening parliament and then conducting dialogue. An-Nanahr learned that the parliament speaker responded to questions by the American official by saying that “parliament is open all days of the week except Sunday”.” Berri also told Welch that saying the parliament is closed “does not express the truth and the crisis the Lebanese are in,” adding that “I, in Lebanon, do not have the right to summon deputies to parliament by force.” (Naharnet)
This guy has the nerve to lecture diplomats from countries where democracy actually work, on what democracy is, or how it should work. Talk bout a slap in the face.
Jeha,
If a guy like Mroueh, educated and not owing his job to Berri, is pro Berri then Lebanon is doomed indeed.
This editorial (I read the full transcript in the Daily Star) comes closer to a propaganda tract aimed at the faithful than any effort at offering creative ideas for a thinking public. As pointed out by my fellow bloggers, Ambassador Welch was just doing his job. The Daily Star editorialist apparently has a completely different agenda since calls of “hypocricy” don’t exactly add to a positive contribution. The question is put to the reader as to “where are the key Lebanese players that are required to engage in dialogue” conveniently leave out the part involving the impact of multiple assassinations with the specific aim of causing political paralysis – to the benefit of the assassins. While foreign influence represented by the West is emphasized in the editorial, no mention is made about the influence brought to bear by Hizbullah, Syria and Iran. A more responsible writer might better be directed towards ways to reunify the country, not widen the gap by criticizing all who offer solutions intended to heal wounds. A suggestion should be directed to the writer to investigate the real aims of the various countries trying to influence outcomes in Lebanon and offer the results to readers for their feedback. Once everybody knows what the real stakes are you can expect informed decisions – not ones that reflect blind prejudice and “staying the course”.