Ett stort politiskt sår på grund av USA:s agerande

Den libanesiska-amerikanska antikrigsaktivisten och författaren Rania Masri skriver att den just genomgångan krisen i libanon i första hand handlar om två saker. Det ena var att USA och deras marionett Siniora och hans regering i Libanon försökte ta kontroll över flygplatsen och utvidga CIA:s spioneriverksamhet med flygplatsen som bas:

The other aspect was the removal of the Lebanese military officer who was in charge of security at the airport. The reason given by the Lebanese government is allegedly that Hezbollah has cameras placed in the airport. But anyone familiar with the terrain of Beirut knows that you don’t need cameras to monitor the airport–it’s surrounded by tall buildings.

This raises two questions. One, why is the Lebanese government nervous about any monitoring by opposition figures of the airport, and two, why did the Lebanese government remove, without trial or an opportunity for defense, the military officer in charge of airport security?

These are two very important questions. They feed into [Hezbollah leader] Hassan Nasrallah’s statement on May 8, in which he declared that by removing this particular military officer, particularly without trial, and by raising the fracas about cameras operated by Hezbollah, clearly, the Lebanese government would be working to push the airport toward being an even greater espionage location for the CIA, FBI and other foreign government agencies that are aligned with the Lebanese government.

Det andra var att regeringen och USA ville omöjliggöra för Hizbollah att effektivt försvara Libanon på det sätt som gjordes vid israel anfall 2006. Detta genom att tvinga Hizbollah att lägga ner sitt telefonnät (markbaserat). Telefonnätet är nämligen omöjligt att avlyssna för israeliska och US-amerikanska underrättelsetjänster och av vital betydelse för Hizbolahs interna kommunikation. Därför sågs regeringens förslag om telefonsystemet som i princip en krigsförklaring:

By demanding the dismantling of the communications network, the government would be removing the main defense network for Hezbollah. Even the Israeli government, in its report examining the July 2006 war, declared that if it had not been for the secure communications networks of Hezbollah, it would have been able to infiltrate the communications, and Hezbollah would not have been able to achieve a military victory.

Every time Hezbollah’s communication network has been infiltrated–specifically when Hezbollah used wireless networks (such as cell phones)–Hezbollah men were targeted and killed by Israeli military forces.

By demanding the dismantling of the communications network, the government would be opening avenues for the Israelis and for other agents to assassinate the Hezbollah leadership. Clearly, this would not have been acceptable to Hezbollah in any way, shape or form.

Att Hizbollah är så starkt i Libanon är dock ett politiskt problem. Framförallt för att man är allierade med nyliberaler på den kristna sidan, som Michel Aoun:

THE PROBLEM is that Hezbollah is aligned in the opposition with the Free Patriotic Movement, a Christian party under the leadership of Gen. Michel Aoun. His economic program is to the right of the government’s. He believes in neoliberalism, in privatization. His only positive claim is that he is against corruption.

When I asked Hezbollah members about their economic platform, they told me that they have been working on it for months, but aren’t ready to disclose it.

Hezbollah doesn’t have a pro-union history. But it does have a history of support for the poor, based on what it has done institutionally in the South. It has been able to build a very effective social network.

But Hezbollah doesn’t support building institutions that can replace it. Once you build up a strong labor union, you are building up a democratic force that could serve to fight against you politically, or replace your decision-making role.

So Hezbollah is not pro-union. But they are pro-poor people. They are not in favor of the privatization of electricity or water, for example. But they have not come out with an economic program, out of fear that it would cause a division with their allies.

The only ones in the country who have an economic platform are the Lebanese Communist Party–and other smaller left-wing parties, all of whom have aligned themselves quite strongly with the opposition.

So, unfortunately, the economy is put on the back burner. The argument is, ”let’s solve the political crisis first, then we can discuss the economy.”

Läs mer: Socialist Worker (UK), Internationalen,
Bloggat: Sursock, Kildén & Åsman1, Kildén & Åsman2,
Borgarmedia: SVD, PDK, HD, SDS,
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

About these ads