Security Council Resolution 1559 must be seen as a warning that the United States and France are preparing the ground for attacking Syria militarily and eliminating Hezbollah who represents a threat to the Israeli Army in South Lebanon. The resolution called upon “remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon”, meaning Syria, the “disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias”, which also means Hezbollah, the “extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory,” meaning control of Palestinian refugee camps thus eliminating any nationalist sentiments and any attempt for the return of the occupied lands.
The resolution further declared its “support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence” in clear defiance of the wish of the Lebanese people who rejected this intervention in their internal affairs and passed the amendment to the country’s constitution with absolute majority.
Resolution 1559 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Security Council and in violation of the United Nations Charter, especially Article 2, Paragraph 7 of which bans intervention in the internal affairs of member countries for any reason and under any justification.
However, the resolution has put the Syrian and Lebanese governments in a critical position. The Lebanese rejection of the resolution came when its members of Parliament voted overwhelmingly to amend the constitution to extend the term of President Emile Lahoud for another three years.
Syria acted wisely by redeploying its forces in Lebanon moving its troops toward its borders. It was a positive message to counter the mounting American-French pressure on Damascus. Further, Syrian and Lebanese defense ministers said in a joint press conference in Beirut that the redeployment of Syrian troops was in line with the 1989 Taif Agreement that ended the civil war in Lebanon. It affirms Damascus’s commitment to dialogue and cooperation with Washington away from the language of confrontation and threats of sanctions.
The Syrian government wanted to refresh American memory on the reasons that led to Syria’s presence in Lebanon. Its troops entered that country at the request of the Lebanese government and under the Taif Agreement at a time when the Lebanese civil war was raging unabated in an attempt to contain the Lebanese internal conflict. The Syrians did play a positive role that should not be ignored.
In the 1991 Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi occupation, Syria sided with the American and other coalition forces. The United States blessed the Syrian presence in Lebanon and explicitly expressed its approval for such presence in return for the Syrian participation in the liberation of Kuwait.
However, the success of Hezbollah in striking the Israeli colonial presence in South Lebanon drove the American Jewish lobby and Jewish organizations to pressure the American administration to demand Syria leave Lebanon. The objective was to pacify the Palestinian Lebanese borders and eventually eliminate Hezbollah that was receiving support from Iran through Syria. Toward this objective, they succeeded in making Congress issue the Syria Accountability Act. This has happened despite the fact that the US is seeking of Syrian help to control its borders with Iraq and stop infiltrators from crossing into Iraq. Now it is obvious that all those political maneuvers conducted through a Security Council are smoke screens intended to conceal the real intention, which is a military invasion of Syria by Israel with or without Washington’s consent.
Last May Israel Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, said war with Syrian was just a matter of time. The American administration is fully aware of all this. The question now is only when Ariel Sharon will execute his plan.
