American Air Rules Wrongfully Punish Citizens of Lebanon
"Treating Lebanese traveling
to the U.S. as though they were coming from terrorist training camps is a grave
injustice to citizens of a country that has always been victimized by terrorism,
wars of terrorism and wars on terrorism."
Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab has been charged by the United States with attempting to blow up an aircraft which was enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day. The young man has thrown the world into renewed turmoil.
The latest confrontation between terrorism and the international community has put Lebanon in a tight spot that will force it to adopt policies [the implementation of U.N. Resolution 1559] to protect itself from being damaged. And if those policies aren't efficient and resilient enough to weather the new storm, we must make sure that they result in a minimum amount of damage.
[Editor's Note: The author refers to U.N. Resolution 1559, which enshrines the sovereignty of the Lebanese government and calls for the disarmament of these armed groups within the country. Lebanon is a like a state within a state, due to the presence of armed groups not part of the government, chief among them Iran's allies, Hezbullah. Apparently, the United States is pushing for the enforcement of Resolution 1559 if Lebanon wants to be removed from the list of terrorist "countries of concern."]
The fact is that this new
wave of regulation threatens to restore much of the damage suffered by Lebanon
after the earthquake of September 11, 2001. What's different
this time is Lebanon itself - meaning the presence of a new government that
confronts two formidable powers: the ever-expanding reach of
terrorism and the security reactions of the international community, and
particularly the United States.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Listing Lebanon as one of the
countries requiring more rigorous passenger screening is highly irresponsible
and quite unjustified, given the fact that the U.S. president himself rose up
in anger over the failure of the American security services to prevent the
recent terrorist attempt. Of course, it's the world that will pay the price for
this - and for a long time to come.
Including Lebanon among the
countries that sponsor terrorism or have failed to oppose terrorist infiltration
will increase the ever-widening trust gap between ruling Lebanese parties that
oppose the U.S. administration and its policies and those that favor them - or
at least favor those that address Lebanese sovereignty, independence and
openness toward the West.
Treating Lebanese traveling
to the U.S. as though they were coming from terrorist training camps due to a
moment of high tension in the United States is a dangerous and grave injustice
to citizens of a country that has always been victimized by terrorism,
wars of terrorism and wars on terrorism.
And if Lebanon still suffers
from domestic fears of terrorism and international fear and suspicions about
terror, that doesn't justify restoring security measures that have proven
fruitless in the past, such as harsh and generalized profiling that greatly
humiliates Lebanese and makes them feel discriminated against.
However, this new challenge
to Lebanon doesn't mean we should deal with this merely in “ideological"
terms, because in this case, the genuine interests Lebanese pose a very
sensitive test for the government. Even if the government is correct about
conducting the greatest possible diplomatic and media campaign to remove
Lebanon from the list of "nations of concern," it will fail to
convince Americans, Europeans and others and even Lebanese themselves of its
capacity to overcome these unjust security “measures” unless Lebanese policy is
consistent, unified and effective enough to put an end to accusations of terrorism
and protect Lebanese from having to stand in “terrorism discrimination” lines.
That situation
forces the government to face two tests: it must reflect an understanding of
the circumstances behind the confrontation between terrorism and the Western
world, and not take it lightly through wooden, lifeless and ideological
statements that please countries in the "periphery" - both near and
far. Second, the government must break through the American decision by showing
the capacity to change from within and not submit to the U.S. diplomatic
offensive. This can be accomplished by effective and convincing diplomacy along
with trustworthy domestic security measures.
Perhaps most important in
this context is that Lebanese authorities must make a breakthrough in America's
“ideological” perceptions of Lebanon, which is no different from the world’s
perceptions in terms of its domestic divisions and internal conflicts. Right
now Lebanon has a government of national unity, and it's the greater interests
of all Lebanese that are threatened and which demand policies that are at that
level of seriousness.
Nor should we have any
illusions that the interests of Lebanese citizens can compete with the
calculations of politicians during upcoming government appointments, which
always come with the traditional slew of scandal.
