Dr. Oya AKGONENC: No troops to the Lebanon war zone
Turkish Daily News
Aug 26, 2006
Finally, after long negotiations and delays, a cease-fire was announced
on the Lebanese-Israeli front. There were a number of violations of
the cease-fire soon after its start. The United Nations is calling
for a peacekeeping force to help stabilize the situation in the
region. About 30,000 U.N. soldiers are needed for the operation, of
which 15,000 were expected to be provided by Lebanon and the rest by
the international community.
Israel declared that they will not pull their troops out of southern
Lebanon until the U.N. force is in place on the Lebanese soil. This
force is not ready, and from the delays it won’t be ready for a while.
Many European and Asian states have been indicating their willingness
to send troops to the U.N. peacekeeping force. France was the first
one to show willingness to lead the forces and contribute a relatively
large contingency.
Yet, within a week’s time and after much discussion in France it
reduced its commitment to 200 military engineers. (Author’s note: on
Aug. 24, 2006, President Jacques Chirac again changed his mind and
announced the French contingency as 2,000 troops, after receiving
additional guarantees and further details of the mandate from the
United Nations. A little bit of competition from Italy may also have
been a factor in this quick volte-face). Likewise, Germany was equally
careful about its commitments. Germany was concerned about the memories
of World War II clouding the relations and the peacekeeping efforts
in the region. Thus, Germany clearly refused to send combat troops
but offered some other form of help.
Although at the beginning a number of European states demonstrated
willingness, presently less enthusiasm is forthcoming from these
groups. Israel suggested Italy to lead the U.N. troops. At first,
Italy was enthusiastic about the idea, yet within days Italy began
to ask for clarification of the U.N.
mandate and possibly a new U.N. resolution clearly stating the rights
and obligations of the U.N. force as well as the rules and conditions
of violation of the cease-fire. Other European Union nations showed
hesitancy in sending troops to Lebanon under the present conditions.
Some Middle Eastern and Asian countries such a Malaysia, Indonesia,
Bangladesh and others also indicated willingness but have not committed
themselves so far. There is a lot of pressure on Turkey to send troops
to Lebanon as well.
There was news in the American and Israeli press indicating the
willingness of the Turkish government and even suggesting as many as
5,000 troops to be committed to the cease-fire. Yet so far no official
decision has been made on the issue. Even though this topic was on
the agenda of the National Security Council (MGK), no clear decision
or even a suggested road map came out of this meeting.
Pros and cons of such a commitment for Turkey:
Turkish people were deeply affected by the scenes of war and
destruction and indiscriminate loss of life caused by Israeli
bombing. The public came to dislike very strongly the indiscriminate
and disproportionate use of force by Israel and showed their
protest to such behavior though public rallies, photo exhibitions,
demonstrations and public declaration. Public speakers called for
ending the hostilities and stopping the unlimited destruction of the
cities, towns and the infrastructure in the region.
Turkey has historical and cultural ties with the region and its people.
Turkey cannot be expected to be indifferent to the needs and problems
of the region and tolerate the destruction of the inhabitants of the
region regardless of their sects or religion.
On the other hand Turkey is a strategic partner of Israel and allows
Israel to use the airspace over the Konya plateau for their air
force maneuvers.
Turkey is considered as an important player in Middle Eastern
politics. The United States had encouraged and pressed Turkey into
closer political and military ties with Israel. Thus, under all these
conditions it would be better for Turkey to keep its troops away from
the war zone to keep its neutrality and credibility in the area.
The rules of the U.N. mandate are not so clear in U.N. Resolution 1701.
Articles such as 8 and 11 clearly indicate that only Lebanese and
UNIFIL forces will be allowed to carry arms and that all other armed
forces in Lebanon will be disarmed in accordance with the rules laid
down earlier with Taif implementations and the rules of resolutions
1559 and 1680.
All different parties, be they Shia, Sunni, Druze or others, don’t want
Hezbollah forces to be disarmed for the security of Lebanon. Besides,
Hezbollah is part of the present Lebanese government. So what would be
the clear and precise role and duty of the international peacekeeping
force and how will they implement these rules? Turkey has to know
clearly what the conditions are before deciding on committing itself
to the troop deployment.
There are other considerations to be reckoned with, such as the
opposition of the Armenian Dashnak organization in Lebanon, to the
participation of Turkish troops. There are other local groups that are
uncomfortable with Turkish troops in the Middle East. An open letter to
the prime minister of Turkey has been sent from an important think tank
in Beirut asking him not to sent troops. Lebanon is the host country,
and one has to take into consideration the view of the country where
the troops will be stationed.
On the other hand while being a strategic partner with Israel,
how will Turkey diplomatically win over the confidence of the Arab
states? Turkey has to weigh the results of each step it takes in
regards to the different interest groups and interested parties in
the region.
More important of all, by participating in the peacekeeping force,
would Turkey be trapping itself in an upcoming war with Iran, despite
its desire to keep out of such a struggle? Turkey has to be doubly
careful to see where each step it takes will lead.
On the domestic front there is much opposition from various groups
within the entire spectrum of political parties, from left to right,
from intellectuals and writers, unions and NGOs who oppose the presence
of our military in the Lebanese-Israeli war zone. It is seen by most as
siding and helping Israel and its main supporter, the United States,
to change and damage the region by their declared goal of redrawing
national boundaries. One wonders whether despite such strong internal
opposition the Turkish government should or would still insist on
sending troops to Lebanon.
Their final decision is yet uncertain. Yet there are regional,
international and especially domestic forces at work that will
influence the decision.
Turkey should consider other forms of help and contributions to
peace in the area such as sending help in the reconstruction of
the infrastructure, medical help such as drugs and doctors, food
and clothing, yet stay away from military commitments just as most
European states are presently doing.
Associate Professor Oya Akgonenc is a former deputy of the Saadet
(Happiness or Contentment) Party (SP). She can be contacted at
_oyaakgonenc2000@yahoo.com_ (mailto:oyaakgonenc2000@yahoo.com)
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress