Middle-east Arab News Opinion | Asharq Al-awsat

Syria: disappointment and the Iraqi development | ASHARQ AL-AWSAT English Archive 2005 -2017
Select Page

There were three important Arab positions adopted at the Arab League meeting on the Syria, namely Iraq’s decision not to vote on the resolution, and both Lebanon and Yemen voting against it. Each position of course has implications worthy of consideration.

With regards to the Yemeni position, the matter is clear because the regime itself is in the eye of a storm, having been rejected by its people and the international community. Therefore, it is natural that it should stand in line with al-Assad, in a battle to stay in power. This should not be a cause of surprise as much as a reminder of the dangers of such regimes remaining among us.

As for the Lebanese, the issue is more about subordination to Iran and its agents, whether Hezbollah or the al-Assad regime, and it is well known that the current Lebanese government is a trinity made up of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. However, Lebanon voting against Arab resolutions on Syria is an indication of a further decline in the level of the political game in Beirut, in what was a clear effort to outwit on the part of the Lebanese government, showing disregard for all Arab countries. How else could we understand Lebanon abstaining from voting against Syria in the Security Council, aware that China and Russia would use their veto against a resolution condemning the al-Assad regime, whilst Lebanon actively votes against the Arab League’s resolution?

Lebanon could have abstained from voting, as it did in the Security Council, and consequently at least displayed some respect for the Syrian blood lost, in recognition of the Arabs that have stood with Lebanon whether against Israel or Iran and its agent Hezbollah. The Lebanese government at the time could have said that it was taking its geographical location into account, or some other lame excuse. Yet now it is clear that the Lebanese government was afraid of the international community, and hence abstained from voting in the United Nations, whilst it was indifferent towards the blood of the Syrians and disregarded the Arabs when it voted against the Arab League resolution to protect the Syrians. The Lebanese position is nothing but a blatant attempt to outwit, almost an act of contempt, believing that tomorrow a “polite greeting” will resolve everything!

With regards to Iraq, we must consider the Iraqi position to be something of a development. Indeed a positive development, for which we should thank and praise the Kurds. The Kurdish stance prevented the al-Maliki government from voting against the Arab resolution, and so it abstained from voting instead. Whoever monitors the stances of those affiliated to Iran’s allies in Iraq will feel the extent of the vicious attack they have waged on the Arab League. It is clear that Iran’s allies, particularly the influential ones in the Iraqi government, have been forced to abstain from voting because of the rational Kurdish position. This in itself is a positive development, and evidence of the importance of Arab openness towards the Kurds of Iraq, especially as they are now offering rational stances to contribute to maintaining Iraq’s unity and integrity. They are more interested in Iraq than others sleeping with Iran at the expense of Iraq’s unity and interests. It is suffice to consider the acts of the al-Maliki government with regards to prosecuting those deemed as Baathists in Iraq, whilst the Iraqi government itself supports the Baathists in Syria!

Hence we must consider Lebanon’s position to be a disappointment, whilst we consider the Iraqi position to be a positive development owing to the efforts of the Kurds, who now deserve better relations with the Arabs, all Arabs.