Much of Corporate
America has accepted, and is committed to, the green concept, or so we are
PR-told; �sustainability� being the fashionable term these days. Now that
concept, so masterfully faked by many businesses, has been adopted by Bush in
his international diplomacy, the catchy phrase du jour being
�sustainable peace.�
Sustainability may
be thought of as a balanced compromise of the economy, society and the
environment, a region where the three can and do coexist, but the reality put
forth by so many of these businesses is that sustainability, even if just an
empty word, when repeated sufficiently in the realm of advertising, will do the
trick. And trick it is! To the point where more than a few businesses get
re-baptized using that name, while little or nothing in their operations
change.
Ditto with
diplomacy! The new Washington farce is being played in the oratory, post
Lebanon invasion, of Condoleezza Rice and the other enforcers of American
foreign policy. The administration has masked its unwillingness to help stop
Lebanon�s profuse bleeding, in lives and infra-structure, under the guise that
a cease-fire has no value unless it comes with assurances of a �sustained
peace.�
The reality of this
conflict has become grotesquely clear after wasting almost a thousand lives
(Israeli, Lebanese and even UN peacekeepers), causing indescribable human
suffering and several billion dollars in destruction. The United States has
made it perfectly obvious that it abides by Israel�s formula for peace: �Take
two steps forward, forcefully if you must, so that you can be in a position to
negotiate taking a step back later.� But in the long run the only win-win
situation, at least in the Middle East, will come with a level, not a tilted,
negotiating table. A period of d�tente evolving into true peace will only
happen if the entire process meets the criteria of fairness by all. There is
absolutely no room for policies of one-upism by any party.
The current
proposal at the UN for a cease-fire is derisive, and had to be presented as a
Franco-American proposal to shave off a little embarrassment, if only a
whisker�s worth. It gave French diplomacy a way to earn a few needed points
with the White House, while probably losing twice as many elsewhere. One could
tell by Bolton�s demeanor that the proposal was unacceptable. By advocating it,
and taking part in its drafting, it sentenced it to be one-sided . . . on the
side of unfairness. There�s no better measuring instrument for diplomatic
fairness, in my estimation, than the Boltonmeter.
Voting on this
American-French resolution in the UN Security Council appears as an irrelevant
issue since the party that has been most critically injured in this conflict,
Lebanon, rejects it . . . finds it lacking. One cannot help but identify with
the pain and anger of the Lebanese, while also acknowledging the human
suffering of the many Israelis caught in the fray.
By enabling Israel
with a false sense of power -- power unlikely to survive the test of time on
its own merits -- the United States is not only hurting the aspirations of
Palestinians and those who identify with their cause, but also damaging the
long-term viability of the State of Israel. Dismissing Hezbollah and Hamas as
terrorists, client organizations for Syria and Iran, is incredibly puerile and
speaks volumes either to the Bush administration�s consequential stupidity, if
believed . . . or its designs in controlling the Middle East.
Has it ever
occurred to anyone in Washington or, for that matter, in Tel Aviv that both
Hamas and Hezbollah could easily, and willingly, become demilitarized once a
fair peace is reached between Palestinians and Israelis? It might prove worthwhile
to accept that premise, even if considered far-fetched by many, and build on
it. It�s not unlikely that the survival of Israel, and a promising future for
nations in the Middle East, hinge on it.
Meantime things in
Lebanon are going from bad to worse. Yet, it would be very simple for the
United States to put an end to it all. Obviously, this administration is not
willing to do so. Is it because the Republican Party is in need of an October
Surprise prior to the election? Will Syria or Iran be the next loaf ready for
the Pentagon�s oven? Why not bake them both? If we think only war criminals or
political cretins would do something like that . . . we are probably right.
Pacification
leading to true peace in both Lebanon and Palestine is solely in the hands of
the United States . . . at least for now.
� 2006 Ben Tanosborn
Ben Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer,
resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA), where he is principal of a business
consulting firm. Contact him at ben@tanosborn.com.