IL SOLE
24 ORE: “BETTING ON TURKEY”
Fabio BASAGNI
(Strategic
Research Institute of London)
European
and Italian intervention in Lebanon may even be a trap, as
well as an act, perceived in Rome and Paris as the European
foreign policy – the lack of which was strongly felt in Iraq
-, decided on in a hurry, and which may cause negative
repercussions. For the time being, the mandate established
by the UN brings about a great risk of failure and poses a
threat against the Italian troops. However, it is still
possible to make a different and long-term policy: such as
giving Turkey an opportunity to assume a strategic role in
establishing stability in Lebanon. The Israeli-Lebanon case
witnessed during the recent two months cannot be coped with
without an extensive tactical-strategic framework. Iranian
President Ahmadinejad found the key point in his search for
regional hegemony he started in February: Ahmadinejad
considered carefully the significant gaps and the
vulnerabilities of the Bush administration during the recent
two years. Israel is now lonelier. Israel is already aware
of this fact. Furthermore, another opportunity emerged for
the ones who want to mess up the balances in Europe in the
geostrategic scene of the Middle East. Ahmadinejad, with the
aim of opening a second front to bring the USA and its
allies to an impasse, activated the Lebanese Hezbollah
members who are Shiites, as are the 97 per cent of the
Iranians. Our hypothesis is confirmed also by the case of
kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, which symbolically
started the incidents. Right after Iraq, a new conflict line
has been created in Southern Lebanon. Despite the UN
Resolution and the fact that the Lebanese Army was deployed
in a region, which lies at the south of the Litani River and
in which more than half of the population is Shiite, given
the declarations of the Lebanese politicians and the
Hezbollah members, it is obviously understood that they do
not have the intention to get disarmed.
In this
framework, the existence of the military units, mostly
composed of the European elements, may be a trap in terms of
both military and political point of view. First of all they
are both quite inefficient and different form each other: in
order to be efficient in the region, there must be 50
thousand well organized and integrated troops. Moreover,
since they are allowed to react in case of violation of
cease-fire, at the very beginning they will tactically feel
at loose ends and inadequate. From political point of view a
trap is worse: existence of Christian troops in the region
can be perceived as a new Crusade against Islam. On the
other hand, in the coming months Iran would use Lebanon as a
bargaining tool for its nuclear weapon project. However, the
weak military troops that will be deployed in Lebanon may
actually turn into pretext and captive of a plan (which also
aims at establishing influence on countries such as Jordan,
Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which until now followed the
Western trend). Deploying the European units in the region
and then obliging them to act together with Israel will be
enough for Hezbollah to resort to arms again.
In a chess
game the West seems to be a bit late. In Europe the
strategies should have been more different: the UN, bearing
the strategic command of the mission in its own hand, might
have given a clear political authority to NATO to normalize
the region in Southern Lebanon. As a matter of fact, NATO,
which makes the maximum use of the Turkish forces (Muslim
but also secular) that are capable of carrying out
operations in the field under different conditions, has
sufficient structure to carry out this mission. Of course
with the tactical and logistical support of the European
naval and air forces... This is the only way of having the
“Crusader” concept get rid of its negative effect and of
reducing the military risks. Because a single military power
might be more effective compared to a mosaic composed of
systems of different countries. It is obvious that in the
region the political problems which have their roots in the
Ottoman period today – as in Turkey – come to the foreground
with religious and cultural similarities. Furthermore,
Turkey is a Muslim but secular country and part of Western
institutions like NATO; and it can be a significant
strategic option to strengthen Turkey’s “strategic” role and
make it become a counterbalancing and stabilizing factor
against Iran. Such an option must be discussed very
seriously. To ask Turkey to send five battalions to Lebanon
would naturally be an act which will force us to make
significant economic and political concessions.
In that
case, 25-member Europe, which will become an enlarged
critical Christian community with the joining of the Eastern
European countries, might accept a Muslim country, without
any prejudice to the fundamental cultural values, without
making any concessions to Turkey and undoubtedly within the
framework of established institutions and rules. (Ýl Sole 24
Ore Newspaper- August 22, 2006)
