Cancellation of treaty a defeat for U.S.

Press, 7 March 1984, Page 6

Cancellation of treaty a defeat for U.S.

By

PAUL EEDLE,

of

Reuter (through NZPA) Beirut

The Lebanese Government’s abrogation yesterday of its troop withdrawal agreement with Israel marks a defeat for United States policy and confirms Lebanon’s new alignment with Syria. The United States spent from December, 1982, to May, 1983 negotiating the agreement, which it hoped would lead to the withdrawal of Israeli and Syrian forces from Lebanon and the establishment of a strong Government in Beirut.

But the accord was bom dead. Israel said that it would implement its commitment to withdraw only if Syrian troops pulled out — and Syria refused to move because it said that the agreement had made unacceptable concessions to Israel.

The United States proved unable to break the dead-

lock As the months dragged by the balance of power in Lebanon slowly tipped against the United States, Israel, the President, Mr Amin Gemayel, and the country’s Christians in favour of Syria and Muslim groups fighting the Government

Events reached a climax last month, when Muslim militias defeated the Lebanese Army in two big battles, thousands of soldiers defected to the opposition, and the United States withdrew its force of Marines from Beirut The weakened Mr Gemayel chose to make concessions rather than see the country slip into total civil war.

He went to Damascus last week and promised the Syrian President, Mr Hafez Assad, that he would meet the main Syrian-Muslim demand, to scrap the agreement with Israel.

Now opposition leaders have agreed to attend a new round of talks on national reconciliation in Switzer-

land in a few days, and a cease-fire has taken effect for the first time in a month. But nobody can predict how these talks may turn out, whether the fragile cease-fire will last, and whether it will ever prove possible to negotiate the withdrawal of Israeli and Syrian troops from Lebanon. The Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Yitzhak Shamir, condemned the abrogation and said that Israel would determine for itself the best way to ensure its security. Israel has previously indicated that that means keeping its troops in Lebanon. Lebanon’s main Christian militia, the “Lebanese Forces,” has already vowed to oppose Mr Gemayel’s new policies, declaring it a “sacred obligation” to resist “all Syrian options.” Opposition sources said that two main anti-Govern-ment groups, the Druse and the Shi’ites, had already agreed on radical reforms to put to the reconciliation conference, including the re-

placement of Mr Gemayel and an end to Christian domination of Lebanese politics.

But leaders of the “Lebanese Forces” have said that there is no future for such reforms. They assert that the only solution for Lebanon is to divide it into autonomous cantons governed by the different religious groups. It has taken just 18 months for the balance of power to tip in favour of Syria and the Muslims, after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 brought the power of the Christians, and the influence of the Americans, to a peak.

A series of bomb attacks on Christian, Israeli, American, and French targets which killed more than 500 people has hastened the change. Nobody ever conclusively identified who was behind the attacks but they undoubtedly served Syrian and opposition interests. First, a bomb in September, 1982, killed the "Leban-

ese Forces” commander, Bashir Gemayel, a week before he was due to take office as President Israel, the United States, and militant Christians in Lebanon had relied on the tough, 34-year-old Bashir to build a strong central government which would stand up to Syria. Bashir’s milder brother, Amin, took his place, promising a more cautious policy of political reforms to reconcile the Lebanese factions and dependence on the United States to negotiate the withdrawal of Israeli and Syrian forces.

The result of this policy was the agreement finally concluded by the United States after a suicide-bomb attack on the American Embassy in Beirut made Washington determined to notch up a foreign policy success in Lebanon.

Syria rejected the agreement, which allowed Israelis to take part in joint patrols in south Lebanon and restricted the millitary

forces Beirut could keep in the area.

The diplomatic paralysis which then set in gave the initiative to the gunmen and bombers. Factional fighting between Christians and Druse forced Israel to withdraw from the mountains overlooking Beirut, leading to a three-week war in September in which the Lebanese Army and the United States discredited themselves in the eyes of Muslims by intervening to save the Christians from total defeat.

Suicide-bombs in October and November, which killed 241 American servicemen, 58 French troops, and 29 Israelis, put pressure on Israel to withdraw further from south Lebanon and prompted the United States to review its policy on Lebanon.

Muslim militias then effectively declared war on Mr Gemayel’s Government at the start of last month and in two bouts of fierce

fighting seized control of west Beirut and a large area of the mountains from the Lebanese Army. Thousands of soldiers, trained by the United States to be the vital support for a strong central Government, defected to the opposition with their American-sup-plied arms and equipment As opposition leaders called for Mr Gemayel’s resignation and the country split into warring Christian and Muslim camps, the United States moved its 1600 Marines out of Beirut to ships offshore and withdrew its special envoy from diplomatic efforts over Lebanon.

President Ronald Reagan said that the United States was not retreating. But the dream of a strong, independent Lebanon was gone and the abrogation of the May 17 agreement finally confirmed that Mr Gemayel had swapped reliance on Washington for concessions to Damascus.