MEDIA REACTION REPORT - UN Resolution 1701 - Cease-Fire -

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 005480 SIPDIS DEPT FOR INR/R/MR; IIP/RW; IIP/RNY; BBG/VOA; IIP/WEU; AF/PA; EUR/WE /P/SP; D/C (MCCOO); EUR/PA; INR/P; INR/EUC; PM; OSC ISA FOR ILN; NEA; WHITE HOUSE FOR NSC/WEUROPE; DOC FOR ITA/EUR/FR AND PASS USTR/PA; USINCEUR FOR PAO; NATO/PA; MOSCOW/PA; ROME/PA. E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC KMDR FR SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION REPORT - UN Resolution 1701 - Cease-Fire - Future International PARIS - Monday, August 14, 2006 (A) SUBJECTS COVERED IN TODAY'S REPORT: UN Resolution 1701 - Cease-Fire - Future International Force B) SUMMARY OF COVERAGE: The cease-fire agreement reached at the UN and endorsed by Israel and Lebanon makes most front pages, with variations on its characterization. While Le Croix believes the cease-fire means "Hope" Liberation acknowledges this is a "Hesitant Peace" and Le Figaro headlines "A Cease-Fire to the Test." In his Le Figaro editorial Yves Threard proclaims the cease-fire a "diplomatic success" and congratulates President Chirac for last week's clarifications, "which were indeed useful." La Croix's editorial salutes "the joint diplomatic efforts of the U.S. and France." But the editorial in Liberation comments on "the tremendous waste" in Lebanon adding that "on disarming Hezbollah, the resolution is indeed very thin" and warns against what could "turn into a quagmire" for the French army. An op-ed in Le Figaro echoes this point of view: "Nothing is more dangerous (for a peacekeeping force) than to pretend to maintain peace when in fact the point is to impose it." The relationship tying Iran to Hezbollah, and hence to successfully dealing with the wider situation in the region, is analyzed in a separate op-ed by Ken Weinstein of the Hudson Institute who writes "that Iran and Syria must be kept out of the negotiations." (See Part C) Next to a photo of the action over the weekend, Le Parisien reports that upon entering the Security Council chamber on Friday, Secretary Rice kissed French FM Douste-Blazy, and then thanked him personally in her UNSC remarks for his role in resolving the conflict between Lebanon, Israel and Hezbollah. Interviewed in Sunday's Le Parisien, FM Douste-Blazy said "I thanked her [Rice], too... We worked well with the U.S... The resolution brings about a major political and historic action: Lebanon will deploy its national army... Israel's undeniable right to self-defense was reaffirmed, and Lebanon's full sovereignty was restored. What's important is the political advances; the military was never a solution." Le Fiagro's Lamia 
Oualalou reports that "Paris is claiming responsibility for the cease-fire... By repeating France's role some twelve times, FM Douste Blazy did not allow any ambiguity to remain over France's role... And indeed, after much talk, Paris was able to bring about Washington to accept many of its demands." Le Journal du Dimanche interviews PM Villepin who explains France's role in reaching the cease-fire: "France was always in favor of a political solution; if the fighting had continued to impose a solution, as in Iraq, we would be at an impasse with increased hatred... which serves as fodder for terrorism... The UN resolution is a step towards a political solution. It is a starting point which demands determination and vigilance in its implementation. We are all aware the choice was a difficult one for Israel and for Lebanon. But opting for peace is always a difficult and courageous choice." Every network reported this morning that Israel had endorsed the resolution, immediately after Lebanon. TF1 television said that UNSCR 1701 was "vague" as it only mentioned the end of the "military operations", giving Israel and Hezbollah the opportunity to continue their offensives if they deemed them to be "defensive actions." However, Radio France Info announced this morning that the bombing had stopped since 8AM, local time, as demanded by the resolution. But the reporter also said that Israel was throwing leaflets in Beirut to inform the population that "if Hezbollah carried on with the strikes, Israel could respond." Le Figaro's front page says the cease-fire will be "put to the test" for at least two reasons: "Israel accepts resolution 1701, and is committed to stopping its offensive, but will continue to fight against militias in self-defense. Meanwhile Lebanon accepted the cease-fire, but Hezbollah does not seem ready to disarm." Questioning whether the UN is fit to direct an international force in Lebanon, La Croix says "the temptation was great, for reasons of efficacy, to have recourse to a NATO force." The article admits, however, that a NATO force would "appear too closely linked to the West." (C) SUPPORTING TEXT/BLOCK QUOTES: UN Resolution 1701 - Cease-Fire - Future International Force "The Day After" Dominique Quinio in Catholic La Croix (08/14): "With both sides claiming victory over the enemy, there will be no victor... Despite its slowness, we must salute the international community and the joint diplomatic efforts of the U.S. and France. Of noticeable value is the fact that the Americans, who have been accused of unilateralism, acknowledged the role of the UN... even if a cessation of hostilities does not mean peace." "In the Middle East, the (same) Ambitions Remain" Yves Threard in right-of-center Le Figaro (08/14): "We must salute the diplomatic success illustrated by resolution 1701, despite its contradictions... France weighed in forcefully in the search for a solution, and managed to pull the U.S. in its wake. Chirac's clarifications last week were indeed useful... Still there remain difficulties ahead: among them how to disarm Hezbollah, something which the resolution does not address... and how to deal with Nasrallah's newly found success in the Arab-Muslim world... In southern Lebanon as in Iraq, conventional war methods may not be enough to put an end to guerrilla fighting. The Islamic movement, led by Iran, has a strike force which elicits legitimate concerns and should urge the international community to remain mobilized and united." "Why Iran and Syria Must Be Kept Out of the Negotiations" Ken Weinstein of the Hudson Institute writes in right-of-center Le Figaro (08/14): "For obvious reasons, France and the U.S. play an essential role in this conflict. They must absolutely avoid half measures and accept illusory solutions... that would include negotiating with Iran and Syria... These must be kept out of the negotiations. Any weakness that the international community will show towards these two countries will only reinforce a policy of the worst... Improvised solutions can satisfy the short term. But they will not weaken the resolve of dictatorships." "Parenthesis" Pierre Haski in left-of-center Liberation (08/14): "After the battle, the desolation (in Lebanon) is devastating... The residual violence over the weekend proves there is no victor... This is why despite resolution 1701, Olmert took the political risk of one last offensive. And in the end, the relative failure of Israel in managing this war could carry more weight than the final result: a result that depends on the credibility of resolution 1701 and which is rather thin on how to disarm Hezbollah. And as France gets ready to plunge into what looks very much like a quagmire, the international community cannot afford to make the slightest error... Otherwise the cessation of hostilities will only be a parenthesis in the midst of a prolonged conflict." "A First Step to Halt a Logic of War" Jean-Michel Helvig in regional La Republic des Pyrenees (08/14): "While the means used by Israel during this war are questionable, its military objectives were not, if one remembers that Northern Israel has been exposed to increasingly threatening attacks since Israel's pullout from Lebanon in 2000. By kidnapping two Israeli soldiers, Hezbollah committed an act of war which Israel used as a pretext for a major war offensive, thus 'punishing' all of Lebanon. This is no more commendable than Hezbollah's attacks on civilians. UN resolution 1701, which orders the two adversaries to stop their offensive, but not defensive actions, opens the door to numerous interpretations. But this was a necessary first step to stop the logic of war." "The Trap for an International Force" Etienne Durand of IFRI (French Institute for International Relations in right-of-center Le Figaro (08/14): "While the initiative of implementing an international force in Southern Lebanon is morally commendable, the initiative is strategically dangerous and most probably destined to fail... In matters of intervention, there are only two options available: maintaining peace or imposing it. Nothing is more dangerous (for a peacekeeping force) than to pretend to maintain peace when in fact the point is to impose it." HOFMANN