David, <<Really complicated. No idea why they don't just go with realised capital gains... >>
... because they are evil and bankrupt.
<<like everyone else.>>
... whatever do you mean 'everyone else'? what is capital gins tax :0)
In any case, btw, a Stratfor update ...
Geopolitical Diary: The Logic of an Italian-Led U.N. Force
After a personal request from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi announced Monday that his country stands ready to take the lead of a forming U.N. peacekeeping force for southern Lebanon.
Stop and consider this for a moment. Apart from a handful of toe-dipping efforts in Albania, Italy has not led a major military operation since the time of the Romans. Now, the Italians do have quite a bit of experience in participating in peacekeeping operations, and have been able to garner some operational experience on the ground through these missions -- but their ability to orchestrate a major peacekeeping effort is, at best, untested.
And this is Lebanon we are talking about. The sectarian milieu of Lebanon is one of the most intractable flashpoints of the modern age, even before the Israelis figure into the geopolitical equation.
How has this happened?
Like all good European stories, this one begins with the French. France's history in Lebanon has not been particularly pleasant. U.S Marines were not the only foreign forces to die in a Hezbollah bomb attack in Lebanon in 1983; some 58 French paratroopers met an identical fate in an identical way a mere 20 seconds later.
But in the current conflict, Paris, as the former colonial power of Lebanon, played the expected center role of marshaling an international consensus and negotiating the original cease-fire accords -- and then distanced itself from any responsibility for implementing those accords. Instead of taking the lead of the still-to-be-forged U.N. peacekeeping force, France submitted a grand total of 400 troops -- half of whom were part of the already-existing United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.
The main complication underlying the extremely fragile cease-fire currently hovering over Lebanon is Hezbollah's refusal (and lack of incentive) to disarm. Despite the fact that Israel has failed to cripple the resistance movement militarily, the international community is now talking as though it will be able to do so diplomatically. The Lebanese army will coexist with Hezbollah -- a far cry from forcing it to disarm. The task of taking on Hezbollah fighters thus falls on the shoulders of the United Nations -- though most contributing countries have volunteered only on the condition that Hezbollah first disarm voluntarily.
Under the circumstances, France may not be chomping at the bit to lead the U.N. forces into Lebanon -- but then, who would be? By seizing the mantle of the peacekeeping force from France, the Italians are literally grabbing hold of a time bomb.
Italian Foreign Minster Minister Massimo D'Alema is not at all unwilling to assist the United Nations in peacekeeping efforts. Ever since his stint as prime minister during the Albanian crisis in 1997, D'Alema worked feverishly to make Italy as responsible of a stakeholder in the international system as possible, volunteering Italian forces for every U.N. operation under the sun. U.N. commanders have been thankful both for the troops and the honest enthusiasm that has brought them forth.
They were initially less than thrilled, however, with those troops' performance. As such, NATO and U.N. force administrators used to put Italian forces in areas where eagerness and numbers were more important than discipline and organization. Italy has learned some hard lessons since then. The Italians held a major role in Iraq, where they were often engaged by the insurgents and learned how to deal with them effectively; and of the NATO members, Italy now has one of the better-equipped forces for expeditionary operations. There is quite a difference, however, between participating in a peacekeeping force and leading one. How the Italians will fare on their first such outing, in Lebanon of all places -- we invite them to prove us wrong, but we are not especially optimistic.
Meanwhile, Romano Prodi -- the man D'Alema deposed to become prime minister back in 1997 -- is prime minister once again. Prodi, who served as the president of the European Commission for the past few years, is a Europeanist at heart and wishes to see Italy take its place alongside Germany and France as a major power managing European affairs. Such a vision from time to time means taking a leadership role. This explains why Italy was extremely eager to send its delegates to Israel and Lebanon when the conflict broke out, and why it insisted on hosting the July 27 diplomatic conference in Rome.
Both D'Alema and Prodi are part of a radically unstable coalition government in a country that has seen 50 governments in as many years. A successful peacekeeping mission could prove to be just the glue to hold it together, particularly since both Prodi and D'Alema want Italy to, for lack of a better phrase, be all it can be.
From the Italian side, then, leading the force looks perfectly rational. But why in the world would Israel be egging the Italians on?
Surely Israel regrets its acceptance of the cease-fire in the first place, knowing that despite pledges the Lebanese army now will not disarm Hezbollah? Surely Israel is concerned that a U.N. force -- and especially one that is Italian-led -- not only would fail to disarm Hezbollah but would allow Hezbollah to make a mockery out of international efforts? Surely Israel knows that an inefficiently run peacekeeping operation might lead to an even-less-stable Lebanon, requiring Israel to act to defend its interests? |
