Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Friday, May 26, 2000Pullout from Lebanon
by Israel turns chaoticTWENTY-TWO years ago, after enduring years of guerrilla attacks on border settlements, Israel invaded Lebanon to end the harassment. In 1982 Israel sent its army in force across the border and drove all the way to Beirut in an attempt to smash its most troublesome enemy, the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israel soon withdrew from much of Lebanon but left a buffer zone along the border.The issue: Israel's abrupt withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon caught Lebanese and U.N. authorities by surprise and let the Hezbollah guerrillas move in.
While it protected Israel's northern settlements, the buffer zone also spawned a new terror group that added to Israel's security concerns. Hezbollah, armed and trained by Iran, was formed by Lebanese Shiites to resist the occupation. As the Palestinian threat waned, Hezbollah grew stronger, resulting in a long cycle of attack and reprisal.
That zone has now been abandoned by the Israeli army, with some of Israel's Lebanese militia allies surrendering en masse and others seeking sanctuary across the border. Prime Minister Ehud Barak had promised to end what he called the tragedy of the Lebanese occupation with a unilateral pullout, which was strongly supported in public opinion polls.
But the planned orderly withdrawal turned chaotic. Barak had set a deadline of July 7 for the action but decided to pull out six weeks early. That caught everyone flat-footed. U.N. peacekeepers and the Lebanese army were not prepared to fill the vacuum, allowing the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas to seize the abandoned area. Some Israeli commentators compared the situation to the hasty U.S. evacuation of Saigon in 1975.
Whether the pullout will improve or damage stability in the region is not clear. Fearful that Israel's enemies will view it as a sign of weakness, Barak warned he would hit back if guerrillas on the border attacked Israel "and no target or source of power in Lebanon would be immune from a harsh response."
This appeared to be a veiled reference to Syria, which has 30,000 troops in Lebanon and dominates the country. Syria could easily rein in Hezbollah if it chose to do so.
But Syria is trying to pressure Israel into relinquishing the Golan Heights, seized during the 1967 war, and the negotiations have bogged down. Encouraging Hezbollah to attack Israeli settlements could be part of its strategy.
Meanwhile negotiations with the Palestinians are in their most difficult phase, with issues that have been deferred for years remaining to be resolved.
Some observers contend that the Israeli public is tired of perpetual warfare and is prepared to approve concessions that would previously have been unthinkable. Support for the withdrawal from Lebanon could be attributable to this war-weariness.
Although the Israelis may be ready to make concessions for peace, it isn't clear that their enemies are. The recent flareup of Palestinian rioting suggests that despite their protestations of peace the Arabs are still militant and ready to pounce if Israel shows signs of weakness.
Flat tax in Russia
TAX evasion has stifled economic reform in Russia since the fall of communism. A tax system that seemed to punish business initiative drove some companies off-shore and caused others to pay employees in cash -- preferably dollars -- or merchandise. Foreign investment in Russia's economy has dwindled.
President Vladimir Putin's plan to introduce a modest flat tax of 13 percent could improve the situation but stronger enforcement is needed.
Russia's income tax now ranges from 12 percent to 30 percent. However, when combined with the current business-transactions tax of 44 percent, a company ends up having to pay the government 70 percent on its profits, according to German Gref, Putin's minister of economic development and trade.
Social contributions added to the tax can turn a profit into a loss. Not surprisingly, the Kremlin has had difficulty trying to convince businesses and the affluent "new Russians" to declare their real income.
"We're not collecting taxes from the wealthy," Gref says. "The rich have a huge number of opportunities to leave and not pay their taxes." He says only one-tenth of a percent of Russia's tax revenue comes from those in the highest income bracket.
Putin's proposal, which is likely to win approval by Russia's parliament, also would include deductions for education and medical expenses, end tax breaks for some segments of the economy, including the military and the judicial system, and increase excise taxes on gasoline and tobacco, which have been relatively easy to collect.
Observers have questioned whether the newly elected Putin will stand up to the oligarchs who have dominated Russia's post-Cold War economy. They still wait for him to attack corruption with fervor at least as strong as he has demonstrated in retaliating against media criticism.
Boris Yeltsin's chosen successor promised to impose "a dictatorship of the rule of law." A tax overhaul was logically the first place to start in formulating his administration's economic policy. Enforcement of tax collection and other economic regulation is needed to create confidence among foreign investors and the Russian people, which is essential for economic progress.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
