The Hezbollah Conundrum

Last week, the European Union succumbed to U.S./Israel pressure and designated the so called “military wing” of the Lebanese political party/social organization/militia , Hezbollah, as a “terrorist organization”. The decision made by politicians in Brussels has left the EU professional diplomats and legal experts with a major mess to try and sort out. The problems were immediately evident. While an EU spokesperson in Brussels was acclaiming the important consequences of this action, the EU Ambassador to Lebanon, Angeline Eichhorst, was meeting with Hezbollah and other Lebanese leaders in Beirut to explain that this action would have no impact on EU relations with Hezbollah or Lebanon. My reaction was “have they lost it?”

Among the problems that this ill-considered action creates is “who exactly is being blacklisted?” There is no clearly defined line between the “military wing” of Hezbollah and its political and social activities. This was demonstrated during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah members abandoned their positions as dentists, political figures, farmers etc., reclaimed their AK-47s and grenade launchers from their closets or under their beds and joined the fight against the invader. While there is a professional component to the Hezbollah militia, by and large it is the consummate citizen army.

The U.S. gets around this problem by blacklisting all of Hezbollah. During my last visit to Beirut, I was treated to one of the bizarre consequences of this position when a U.S. diplomat responsible for non-military aid to Lebanon told me that she could not meet with the government minister responsible for disseminating this aid because he was a member of Hezbollah. She had to rely on the Swiss to coordinate with the Lebanese government.

Everyone is puzzled about how the EU will distinguish between the “Civil Wing” and the “Military Wing” of Hezbollah. My friend Franklin Lamb, an American writer and researcher based in Beirut, describes the issues in a recent article.

“According to a lawyer at the American Society of International Law in Washington DC, the EU decision was a big mistake from an international law standpoint and could be an international lawyer’s worst nightmare or a dream come true. Which would depend if the lawyer was representing the EU in trying to unravel the civil-military conundrum or advising thousands of EU member states businesses and agencies wanting to continue any business with the Lebanese government, UNIFIL, or countless NGO’s who regularly interact with Hezbollah. (sic)

‘It’s a real legal mess!’ the ASIL source explained, as he described the legal confusion the EU action caused. ‘The best thing for EU credibility and international relations right now on this subject would be for the EU to forget what it did and to desist from any implementation whatsoever. And then let the designation be removed after the six months trial period as provided by EU regulations. Otherwise, their decision will swamp courtrooms and complicate Middle East-European political and economic relations with challenges from all points on the compass with uncertain outcomes to say the least’.” (The whole article is here.)

(Photos from al Manar)

Technorati Tags: Lebanon,European Union,Hezbollah

When Will We Ever Learn

A recent article written by Franklin Lamb, an American journalist and researcher based in Lebanon commenting on the anniversary of the tragic bombing of the U.S Embassy in Beirut. He puts this event in larger perspective.

Beirut -- This observer has no idea if the American Ambassador here in Beirut, Maura Connelly or Secretary of State John Kerry has ever listened to Marlene Dietrich’s classic October 1965 performance of Pete Seeger’s “Where Have All The Flowers Gone,” still stunning, deeply moving and available on the Internet. (here)

But on this 30th anniversary of the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut I found myself near the old embassy site on the sea front for personal reasons, and stepped down the block below the American University of Beirut to meet a friend at Starbucks. When I entered, maybe the 5th time in my life

I have been to a Starbucks since I don’t drink coffee and for political reasons tend to avoid the chain, I noticed someone was playing Dietrich’s classic.

Having just read reports in the Lebanese media concerning the American Ambassador and Secretary of State’s political comments on the embassy events, three decades on, Marlene’s enchanting, deep voiced, “When will they ever learn,?” numbed me.

Kerry slammed Hezbollah in the Lebanese media, saying “On this 30th anniversary of the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, the United States celebrates 30 years of close cooperation with the people of Lebanon that proves the enemies of democracy failed,” he said from

Washington, "especially at the people-to-people level, and this proves the terrorists' goals were not achieved.”

For her part, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly said the bombing opened a new chapter in America’s history in the Middle East. Connelly said the explosion taught Americans that “peaceful intentions were not enough to protect us from those who would use terror to achieve their aims in the Middle East.”

What both officials avoid mentioning is the subject of who was committing the terrorism in Lebanon when these events, including the US Marine Barracks and the Embassy again in 1984, occurred.

Regarding Hezbollah, which would not be a formed organization ready to announce itself publicly until 1985, CIA operative Robert Baer and his team assigned to investigate the Embassy bombing concluded there was not enough reliable evidence to support the theory that the Party of God was responsible. Among the more than three dozen militias of various persuasions operating in Beirut alone in the early 1980’s, only Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

The American officials also failed to take into consideration the fact, never denied by Washington, that at that time the US Embassy had the largest contingent of CIA agents working out of the Embassy and performing command and control functions for the US Marine base in South Beirut, more in fact than in any other capital city except Moscow. When the US Embassy became a command post, by the terms of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations it lost its protected status.

The US Marines as a hostile military force in Lebanon never had adequate protection, and by targeting civilians, its base near the airport became a legitimate target. Contrary to the political spin put on the event, there was no terrorism involved in the operation.

The reason is because, despite Reagan administration claims, and this week's assertion by Ambassador Connelly, the US forces were not “a neutral peacekeeping unit” as hyped. Rather, they were enemy combatants fighting and killing on one side of a civil war conflict. When the battleship New Jersey's shells killed hundreds of people, mostly Shiites and Druze, that fact was clear. It's not surprising that in his memoir, General Colin Powell, at the time an assistant to Caspar Weinberger noted that "When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides."

Some examples. On 14 December, 1983 the New Jersey fired 11 projectiles from three of her 16 inch (406 mm) guns at the rate of three per minute each at positions inland of Beirut. These were the first 16 inch shells fired for effect anywhere in the world since New Jersey ended her time on the gun line in Vietnam in 1969.

According to news accounts by reporters in Beirut at the time, the New Jersey bombardment sometimes began at 1:25 P.M. and ended at 11 P.M. followed by American fighter-bombers which could be heard flying over Beirut in search of targets.

On September 19, 1983, the New Jersey and other US warships began shelling Druze, Syrian and Palestinian positions in the Chouf Mountains outside Beirut. The battleship New Jersey with its 2,700 pound shells ("flying Volkswagens") led the action. And on 8 February 1984, the New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Shi'ite positions in the hills overlooking Beirut. More of the massive projectiles rained down on the Bekaa valley east of Beirut and constituted the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.

The inaccuracy of New Jersey's guns was a scandal in US government circles and was consistently called into question. An investigation, led by Marine colonel Don Price, into New Jersey's gunfire effectiveness in Lebanon found that many of the ship's shells had missed their targets by as much as 10,000 yards (9,144 meters) and therefore may have inadvertently killed civilians. Records and oral hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the matter could not be clearer, and Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Connelly know this. Tim McNulty, a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune based in Lebanon at the time wrote: "Everybody loved the New Jersey until she fired her guns. Once she fired, it was obvious she couldn't hit anything,” Well, as the citizens of Lebanon know, it did indeed hit things mainly innocent civilians, their property and Lebanon’s infrastructure.

As Secretary of State Kerrey knows well from his nearly three decades in the US Senate and his four years (2009-2013) as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee the actions of the USS New Jersey itself was arguably terrorism and some experts in the International Law Bureau of the Pentagon have said as much.

This observer lived for more than a year in the Chouf village of Choueifat, a beautiful place set high above the remains of the US marine barracks, the Beirut airport and the Mediterranean Sea where the USS Jersey and other US Sixth fleet warships are normally positioned when they come calling on Lebanon.

Neighbors still recall what some here call, “the terror days of USS New Jersey” and its shelling with both 26 inch and 19 inch shells, the former weighing up to 2,700 pounds. Clearly visible around Choueifat and dozens of other smaller towns, are the remains of houses and buildings not yet repaired from the devastation caused by the intense shelling. Also visible at various locations are indications that unexploded shells even now remain imbedded in the ground.

One wonders if as part of the "special enduring friendship between the United States and Lebanon on a people to people level” that the president might order the Pentagon to defuse and remove these huge unexploded bombs. If so he would distinguish his administration from that of the occupiers of Palestine who for more than three decades have targeted various parts of Lebanon with American supplied and US taxpayer-paid weapons, including literally millions of US-made cluster bombs during the 33 day Israeli aggression in 2006.

It is certainly appropriate to honor the victims of the 1983, but it is no less appropriate to honor the other tragedies in Lebanon during this period under review that precipitated it. In her closing remarks this week, Ambassador Connelly noted that in her opinion, “the bombing of the US Embassy taught us the stakes of involvement in this region.”

Has it?

As we contemplate another “neutral peacekeeping presence” being planned in Washington for Syria, we gravely doubt that it has.

When will we ever learn?

Soft Power Wins for Iran

Critics of the George W. Bush administration have frequently cited his reliance on “hard power”, particularly military force, to achieve US foreign policy objectives as a major cause of declining US popularity and effectiveness around the world. Although she generally agreed with Bush administration policies, particularly in the Middle East, Hilary Clinton attempted to differentiate herself from the Bush administration policies and Barak Obama’s emphasis on “soft power” during the run up to the 2008 election by coining the phrase “smart power”.
As we have discovered by observing Secretary of State Clinton in action, her definition of “smart power’ is significantly different from “soft power”. For her, “smart power” is an attempt to put a softer face on “hard power”. As she is discovering, it is very hard to put a soft face on drone attacks, “crippling sanctions” and ongoing occupations.
“Soft Power”, on the other hand, consists of persuading others to what you want because they see convergence between your interests and their interests and they understand your respect for their interests and appreciate your assistance in achieving them. We can better see the effective use of “soft power” by observing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Lebanon.
During the visit Ahmadinejad met with Christian President Suleiman, Sunni Prime Minister Hariri as well as Shia leaders of Hezbollah. He toured the country in an open vehicle welcomed by adoring crowds. (Try to duplicate that Barack Obama.)
Western media and leaders have tried to portray the visit as “provocation” and an attempt to subvert the “pro-western” government of Saud Hariri. Former British Intelligence officer and Director of the Beirut based Conflicts Forum paints a different picture in a recent post.
“Iran’s popularity on the streets should not surprise anyone.  It is real, and it is heartfelt – and extends beyond the Shi’i of the south of Beirut.  Having been present here in Beirut throughout the war of 2006, I experienced the almost universal shock at how leaders and so-called ‘friends of Lebanon’ such as Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice tried to fend-off and delay a ceasefire – in order to allow Israel more time to ‘finish the job’, i.e. to destroy more bridges, more infrastructure and impose civilian casualties – as our ‘price’ to be paid for Hizbullah’s seizure of Israeli soldiers. Feelings here are still raw on this point, and all sectors of opinion know that the only real support for Lebanon in those dark hours came from Syria and Iran.  Unsurprisingly, there was a direct element of gratitude in expression to Iran in recent days both for the support then, and its subsequent economic assistance to repair the damage.” (The complete post is here.)
The clear winners in the Iraq war have been Iran and the larger Shia community. By finding common interests with potential allies and working with these allies to achieve their common interests, Iran has effectively exploited this victory and increased its regional influence. The hard liners in Tehran have also been able to exploit US lead sanctions, which are making life difficult for ordinary Iranians, to improve their internal position. Soft power works.

Our man in Washington

Beirut, Lebanon: One of the questions that I have been asking the Lebanese that I have encountered is “What is your reaction to the election of Barak Obama as President of the United States?” People tell me that the initial reaction of most Lebanese and the thousands of American ex-pats who live and work in Lebanon was one of ecstasy.
American ambassador to Lebanon Michelle Sison told us that on Election Day they had a party for the ex-pat community at which they had two jars of buttons, one for McCain and one for Obama. At the end of the night all of the Obama buttons were gone, but they had plenty of McCain buttons left over.
As time has passed, reality has set in that not much may change in US policy toward the region. They now say “We will wait and see”.
This reality was reinforced by the Obama announcement that he would appoint Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanual as his Chief of Staff. While the western media has focused on his partisan political stance, his abrasive personality and his colorful language, the media in the region has been more concerned with his background and history.
Emmanual is an ardent Zionist and supporter of AIPAC’s hard right views. He is the son on a Chicago doctor who was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist guerilla/terrorist organization who fought the British during the founding of Israel. Arab concerns were not assuaged when Dr. Emmanual said, when asked about the Jewish community’s view of Chief of Staff Emmanual, “He is our man in Washington”.
We asked General Michel Aoun, former Prime Minister and the leader of a Lebanese Christian party allied with Hezbollah, what he hoped for from the early days of an Obama administration. He said “stop aggression, stop interfering in Lebanon, and stop Israeli settlements”. He and we will have to wait and see.

Israel ignores the US

This week Israel and Hezbollah completed a prisoner exchange agreement mediated by Germany under which 5 Lebanese Hezbollah fighters and 200 bodies of deceased fighters, Lebanese and Palestinian, were exchanged for the bodies of the 2 IDF soldiers who were kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006.

Israel has also been negotiating with Hamas using Egypt as the intermediary. Thus far the outcome has been a cease fire in Gaza which has for the most part held and it appears that a prisoner exchange will occur on this front as well to be followed by a gradual opening of the Gaza border crossings and easing of the blockade that has starved the Gaza economy.

All this plus ongoing peace negotiations with Syria, mediated by US ally Turkey, has taken place despite fierce opposition from the US. Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel and currently Director of the Saban Center for Near East Policy, a pro Israel think tank, said in a lecture in Ketchum, Idaho that the US said to Israel “don’t you dare talk to Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria”.

The fact that Israel ignores the US is not particularly surprising. Israeli war hero and Chief of Staff of the IDF Moshe Dayan once said “the US gives us money, guns and advice”. We choose to take their money and guns and ignore their advice. Ambassador Indyk said that negotiating with these three adversaries makes sense for Israel. The purpose is to co-opt these Iranian allies so that Israel will be free to attack Iran without fear of retaliation from their close neighbors.

This may work for Israel, but how does it work for their erstwhile Palestinian negotiating partner Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). Following last year’s Annapolis conference, US/Israel policy was to isolate Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria and strengthen Abu Mazen and Fatah with money, arms and political backing. In return Fatah would negotiate with Israel toward a peace framework. After months of fruitless negotiations, Fatah has accomplished almost nothing to benefit the Palestinian people. Israel has refused to release prisoners, stop settlement building or remove checkpoints and has continued attacks on the West Bank.

Hezbollah and Hamas, whose approach is confrontation, resistance and occasional violence, have been successful. Hezbollah was even clever enough to demand the release of Palestinians in the prisoner exchange. They now can say to the Palestinian people “See. We told you that negotiating with Israel is futile. The only thing that they respond to is force”. With Palestinian elections probably upcoming, Fatah is in a weaker position with respect to Hamas than they were last week and US policy is in shambles.

Nobody's listening

Over the past few weeks, it has become increasingly clear that US clout in the Middle East is declining rapidly. President Bush has made a number of pronouncements regarding the US position on many of the issues in this volatile part of the world and friend and foe alike have completely ignored him.
The US has strongly supported the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his March 14 coalition and encouraged them to confront Iranian supported Hezbollah. He called Hezbollah “terrorists funded by Iran" and "the enemy of a free Lebanon”. This confrontational approach led to an ongoing governmental crisis in Lebanon which only ended when Siniora ignored the US and negotiated with Hezbollah. The Qatar brokered agreement resulted in Hezbollah acquiring a blocking position on any government decisions and changed the election law in such a way that Hezbollah will probably be strengthened in the next election.
George Bush continued his confrontational approach to Iran and Syria saying “Every peaceful nation in the region has an interest in stopping these nations from supporting terrorism." Shortly thereafter Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki visited Tehran and Israel and Syria announced that they were conducting peace negotiations brokered by Turkey.
In Sharm El Sheikh President Bush said “all nations in the region should stand together against Hamas”, a group which he said “was attempting to undermine efforts at making peace”. This week Israel negotiated a truce agreement with Hamas mediated by Egypt which defacto recognized the Hamas role in Gaza and the Palestinian Territories.
The US has tried to encourage democracy and human rights in the Middle East without much success. US ally Egypt has prevented members of the Muslim Brotherhood from participating in elections over the last two years realizing that the cost of ignoring the US is low. As one senior Egyptian official said “We’ve heard these speeches before”.
Nobody knows whether or not these agreements will hold, but maybe the good news is that countries in the region have realized that years of having the US be the major player in the region have brought them nothing but war and suffering. They may have concluded that they have to ignore the US and take matters in their own hands and solve their own problems.

Proxy War III ?

This week the ongoing governmental crisis in Lebanon boiled over into violence. Hezbollah militias supported by Iran and Syria clashed with militias supporting the current governmental coalition which has the backing of the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The governmental crisis has been going on for six months since President Emil Lahoud left office. Since then, Hezbollah has refused allow a parliamentary quorum to elect a new president and the government has functioned without a president and with a deadlocked parliament. (Many Americans might argue that a vacant presidency and a deadlocked legislature is not a bad state of affairs.)

The US and its allies have supported the governing coalition of Prime Minister Siniora, claiming that it is a democratically elected government. This is a bit of a stretch as in reality Lebanon is a sectarian state. Under the treaty which ended the civil war, the President must be Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of Parliament a Shi’a Muslim. The Parliament is divided up based on a 1932 census with 50% Christians and 50% Muslims. About the only thing that the parties agree on is that they don’t want another census, but current estimates are that the country is 60% Muslim, 35% Christian and 5% other (mostly Jewish). Hezbollah’s argument is that the election law should be rewritten to more fairly reflect current conditions. (I think they are right.)

A complicating factor is that the Muslims have little trust in the Christians as they are seen as pawns of the Israelis. This largely stems from a 1982 event in which Christian militias with the aid of the Israeli Army led by Arial Sharon massacred thousands of Palestinians, men, women and children, in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

This current crisis, with all of its complicated historical baggage, can only be solved by the Lebanese themselves. Unless the US/Israel and Iran/Syria stop trying to fight their proxy war using the Lebanese, we are on the verge of another civil war which last time killed over 1 million Lebanese.

American logic - an oxymoron?

Former Vice President Al Gore’s most recent book “The Assault on Reason” bemoans the fact that reasoned discourse has been replaced by emotional and ideological responses that are encouraged by mass media and 10 second sound bites. Although many reviewers have suggested that he is making much adieu about nothing and is ignoring the role of emotion in making sound judgments, a look at US Middle East policies leads one to conclude that that he may have a good point. Some examples quickly come to mind.

Support democracy in the Middle East while implementing policies that enrage the general population and expect that they will elect governments that are friendly to the US. (A good example is here)
Support a Shia government in Iraq and at the same time oppose influence and involvement by Shia Iran
Give millions of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia and at the same time accuse them of undermining US efforts in Iraq
Encourage a Sunni barrier around the “Shiite Crescent” and expect that there won’t be sectarian rivalry
Support Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and expect that Palestinians will peacefully accept the status quo
Threaten Iran with sanctions, nuclear attack and regime change and expect that talks will encourage them to help the US out of the mess in Iraq
Isolate and starve Palestinians in Gaza and expect that they will blame Hamas rather than the US/Israel (A story about Hamas’s approach in Gaza is here)
Encourage Israel to bomb Lebanon and kill over 1000 civilians and expect that the Lebanese will blame Hezbollah rather than the US/Israel
Exclude Hamas from peace negotiations and expect that any agreement would be supported by the majority of Palestinians who elected them to office

Maybe American logic is an oxymoron.