The repercussions of the ongoing war against terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world have started to hit Lebanon. Hezballah is mentioned in the American list of terrorist organizations. It happens that Hezballah, spearhead of the resistance to Israeli occupation, is a group of which Lebanese and Arabs are proud, particularly because of its role in forcing the Israelis out of most of the national territory. Washington has now asked Beirut to freeze the party’s assets, and Beirut has refused. It’s a principled stand, but how much will it cost us on all levels? What will the government do? “We’ll consult with our friends”, says Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
So far Lebanon has been on the same track as the West regarding the campaign against
terrorism. The official attitude is clear and conforms with that of every Arab
government (except that of Iraq): Ossama bin Laden is rejected by Islam because
he has behaved in ways opposed to all religious values. So Hariri has said at
press conferences and many other events here and abroad. But Beirut has been embarrassed
by the appearance on Washington’s new list of Hezballah and of its general
secretary, Hassan Nasrallah, among others. This has happened even though, we were
assured, the Americans were aware of this country’s delicate internal situation.
The government now feels obliged to go beyond its usual criteria in dealing with
the party.
LONG-STANDING ENMITY
American enmity to Hezballah goes back a long time. The party seems to have
had a part in the bombing of the American Marine camp in 1983 and in the kidnapping
of Americans and other foreigners between 1982 -- when Archie Crawford, acting
president of AUB, was seized -- and 1989, when the abductions ceased. Since
the civil war ended in Lebanon in October 1990, Hezballah has successfully integrated
itself into this country’s political structure, having since 1992 had its
own bloc of MPs in the legislature. It has worked hard to erase the old image
it had in the ‘80s, opening the doors to cooperation with other communities,
especially the Christians, in South Lebanon and the Bekaa. It has also received
enthusiastic kudos among Lebanese and Arabs for its leadership of the struggle
against the Israeli occupation. And following the Israeli army’s rampage
in the South in 1996, the party received indirect recognition by the international
community in the “April Understanding” which ended the aggression.
But ideologically speaking, the party remains the same, true to its Iranian
mentors, for whom America is still the “great Satan”. Washington has
never forgiven Hezballah, as it shows in its annual State Department report
on terrorism.
Hezballah has not always been compliant with the wishes of the government, as
Hariri has found over the years. The relationship has improved since May 2000,
when the Israelis were forced out; Hariri seems to be of the view that it is
better to be on good terms with the heroes of the Resistance. But sometimes
the party acts against the government’s interests -- as by launching attacks
on Israeli forces in the Shebaa Farms at a time when the prime minister has
been keen to present the country as a haven of stability and thus a good place
to invest --, and in such cases President Emile Lahoud intervenes to restore
the balance.
AMERICAN OFFENSIVE?
After this brief review of the party’s position in the Lebanese political
equation, we can easily undersdtand the danger posed by the situation. Washington
is busy settling old accounts and trying to set up a new map for its concept
of a peace settlement which will, of course, be in conformity with the interests
of Israel. It is now declaring that Hezballah assets should be frozen, in Lebanon
and abroad. If the Lebanese government rejects this demand, this country may,
according to UN Resolution 1373, find that it is itself regarded as a “terrorist
entity”. The same thing would apply to Lebanese banks, whose funds in the
United States and other countries would be frozen. This development would deal
a heavy blow to our banking sector.
Hariri has been in touch with various foreign governments and personalities
to find an appropriate exit from the situation. Britain has taken a nuanced
stand, distinguishing between the party’s military and political wings,
the latter being integrated into the Lebanese political system. This at least
was the view of an unnamed source in the British embassy in Beirut, quoted in
press reports.
Hariri has tried to play down the seriousness of the situation, noting that
Lebanon “has many friends abroad”, but he has been unconvincing. For
his part, Speaker Nabih Berri has hit back at the US by reiterating his support
for Hezballah and rejecting the possibility of any change in the official attitude
to the party.
America too is in an awkward position. It can win nothing by taking punitive
measures which undermine the banking system and economy of a country which has
traditionally had close ties with the US on many levels. Weakening Lebanon,
a very small state which only a few years ago was prey to a civil war, will
win Washington no praise from the Arab states the US is anxious to draw to its
side, states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which have always had especially good
relations with Lebanon. Nor will it lessen official and popular support for
Hezballah; quite the contrary. Where the Bush Administration sought regional
partners, it will instead find a new enemy, one that will almost certainly draw
closer to Iran, America’s old bogey.
Edgard Jallad
|
Main |
Archives |
Contact us |
About us |