Hezbollah - a way to stand up to the U.S.
By Zvi Bar'el
Hezbollah recruits in Beirut: The Arab states want them to be percevied in the West as freedom fighters.
(Photo: Reuters)
America's terminology for terror is now being completed, in Lebanon of all places. The blacklist the American administration delivered to Lebanon, which included a demand to freeze the assets of the Hezbollah organization, not only raises contentious diplomatic and legal issues, but also, and especially so, economic concerns.
Lebanon as no intention of freezing the accounts of Hezbollah, Riyad Salameh, governor of the central bank, said at the end of last week and laid out four legal reasons for this decision: the demand to freeze the accounts did not come from the United Nations; it did not come from the International Court; no ruling of the sort was made by any Lebanese court; and there is no reciprocity agreement between the U.S. and Lebanon on freezing assets.
In addition to these well-organized legal arguments, there was another diplomatic-legal argument of no less import: Lebanon claims that Hezbollah cannot be considered a terrorist organization because the Grapes of Wrath understandings afforded it the status of a legitimate fighting group. These understandings, which were achieved with American and French mediation and "in consultation with Syria," and which Israel and the Hezbollah accepted in April 1996, state among other things: "the sides pledge that under no circumstances will civilians be targets for attacks. In addition, civilian-populated areas and industrial and electrical facilities will not be used as a base to launch attacks."
The accord continues: "Without infringing upon these understandings, nothing stated above prevents either side from exercising its right to self-defense."
According to the Lebanese interpretation of these understandings, Hezbollah was authorized - in a lofty international context - to continue its war against Israel, on the condition that it abides by these understandings. This recognizes the Hezbollah as a fighting group and not a terrorist organization, the argument goes. Otherwise, Israel would have opposed these understandings.
Official Lebanon also contends that there is no reason now to regard Hezbollah as a terror group, because it has not hit civilian targets since the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon last year, and has instead continued to fight for the liberation of the Shaba Farms area by attacking Israeli military targets.
Worried about Germany
Nonetheless, Lebanon is concerned that its interpretation will not be accepted, and that the American administration is liable to take action against Lebanese assets in the United States. At the end of last week, the heads of Lebanese banks tried to reassure their clients that "only" one-third of Lebanon's gold reserves - estimated at $2.7 billion - are deposited in the U.S., and that most of their banking activity is done with institutions in Europe.
The Lebanese also made a point of emphasizing that the French have promised to prevent any action aimed against Lebanon's economic assets. On the other hand, Lebanese journalists reported a tense confrontation between Prime Minister Rafik Harari and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. During a meeting between the two, the chancellor declared that Germany does not share Lebanon's view of Hezbollah. This announcement led to the assessment in Lebanon that despite the government's reassuring messages, Germany will freeze plans to invest in Lebanon.
In view of this tough German stance, Lebanon is seeking to rely not only the French position, but also on the British interpretation, which British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw provided in a long interview with the al-Hayat newspaper, published in London. Straw is suggesting to the U.S. that it make a distinction between the military and political branches of organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Straw stated that this indeed is Britain's policy. He noted, as an example, that the Irish Republican Army is defined as an illegal and terrorist group, while the UK looks differently upon its political arm (Shin Fein) and conducts negotiations with it.
This distinction does not apply to the Hezbollah, which sees itself as an organization with a single personality, both political and military, and is not prepared (yet) to separate the political from the military. The same leadership controls both branches in Hezbollah, with each branch feeding the other. There have been occasional discussions within the organization about the possibility of some day becoming a purely political, religious and social organization. But the secretary of the organization imposes his view that the time is not yet ripe for such a metamorphosis. Hezbollah has even rejected the official position of Iran that the military role of Hezbollah ended after the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon, especially because the Lebanese government has accepted diplomacy as the agreed upon means to liberate Shaba Farms.
Etzel and Lehi
The Hezbollah's position and the view of Lebanon's government, and in particular the danger that the U.S. make take economic action against Lebanon, has already provoked a public debate - moderated, of course, by the newspaper Al-Nahar and its editor, Jubran Tueni. In a stinging article published last Friday, he strongly criticized the positions of the Lebanese government and the U.S. "America's position is first of all a message to Syria, and then to Iran and only then to Lebanon;" this is the proper order of things according to Tueni. After all, if the American administration consults with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara about Hezbollah, why should Lebanon be the one to bear the responsibility? "What, Colin Powell had nothing to say to Shara about the Golan Heights?" he says sarcastically. "And if he wanted to talk about Hezbollah, why didn't he meet with Lebanon's foreign minister? Does America think that only Syria and Iran are capable of blocking Hezbollah and not the government of Lebanon? Why does Lebanon have to be the one to pay the price as usual?... When will Lebanon be a state that conducts its own negotiations? If they're talking about unifying the (Syrian and Lebanese) channels, then Lebanon should be present at all of the meetings Powell has with the Syrian foreign minister."
Tueni is demanding respect for his country and not only from America. He also has a serious complaint against the Lebanese government, which yields the right to make decisions to another country - Syria. If the Lebanese government believes it should liberate Shaba Farms through military means, Tueni says, it should make a national decision and order the Lebanese army to proceed with this mission, demand that Hezbollah merge within the ranks of the Lebanese Army, equip this organization with army supplies and turn it into a political party like all other parties, "whose national feelings do not fall short of those of the Hezbollah."
Tueni also calls upon Hezbollah to make an historic decision based on the 1989 Taif accord that concluded the civil war in Lebanon and prohibited any organization from carrying illegal weapons.
Tueni's views are not new. Neither are those of the Lebanese government. The media campaign that Al-Nahar began a year ago, aimed at getting the Syrian army out of Lebanon, has aroused a widespread public debate and has succeeded in partially eroding Syria's position of power in Lebanon. But the question of whether to define Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is a different type of campaign. Beyond the intelligent legal arguments of the Lebanese government (which could have initiated new legislation or signed a covenant with the U.S. if it had wanted to), Hezbollah has become a new symbol of steadfastness in the wake of the battle in Afghanistan. This time it is not a symbol of standing up against the Israeli occupation or liberal-Christian-Druze demands to disband all militias that function outside the command of the state's army. It symbolizes standing up against the United States.
Lebanon stands accused by its liberals of losing direction and backbone and can take a strong stance against the West by refusing to come out against the Hezbollah. Thus it would demonstrate to the Americans that they are not the ones to dictate to the Arabs who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter.
Lebanon, according to a local commentator, does not need to bow its head at every new demand from the West, especially because the West does not make similar demands of Israel.
Syrian Foreign Minister Shara supported this view in his speech at the UN General Assembly by arguing that the region did not know any terror until Israel emerged on the scene. He did not forget to mention, of course, the Etzel and Lehi, the Stern group, and Israel's actions against the Palestinians. If there is terror, it is Israeli terror, he said.
It now seems that the term "coalition" can mean both a coalition "for" and a coalition "against."A state like Lebanon, even though it does not have so many assets that could be threatened by an American boycott, can hold a political line against a superpower only because a coalition stands behind it. The same Arab coalition that supports the U.S. in Afghanistan is also protecting each of its sister countries. The Arab countries extend this protection not only in the face of potential attacks against one of them (as reflected, for example, in the Arab determination not to allow the U.S. to attack Iraq), but also in each specific conflict an Arab country faces, especially when this involves Israel.
Thus, Hezbollah can continue to operate with confidence within Lebanon. The state will protect its status, not because it is fighting against Israel, but because Hezbollah now represents a pan-Arab symbol. |
