Points of View
A Fragile Peace in Lebanon
Early May 2008, Lebanon is once again taken in the midst of a civil conflict in which regional powers try to impose their influence in the country; in which the Lebanese are killing each other; in which religious divides govern the rules of the game. Did anything at all change since 1990? Is Lebanon incapable of governing itself with no external help? Is it prevented from doing so by self interested neighbors?
On May 7th, violent clashes between the Hezbollah and Saad Hariri’s Mostaqbal movement broke out in Beirut. Two days later the Hezbollah had taken control of West Beirut. The fighting then moved towards the north of the country and the Shouff mountains that overhead Beirut, which makes them a strategic point to control. The Shouff, where the fighting between the opposition and the Druze militia of Walid Jumblatt intensified over a few days, also holds a very specific advantage for the Hezbollah: the road to Syria. Controlling this road means securing arms and munitions supplies for the Hezbollah. In addition to the street violence shaking Lebanon, the main roads, as well as the port and airport were closed, preventing circulation in and out of the country.
Hezbollah, a radical Shia group backed by Syria and Iran, emerged in Lebanon in the 80s, partly in reaction to the Israeli threat. Ever since then, the movement grew in importance and popularity; it now can rely on strong popular support, and maintains several seats in the parliament. The tensions between Saad Hariri’s majority and Hezbollah have kept on growing for several years now. Besides, Lebanon has been unstable for a while, weakened by internal as well as external tensions. A multi-confessional country, Lebanon has never really recovered from its civil war from 1975 to 1990, and old hostilities between Christans and Muslims, Sunnis and Shia, still divide the country. The role of Syria in Lebanese domestic affairs keeps on weakening the country as well. Since its withdrawal in 2005, political assassinations keep increasing, eliminating one after the other every single potential threat to the Syrian supremacy in the region. Since September 2007, the presidential elections have already been postponed 19 times. Israel too, seems to be keen on preventing Lebanon to stand strong and stable; the July 2006 war, destroying all the major infrastructures of Lebanon, brought back the country ten years behind. With the recent crisis, it is now the ghost of the civil war that is vividly resurfacing.
The confrontations in Beirut as well as in the rest of the country were triggered after the government had declared firing the airport security chief, close to the Hezbollah, as well as the banning of the telecommunication network of the group. Given the Hezbollah's reaction, the Lebanese government decided a week later to abrogate those two controversial measures in order to restore domestic stability, which in a way granted a degree of victory to the opposition. Following those concessions from the government, the fighting stopped and the roads, port and airport of Beirut re-opened.
The international community unanimously condemned the violent reaction from Hezbollah to the government’s measures. Similarly, surrounding Arab countries issued statements reproving the group’s reaction. On May 14th, a delegation headed by the Qatari Prime Minister went to Beirut in order to find a reasonable solution to the crisis, which would satisfy all the concerned parties. Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al-Thani, Prime Minister of Qatar and the Arab League's envoy, accompanied by the Arab League’s secretary, General Amr Moussa, met successively with Fouad Siniora, Lebanese Prime Minister, Nabih Berri, Chief of the Parliament and Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s Secretary General.
The leaders of the different parties then left to Doha to discuss the three key issues that could untangle to crisis and restore stability in Lebanon: the disarming of Hezbollah, the presidential elections and the creation of a national unity government.
The negotiations did not go smoothly from the beginning but all parties finally agreed on a compromise. A president was elected, and the opposition managed to obtain a blocking minority in the parliament.
Although an accord was signed, peace in Lebanon still seems fragile. If Lebanon were to go back to instability, it would probably be much worse than in the past, and aggravated by 18 years of underlying tensions. The question that is now at the forefront of Lebanese politics is whether the Doha accords’ solution will actually succeed in establishing the political and social peace Lebanon has been expecting for so long.
Dalia Bahous
Research Assistant
Syria: a Major actor in the Middle East
It seems too good to be true: an agreement in Lebanon with Hezbollah, the confirmation of negotiations between Israel and Syria and a (thorny) dialogue about a potential truce with the Palestinian Hamas. Bizarrely, neither Teheran nor Washington prevented those three events to unfold. Besides, each of the intermediaries is an American ally: Qatar (for Lebanon), Turkey (for Syria), and Egypt (for Hamas). How can this sudden keen interest for dialogue be explained? Is a new deal being set up in the Middle East? Analysis of Hasni Abidi, director of the Study and Research Center for the Arab and Mediterranean world, in Geneva.
It is hard to believe in a coincidence. Are those negotiations part of a greater plan?
Those three measures are definitely linked, even though I do not believe in a real regional peace plan. The current context is favourable to agreements between opposed parties. Syria in particular, has nothing to lose and everything to win. The United States is busy electing a President, the Israeli Prime Minister is entangled in a corruption scandal and the Hezbollah just achieved a successful show of strength in Lebanon. Damascus is in a strong position to negotiate the restitution of the Golan Heights (occupied since 1967 by the Hebrew state), like Egypt formerly reclaimed the Sinai in 1967.
The negotiations between Israel and Syria were confirmed on the same day as the Lebanese agreement was. What links both events?
There is a fundamental link between both events. Understand that Hezbollah’s victory in Lebanon has changed the regional order. No one imagined the Shia militia ever capable of taking control of Beirut in only a few hours. The anti-Syrian majority got worried in front of such military power and offered them the veto right they had been asking for. This last measure locks the Lebanese government, and represents the consecration of the Syrian and Iranian influence in the Cedar country. Now, Damascus does not have to fear the investigation on the assassination of Rafic Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister. The Syrian president, Bachar el-Assad, now dreams to retrieve the Golan to strengthen his authority within a regime in the midst of a crisis, and to eventually rebuild ties with the United States. On the other side, the Israeli Ehud Olmert seeks to secure its border with Lebanon and appease the tensions in Gaza. That, or Damascus could ‘reason’ with Hezbollah and Hamas....
A kamikaze from Gaza, got himself blown up yesterday at a check point. Does Hamas want a truce?
Yes, this is the sign that an agreement is near: the radical branch of the Islamist movement is trying to undermine it.
Why does Iran let it happen?
Iranian diplomacy is rather contradictive. Teheran succeeded in Lebanon. It became a key actor in Iraq (the rebel Shia leader, Moqtada Sadr just let the army enter the territory he controls). The Islamic Republic clearly influences Hamas. Its goal has finally been reached: to become THE regional power. Unavoidable for war as well as for peace. Yet, nothing is permanent in the small arrangements of the moment. At the slightest threat against Iran, violence will recur.
The United States is not exactly pleased with these changes. Why not oppose them?
I see Washington’s approval as a sign of exhaustion. The Americans are entangled in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel’s war in Lebanon was a total failure. George Bush put himself under pressure to reach an Arab-Israeli peace agreement by the end of his term. An American veto against the Lebanese accords and the on-going negotiations would be counter-productive for the US.
Redeeming Gaddafi, but at what cost?
Hasni Abidi
Director of the Study and Research Center for the Arab and Mediterranean World
Libya has all of a sudden become one of the hottest stopovers for European Leaders. Is political realism back in this land? Do the Libyan Leader and his entourage tremble with fear at the thought of being judged by an International Court on their less then glorious past? Must this recently converted rogue state de worried? Not really! After Lisbon and Brussels, Paris in now unfolding the red carpet for the Colonel.
A state has never been surrounded in a shroud of mystery such as the Libyan Jamahiriya has. The regime in Tripoli not only handles its affairs in an ambiguous manner, but it also prohibits the smallest inquiry into its reign. Ever since the regime came to power in a Coup on September 1st 1969, it has shown itself incapable of handling social, economical and political matters. Muammar al-Gaddafi, with his grasp on power, has become the irreplaceable of African and Arab Leaders; and he somehow has accommodated himself to the different mutations that have shaken the international stage these past decades.
To read the Libyan political system is like facing a blank wall, which increases the suspicions and doubts on its internal evolution and foreign policy. In his latest speeches, the Libyan Leader has stated that guns have become irrelevant and should be replaced by pens. Which is an attempt to distance his regime from the reputation it gained by sponsoring terrorism these previous years.
This regime has survived internal and external pressures thanks to a balancing game played by the political forces, the Army and the Tribes. Gaddafi has very deftly played the part of balancing agent these past 30 years. But ultimately what saves the regime is the incredible natural wealth of its land, which Western Democracies are dying to get their hands on. Who can resist such a market where everything is to be sold? This country pays cash, so who cares about all those Libyans deprived of their basic rights.
Stability in Libya is intimately linked to this one man: Muammar al-Gaddafi. Without him, not only is there a power vacuum but Libya’s future is uncertain. Gaddafi does not hesitate in confiding his favourite son Seif-el-Islam with important missions. Yet this seemingly organised succession in not reassuring.
Libya’s progressive return to the International stage (which started with its mediation in the Algerian desert European hostage crisis and the forced liberation of the Bulgarian nurses) is just a face-lift, much needed by the exhausted regime. It is true that the success obtained by Gaddafi’s son could usher new actors with different perceptions on foreign policy thus breaking away from the path set by the Guide and his men. But the young son lacks a political programme, consensus around him and vision for the future.
A new generation of young Libyan technocrats that are into political realism, has been attempting these past years to be part of the decision making process in Tripoli. But the old guard composed by the revolutionary committees is against normalising relations with the West, and employ all in their means to continue their grasp on power.
Libya has been paying a high price to satisfy the demands of the victims of the Lockerbie incident. But this settlement is one of the biggest embarrassments in the fight for human rights and it is shameful, as if paying a couple of million dollars was enough to wipe a country’s human right’s record clean in the eyes of the International Community. In the end this case serves to prove the West’s egoism who bypassed Libya’s real problems to focus on the amount of indemnities and market shares to be won.
How can a state that violates its peoples’ rights everyday be forgiven in exchange for a stash of dollars? If the victims of the Lockerbie incident and the Bulgarian nurses found lawyers and support within their governments to pursue justice, have we thought about the Libyan victims and political activists who have been rotting in prison cells these past 25 years?
How to believe in a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Mediterranean Union - such as promised by Sarkozy - when in his own country, he accepts to launder the Libyan regime because the latter is willing to pay cash. Redeeming a country just because it is tired of being treated as a rogue state in not a trade agreement.
Translated by Ines Ward
Research Assistant Trainee at CERMAM
Analysis
Slavery behind closed doors in the Gulf monarchies
The International Labour Conference is taking place in Geneva at the moment, with some 3000 delegates from 178 countries. The agenda is the same as it has been for many years now: establishing the extent to which labour norms are respected. We already know that hundreds of speeches will be made about the violation of workers' rights in Palestine. On the other hands, some topics will never make it to the limelight. Or if they do, they will fall victim to political doublespeak.
However, today, as never before, the rights of millions of workers in desperate situations are overlooked. Whereas the Gulf countries are showing record-beating incomes due to the rise in oil prices, this economic prosperity only benefits a few people. This minority is eager to spend its money on itself and makes no contribution to improving the standard of living of the people who helped them make such profit in the first place.