Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Lebanon: Why Does It Matter?
January 26, 2011 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 9:42am | 14 Comments
As many of this blog's readers know, I am not inclined to think tiny Lebanon really matters all that much in terms of U.S. interests. As much as I personally love the country and enjoyed the years I spent there, I just do not see a lot of U.S. interests that should occupy the time of senior policy-makers or the resources of a debt-laden state. This, obviously enough, is not in my interests to say, but there it is. CNAS has a few interns, though, who have also spent some time in Lebanon, and I asked one of them, Gregory McGowen, to make the case on the blog why U.S. policy-makers should care about Lebanon against the backdrop of the Special Tribunal. Take it away, Greg...
The situation in Lebanon reflects a greater trend in the Arab world that is directly opposed to American interests, goals and values. Viewing Lebanon as a leading indicator of social and political currents in the Middle East is admittedly an imperfect approach to an entire region, but it does have its benefits. Given that Lebanon is…
A.) The Arab world’s closest model of a “true democracy” (which doesn’t say much, but does provide a rough backdrop to gauge its potential) in the midst of:
B.) One of the world’s most highly charged sectarian environments, and:
C.) A proxy arena for outside interests to play out their regional agendas and settle their scores at minimal risk to all but the Lebanese
…this tiny country of just over 4 million invites further evaluation of the interplay between Western and Arab ideals and aspirations in the greater region. The controversy surrounding the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) tell us loud and clear what we can expect when A, B & C are thrown in the ring together: Political chaos, paralysis, violence and popular uprisings begetting more violence, until either foreign governments step in to “mediate” (read: stall the conflict 6-18 months, ignore the fundamental and highly contentious issues at the root of the conflict, listen to Nasrallah declare a “divine and historic victory”, and move on) or the country erupts into full-scale violence and civil war. I won’t even venture to guess what might happen tomorrow in Lebanon. I do, however, think it’s important for observers in Washington to step back from the STL specifically and, before making any assessments, to ask why Lebanon matters. What does it tell us? How does it affect our regional goals and interests, and how can we use this situation to help inform our decisions, both in this country and (cautiously) across the region. Here’s my take:
First off, the line separating sect from nation is at once becoming more divisive and harder to distinguish. This dynamic is very damaging to democratic processes, especially because Lebanon’s governance system is based on confessional representation. The coalition, which ambitiously declared itself a “national unity government”, has been dysfunctional at best, living and dying on a “cult of consensus” which has categorically failed its people (Elias Muhanna wrote an excellent piece dissecting the coalition’s leadership failures). When Hezbollah staged an armed takeover of Beirut in May 2008, it simultaneously solidified its status as a terrorist organization (in my opinion) and gained considerable influence in the country’s government. This time, however, the militia and its allies’ toppled the government on constitutional grounds. Same goes for their appointment of new PM Najib Miqati yesterday. This is progress…sort of. Like everything in Lebanon, it depends how you look at it. Almost 100 deaths in the summer of ’08; None in January ’11. This is the positive. Contextually, however, things aren’t quite as promising. The incident seriously calls into question the vitality of democratic ideals in a society that places such heavy emphasis on sectarian identity.
What’s also apparent is the Arab world’s deepening mistrust towards the United States and international bodies like the U.N. and E.U., which many see as puppets in the Western-Zionist design to dominate the region. This is no surprise, but it’s certainly disappointing. With relation to the STL, there is a clear disconnect between our stated goals: “to end the era of impunity for murder in Lebanon and achieve justice for the Lebanese people” and the will of those on the ground (in this case, the overwhelming majority of Lebanese) who simply want the U.S. to stop meddling in their affairs. Most troubling is that anti-American sentiment continues to gain steam at the popular level, on the streets and not just in government offices. It reinforces a deepening sense of alienation for which many Arabs feel the U.S. is to blame. Nasrallah said it best in yesterday’s speech: “Leave us alone, don’t kill us, don’t stab us in the back, don’t conspire against us…We are people who are going to die and who want to die. Let us get killed by bullets fired in our chest and not in our backs.”
Such hostility and divisiveness threatens U.S. regional goals and interests and poses a very precarious situation throughout the Middle East. Arabs, on the other hand, are expressing their political will in sectarian terms, in part to counter the threat they perceive from Israel and the West. The seemingly unstoppable power of the Resistance ideal at Hezbollah’s core is anything but unique to Lebanese politics; Muqtada al-Sadr’s influential return to Iraq is another very recent example.
I would suggest that at the core of the STL drama lies a fundamental disconnect between Western and Arab perceptions of key ideals, especially justice. This is not to say that the Arabs and Hezbollah supporters don’t value justice; I believe they do, and it’s not my place to judge anyways. But I will admit that I’m having trouble grasping the way it has been playing out in Lebanon. Saad Hariri has been cast as a pariah for holding on to his values and refusing to back down in the face of Hezbollah’s intimidation and conspiracies against him. I admire the caretaker PM, and until evidence comes out to suggest otherwise, I think it’s very disturbing how much of a beating he’s been under for taking the moral high ground. For one, he’s all but committed political suicide. The events in Lebanon should remind the U.S. of the dangers of trying to impose its will in affairs beyond our borders.
The political agendas of all parties involved have turned a righteous prosecution for political assassination into a morally ambiguous drama, at best. Unintended consequences have sprung up on all fronts. This should not come as a surprise in the Middle East, where politics and religion are deeply intertwined. Things have a tendency to take on a life of their own, and we soon find them outside our control. Our actions have very real and often unpredictable consequences. This is the blessing and the curse of being the world’s greatest superpower. I sincerely hope the Lebanese find a way to reconcile, and I believe they will. Moving forward, Washington would be well-served to view the STL as an exercise in restraint. There is a pressing need for us to rebalance our efforts in the Middle East; to reevaluate our priorities in the region and exercise our influence with greater concern for its effect on those on the ground.
A.) How is Lebanon more of a
A.) How is Lebanon more of a "true democracy" than Iraq?
C.) You are including the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia in this, right?
AM....(updated) What is the
AM....(updated)
What is the fuss? Najib A. Mikati http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205228
Mikati's Resume.
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/boards/dic/members/mikati.asp
Looks like Hizballah got a suit. No longer that image of an AK tot'in bomb lov'in rag head terrorist anymore. You got to give them credit, they clean-up pretty good.
Welcome to globalization guys. Washington is pushing the "international order" and Hizballah just made a place for itself at the table. Hizballah took a page from Obama's SOTU and got innovative!
Think ole' Hillary better buck up in her blazing purple evening suit and realize if she does not recognize Mikati (and indirectly Hizballah) that Hizballah will make POTUS look as backwards as the Democrats tried to made the Republicans on the DADT issue.
Its a bitch to be progressive. Let see $720 Million Foreign Aid to Hizballah....2012 US election. What did Johnny use to say on the tonight show?///// Bommmmmmbmmmmo! Sort of fits in to the discussion. The $720M is not a problem for the ME people. The $720M is a problem for the people that dished it out.
I will give Israel its due. They have been smart with collecting intelligence and being a world player. Israelis sort of washed up on the beach one day and moved in to a new land. While I guess it is not that easy, sort of takes us into the twelve tribes. Not simple at all.
Think Israel should have seen this day coming for a long time and if they collect intelligence they did, again giving them their due.
So I say,,,,,what is the fuss?
Does not stop here in Lebanon. If I can see the future, Iraq is headed in the same direction.
Democracy in the ME? Be careful what you wish for. I said a long time ago if the radicals want Iraq, they should help the US military out peacefully then elect their government (think that is what they did, they just got paid for the trouble.....Sons of Iraq.....silly US that is not "us", it is America ).
Personally, I think that the US should have a much smaller foot print in the ME and world (doesn't sound like SOTU). Why is Lebanon important? Was Black September in the 70's important? Was 9/11 important? There is linkage to Israel.
The people involved in the ME will keep twisting this any way they want.
Get past energy ME is just a security issue.
Maybe the right answer is to ask how much oil will cost if the US gets out of ME affairs.
US can give New Jersey to Israel, it is about the same size. Then NJ can build settlements in NY and Bloomburg can have some fun.
This is a very good
This is a very good assessment from the American imperial perspective. What might an assessment from the Lebanese perspective look like?
RH
The situation in Lebanon
The situation in Lebanon reflects a greater trend in the Arab world that is directly opposed to American interests, goals and values.
Is that really a true statement?
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle".
That is not the SOTU address either....
Can you list what America's interests are in the ME?????
I think you need to list them before you state your policy to the people that are paying for your advice. Hillary must be getting antsy these days ...huh.
Would that be the Democrat or Republican list? Seeing that we bussed all the representatives to new seats at SOTU, that should be easy to answer.
Chuckle ....Chuckle.....opps...showing my age...
LOL.
Gotta say, whose interest we
Gotta say, whose interest we talking about?
Is it in US interest to seek peace with ALL ME players, including Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas? What's the holdup on this? Oh yeah, as the Palestine Papers clearly show, Israel and the ME policy master for the US--AIPAC--ain't gonna let that happen.
All a sham that's clearly not in US interest. So whenever democracy emerges in the ME, we get what we paid for.
After reading that, I feel
After reading that, I feel light-headed. What's this paint ring around my mouth and nose?
Greg, your essay fails to
Greg, your essay fails to address the elephant in the room: the reason “anti-American sentiment continues to gain steam” is because the US allowed Israel to bomb Lebanon in 2006.
To respond to some of the
To respond to some of the comments:
VISITOR 12 - While I think there's been remarkable progress in Iraq, I'm wary of considering a "true democracy" (or anything else, for that matter) until it can function a bit more independently. Considering the circumstances, the Iraqi government is fairly well-structured and, at least in theory, capable of representing the will of the Iraqi people. That being said, there's still a long way to go. I think that in order to function "independently," and inclusive of all Iraq's people, government must work towards an oil revenue-sharing agreement. There was a little progress on the issue earlier this week (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-23/iraq-to-pay-companies-pumping-o...) but nothing particularly substantive yet. If some real, substantive progress can be made on this front (which will be difficult, but I believe is achievable) I think are Iraq's prospects for a functioning democratic government are within reach. In any event, they are moving in the right direction.
After Andrew's post about Israel, I didn't feel that there was too much else to say. Sure, conflict in Lebanon threatens the peace process and increses Israel's worry about hostile neighbors, which could heighten tensions with Palestinians and compel Israel to act defensively. I don't, however, think that Tel Aviv is prepared to mount any serious offensive at the moment, especially after the reputational beating it took after the 2006 Lebanon War and 2009 Gaza War. I do think, though, that the suggestions I laid out would serve Tel Aviv as well as Washington. Maybe I'll tweet them....
Visitor 29 - You make a
Visitor 29 -
You make a really good point. I might be mistaken, but I think Israel was intent on invading southern Lebanon regardless of U.S. support. Two of their soldiers had been kidnapped in Israeli territory, which Israeli rightfully judged amounted to an act of war. The way Israel conducted the 2006 campaign was disgraceful (both morally and strategically), and I'm not by any means defending U.S. complicity while its ally did so.
While I didn't specifically address 2006, I think it's another convincing example of how quickly things can spiral out of control and how many innocent people suffer as a result -- most of the 1,200 casualties in '06 were civilians, and, accordin to UNICEF, over 30% were children. Hezbollah emerged from the conflict stronger than ever before, Israel looked like a human rights disaster, and anywhere from Beirut-south was a parking lot. Events like this have their reprecussions, and people don't forget, so on that count, you're definitely right. But anti-U.S. sentiment goes a lot deeper than 2006.
>The way Israel conducted the
>The way Israel conducted the 2006 campaign was disgraceful (both morally and strategically), and I'm not by any means defending U.S. complicity while its ally did so.
What, in your opinion, would have been a non-disgraceful way for Israel to conduct the 2006 campaign, both morally and strategically?
First of all, I think it's
First of all, I think it's dangerous, or silly, to equate the concept of justice with an international tribunal. Hezbollah's primary rhetoric and foreign policy is built around its conception of justice, which translates into resistance to Israel, and its domination of the region, former 28-year-old occupation of Lebanon, current occupation of Arab lands and dispossession of Palestinians. They bring up the question why there is a tribunal for Hariri, but not for Musa Sadr, or Imad Mughniyeh or Elie Hobeika or any number of assassinations in the region.
Also, we're about to see the US veto what would otherwise be an unanimous resolution against Israeli settlements. This UN resolution is, in fact, in line with the stated US foreign policy that all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal. But Washington is willing, through the UN, to preempt even rhetorical pressure on Israel. And then you wonder why the people in the region don't trust international institutions in which the US carries enormous clout.
Finally in this whole post, I still don't see any concrete American interests being argued.
Sean-- I think you highlight
Sean--
I think you highlight the core of my argument when you say that "it's dangerous, or silly, to equate the concept of justice with an international tribunal." Hezbollah's conception of justice, and indeed that of many Arabs (Hezbollah supporters or otherwise) is very distant from the kind of justice being advanced by the international tribunal. It's no surprise that Hezbollah is refusing to comply with an international body whose primary backers are trying to bring justice and "end the culture of impunity" in Lebanon, while at the same time supporting Tel Aviv as it bulldozes the homes and villages of their brothers and continues to eat up what little Palestinian territory is left. I think it's fair to point this out, and I'm glad you did; it's only one of the many morally ambiguous U.S. policies in the region. The question is whether the U.S. can find a way of supporting Israel's sovereignty and self-defense (which I believe it absolutely should) while distancing itself from Tel Aviv when it oversteps those boundaries and asserts itself as an occupying force (which they do with every home they level in East Jerusalem and the West Bank).
As far as the STL is concerned, however, I don't think your examples detract from the just cause of bringing Rafiq Hariri's murderers to trial. I think it's dangerous to use the rationale that other political assassinations have not been brought to trial in the manner of Hariri's as a way of minimizing the STL's credibility. If this were the rationale, then nothing would ever be brought to trial for the first time. By the same token, I think that the United States and its allies should have exercised more caution in the way they've handled the affair. More reasonable than further politicizing the PM's assassination to discredit Hezbollah and Syria would have been to allow the Lebanese to assert their sovereignty, offering assitance and support on a marginal basis at the request of the Lebanese. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20, but if we had shown a little more adherence to the restraint I described in my post, making such a decision may have come more naturally.
Finally, American interests are: A stable and sovereign Iraq, containing Iran and its nuclear program, supporting the state of Israel within the framework of an Arab-Israeli peace agreement, maintaining stability in a region that holds more than half the world's oil reserves, ensuring the oil is acessible at a reasonable cost, etc... There are obviously many, many more.
"Saad Hariri has been cast as
"Saad Hariri has been cast as a pariah for holding on to his values and refusing to back down in the face of Hezbollah’s intimidation and conspiracies against him. I admire the caretaker PM, and until evidence comes out to suggest otherwise, I think it’s very disturbing how much of a beating he’s been under for taking the moral high ground."
One of the many reasons as to why he has been 'cast as a pariah' has been brought to light with the recordings of Hariri meeting with the false witnesses throughout the investigation for the STL. It is very difficult to claim that the Tribunal is clear of any political manipulation, especially by the US, when a politician who plays a central role in the whole affair is caught on tape with other key players.
Furthermore, if his true objective is simply to find the killers of his father, why is he so determined not to open the false witness file? Wouldn't it make more sense to tackle those who have been purposefully misleading the investigation than to protect them? That is, if he really wants to get to the bottom of this.
Furthermore, it's difficult to swallow the US mantra of 'truth and justice' when they are selective about who they investigate. Not saying that one needs to buy into all the conspiracy theories, but if you want the trial to be free of bias and completely fair, then why not investigate ALL of Lebanon's neighbors? Especially those who have a vested interest in having an unstable Lebanon.
" at the core of the STL
" at the core of the STL drama lies a fundamental disconnect between Western and Arab perceptions of key ideals, especially justice."
The Moslem Arab (male) concept of justice: Moslem Arab men can do anything they want to non-Moslems or non-Arabs or women. Any resistance by non-Moslems, or non-Arabs, or women, is unjust.
Add your comment