Who's winning in Lebanon?

Thu, 12/04/2008 - 9:31pm

The explosive events that regularly occur in Lebanon tend to obscure, rather than reveal, the balance of power in the country. Analysts have a habit of taking the latest news as proof that the country is completely dominated by America and its allies, or by Syria's proxies in Lebanon.

By far the worst example of this is former Middle East correspondent Thanassis Cambanis, who pontificated recently in the Middle East Bulletin that, "Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are stronger in Lebanon that any point in the last decade." Cambanis went on to argue that this new balance of power required the United States to reconcile itself to negotiations with those sympathetic to Hezbollah.

Are Hezbollah and Syria really stronger than at any point in the last 10 years? Syrian troops occupied Lebanon until 2005. Until that time, all of the country's major Christian leaders were either in exile for their anti-Syrian views, or imprisoned. The Sunni and Druze political leaders were uniformly loyal to Syria, an alliance these Lebanese politicians broke in 2005 and one that has never been revived. The Syrians strong-armed Lebanese parliamentarians into accepting their hand-picked choice for president in 1998, and then into unconstitutionally extending his term in 2004. The main thing we learn from Cambanis's analysis is that he doesn’t have the first clue about recent Lebanese history.

Hezbollah recently won an important victory against the government through an armed invasion of Sunni areas of Beirut. But they were fighting against attempts by the Lebanese government to rein in their autonomy -- a fact that Lebanese parties had assented to quietly until just a few years ago, out of fear of the power of Syria and its allies. Syria occupied Lebanon for 25 years, and it was never reasonable to assume that all Syrian influence would be eradicated immediately. A little perspective shows that, rather than being in ascendance, Syria and Hezbollah's clout in Lebanon is close to its historical low, and the balance of power is not nearly as grim as some would have us believe.

David Kenner | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

"Hezbollah recently won an

by TheScudStud88 on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 4:50pm

"Hezbollah recently won an important victory against the government through an armed invasion of Sunni areas of Beirut. But they were fighting against attempts by the Lebanese government to rein in their autonomy -- a fact that Lebanese parties had assented to quietly until just a few years ago, out of fear of the power of Syria and its allies. Syria occupied Lebanon for 25 years, and it was never reasonable to assume that all Syrian influence would be eradicated immediately. A little perspective shows that, rather than being in ascendance, Syria and Hezbollah's clout in Lebanon is close to its historical low, and the balance of power is not nearly as grim as some would have us believe."

I think the perspective you take fails to acknowledge the Doha accords which basically went against Western interests in Lebanon. More importantly, Hizbullah's "armed invasion" of East Beirut, and the ease with which it carried it out against Western funded forces IE Harri's militia, also show the power of Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Hezbollah is still the

by abushwerbak on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 6:34am

Hezbollah is still the largest party in the largest confessional group in Lebanon. They are more organized politically and militarily than any other party in Lebanon. I don't think there's any denying this fact.

Whether March 8 or March 14 has the support of the majority of the population is debatable...and a question we should have more answers to when parliamentary elections are held next year. But judging from the Metn by-election, the size of rallies held over the last three years, and from anecdotal evidence, I would say it's very close to 50-50. The events of May appeared to widen the gulf between the two sides, rather than create a tide of changed opinion against March 8.

The hot and cold wars between March 8 and March 14 have been about control of the government and the orientation of Lebanon in the broader Middle East. Perhaps Syria is out of Lebanon, but the removal of the troops created a power vacuum that culminated in the street fighting on May 8. I don't think it's necessarily incorrect to say that Hezbollah and their allies won that battle, and got everything they demanded since November 2006.

That victory means Hezbollah has veto power over all government decisions. Although this is not a return to Syrian domination of Lebanon, this does represent a de-facto compromise between the US backed March 14 coalition and the Iranian and Syrian backed March 8. As Rami Khouri argued, this is another example of the power sharing model, not unlike Iraq, where Iranian backed politicians sit at the same table with American backed politicians. In some cases in Iraq, the compromise is embodied in certain politicians who are backed and funded by both powers (I remember a state department staffer telling me that Abdel Aziz Al Hakim would chat with US Ambassador Khalilzad in Farsi. Wonder where Mr. Hakim picked that up...?).

So, I agree with Mr. Cambanis's argument that the US needs to recognize reality. Hezbollah represents a significant chunk of Lebanon's population. They are not al Qaeda, bent on the destruction of the west and all it represents. They are rational actors, although we may disagree with their logic. Talking to Hezbollah would only help to create better US foreign policy in Lebanon and the region.

Who won in May?

by confusecian on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 3:52pm

One thing about the Hizballah 'victory' in the military clashes in May this year is that it was a very futile one. There was no real battle because there were no opposing militias ready or wanting a battle. On the contrary the parties belonging to the majority declared that this was a political battle and not a military one. In Doha the main message was that Hizballah should never use its arms inside the country again. We all know that if Hizballah plays things by the rules, within the system, then it is weak. It has at most a dozen members of parliament and two ministers. This does not mean that it controls the country. It has military superiority, yes, even more that the army but it can only use this if it breaks the Doha agreement and the Taif agreement and every security council resolution from 1559 to 1701. I would argue that Hizballah emerged as the main looser from the May clashes in Lebanon and that it is much weaker now than ever before. There is no reason whatsoever to engage with it other than through the legality of the Lebanese political system and the UN Security Council. Cambanis is yet another journalist who fell for the spell of exotic power. Why not? but it does not really give his analysis any credibility.