Wednesday, November 23, 2005
THE U.N. REPORT ON LEBANON YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T HEARD OF
Double Faultby Patrick Clawson & Robert Rabil Only at TNR OnlinePost date: 11.22.05
he Mehlis report on the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri received plenty of attention when it was released last month. But another United Nations report on Lebanon, released seven days later, has been largely ignored. The report, by U.N. special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, details Syria's noncompliance with Security Council Resolution 1559, which called for Syrian withdrawal and greater Lebanese sovereignty.
It's easy to see why the Mehlis report has enjoyed more attention. It alleged Syrian culpability for an assassination that in turn triggered the most important event in recent Lebanese history: a popular uprising for national self-determination and democratic reform. But while the Mehlis report made for more gripping reading, Roed-Larsen's findings are no less important. That's because the democratic forces emboldened by the Hariri assassination cannot survive if Syria continues to cause problems in Lebanon. And Roed-Larsen has shown that Syria's days of abusing its neighbor to the east are far from over.
Specifically, Syria is failing to honor the key provisions of Resolution 1559, among them:
Respect for "the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon." Lebanon can never be secure until Syria formally recognizes the country. But, as Roed-Larsen's report points out, Syria maintains no embassy in Lebanon, presumably because Damascus has not fully reconciled itself to Lebanon's independence. Roed-Larsen also calls on Damascus to finally demarcate its border with Lebanon. This had been a core Lebanese demand from 1964 to 1975, before the Lebanese civil war and the Syrian occupation.
The withdrawal of "all remaining foreign forces ... from Lebanon." Roed-Larsen reports that the United Nations could not confirm this has happened. Syrian troops have left most of the country, but they maintain a significant presence along Lebanon's eastern border--and quite possibly inside Lebanon as well. Or as Roed-Larsen diplomatically puts it, there is "a Syrian army battalion in Deir al-Ashyar at a location that the United Nations found impossible to determine as Lebanese or as Syrian territory."
The "disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." Roed-Larsen found escalating arms-trafficking from Syria to radical Palestinian groups. In his words, "There have also been difficulties related to the control of the borderline between Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic and the issue of the illegal transfer of arms and people towards armed Palestinian groups in Lebanon." In his briefing to the Security Council, Roed-Larsen went farther, reporting that Syrian President Bashar Assad told Palestinian militia leaders there were no red lines limiting their destabilizing activities, according to the Financial Times.
The "extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory." On this point, some progress has been made. To their credit, Lebanese authorities have been trying to stop Syrian reinforcements for radical Palestinians. The day after Roed-Larsen's report appeared, Lebanese soldiers blocked smuggling routes and manned positions near the bases of Palestinian radicals, especially those of the Damascus-based Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command headed by Ahmed Jibril.
Still, the central problem remains Hezbollah's control over the border with Israel and its refusal to disarm. Roed-Larsen reports continuing problems on this front: "[I]n early June this year, the Lebanese army appeared to be reducing its presence and control in the south of the country and Hizbollah strengthened its own presence in response." True, in July, the Lebanese army reestablished its original presence; and the country's new prime minister, Fouad Siniora, has committed his government "to assert its monopoly on the use of force and exert its control throughout all Lebanese territory." But for now, this presence is primarily symbolic; Hezbollah remains in de facto control of the south.
Is Syria also to blame for the Hezbollah problem? In part, yes. Demarcating the border between Syria and Lebanon would help to strip Hezbollah of the excuse it has used for refusing to give up its weapons. After Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah claimed that Israel was still occupying part of Lebanon: the Shebaa Farms along the Syrian-Lebanese border, which were under Syrian control when Israel occupied the area in 1967. Hezbollah is not bothered by petty details such as the fact, which Roed-Larsen documents, that every authenticable map of the area--including from the Syrian and Lebanese governments--places the Shebaa Farms in Syria, or that the Security Council has repeatedly confirmed that Israel has withdrawn from all Lebanese territory. On the thin reed of Shebaa Farms, Hezbollah rests its claim to be a legitimate resistance movement fighting for the liberation of Lebanese territory, not a militia; therefore, it insists, it is not required by Resolution 1559 to disarm. With language refreshingly blunt for a U.N. report, Roed-Larsen rejects this logic, pointing out that "even if the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area were legitimate, it would be the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon only to address this claim."
oed-Larsen's report is noteworthy in part because it provides a test of European will. Washington is lobbying for another Security Council resolution on the issues Roed-Larsen raised--namely stopping Syrian arms smuggling to radical Palestinians and demarcating the Syrian-Lebanese border. European governments, which often complain that the Bush administration does not do enough to support the Arab-Israeli peace process, now have an opportunity to promote peace on Israel's northern border by insisting that Hezbollah be disarmed. What's more, they have an opportunity to show clearly how much the West values Lebanese independence.
The temptation, unfortunately, will be to push Roed-Larsen's report off the agenda on the theory that the Mehlis investigation should take priority. But the Mehlis investigation, while important, dwells on the past. The Roed-Larsen recommendations are about the future--of Arab-Israeli peace, yes, but most directly of Lebanon. If that's not worth the world's attention, we don't know what is. Patrick Clawson is deputy director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Robert Rabil , an adjunct scholar at The Washington Institute, is an assistant professor at Florida Atlantic University.
Double Faultby Patrick Clawson & Robert Rabil Only at TNR OnlinePost date: 11.22.05
he Mehlis report on the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri received plenty of attention when it was released last month. But another United Nations report on Lebanon, released seven days later, has been largely ignored. The report, by U.N. special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, details Syria's noncompliance with Security Council Resolution 1559, which called for Syrian withdrawal and greater Lebanese sovereignty.
It's easy to see why the Mehlis report has enjoyed more attention. It alleged Syrian culpability for an assassination that in turn triggered the most important event in recent Lebanese history: a popular uprising for national self-determination and democratic reform. But while the Mehlis report made for more gripping reading, Roed-Larsen's findings are no less important. That's because the democratic forces emboldened by the Hariri assassination cannot survive if Syria continues to cause problems in Lebanon. And Roed-Larsen has shown that Syria's days of abusing its neighbor to the east are far from over.
Specifically, Syria is failing to honor the key provisions of Resolution 1559, among them:
Respect for "the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon." Lebanon can never be secure until Syria formally recognizes the country. But, as Roed-Larsen's report points out, Syria maintains no embassy in Lebanon, presumably because Damascus has not fully reconciled itself to Lebanon's independence. Roed-Larsen also calls on Damascus to finally demarcate its border with Lebanon. This had been a core Lebanese demand from 1964 to 1975, before the Lebanese civil war and the Syrian occupation.
The withdrawal of "all remaining foreign forces ... from Lebanon." Roed-Larsen reports that the United Nations could not confirm this has happened. Syrian troops have left most of the country, but they maintain a significant presence along Lebanon's eastern border--and quite possibly inside Lebanon as well. Or as Roed-Larsen diplomatically puts it, there is "a Syrian army battalion in Deir al-Ashyar at a location that the United Nations found impossible to determine as Lebanese or as Syrian territory."
The "disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." Roed-Larsen found escalating arms-trafficking from Syria to radical Palestinian groups. In his words, "There have also been difficulties related to the control of the borderline between Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic and the issue of the illegal transfer of arms and people towards armed Palestinian groups in Lebanon." In his briefing to the Security Council, Roed-Larsen went farther, reporting that Syrian President Bashar Assad told Palestinian militia leaders there were no red lines limiting their destabilizing activities, according to the Financial Times.
The "extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory." On this point, some progress has been made. To their credit, Lebanese authorities have been trying to stop Syrian reinforcements for radical Palestinians. The day after Roed-Larsen's report appeared, Lebanese soldiers blocked smuggling routes and manned positions near the bases of Palestinian radicals, especially those of the Damascus-based Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command headed by Ahmed Jibril.
Still, the central problem remains Hezbollah's control over the border with Israel and its refusal to disarm. Roed-Larsen reports continuing problems on this front: "[I]n early June this year, the Lebanese army appeared to be reducing its presence and control in the south of the country and Hizbollah strengthened its own presence in response." True, in July, the Lebanese army reestablished its original presence; and the country's new prime minister, Fouad Siniora, has committed his government "to assert its monopoly on the use of force and exert its control throughout all Lebanese territory." But for now, this presence is primarily symbolic; Hezbollah remains in de facto control of the south.
Is Syria also to blame for the Hezbollah problem? In part, yes. Demarcating the border between Syria and Lebanon would help to strip Hezbollah of the excuse it has used for refusing to give up its weapons. After Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah claimed that Israel was still occupying part of Lebanon: the Shebaa Farms along the Syrian-Lebanese border, which were under Syrian control when Israel occupied the area in 1967. Hezbollah is not bothered by petty details such as the fact, which Roed-Larsen documents, that every authenticable map of the area--including from the Syrian and Lebanese governments--places the Shebaa Farms in Syria, or that the Security Council has repeatedly confirmed that Israel has withdrawn from all Lebanese territory. On the thin reed of Shebaa Farms, Hezbollah rests its claim to be a legitimate resistance movement fighting for the liberation of Lebanese territory, not a militia; therefore, it insists, it is not required by Resolution 1559 to disarm. With language refreshingly blunt for a U.N. report, Roed-Larsen rejects this logic, pointing out that "even if the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area were legitimate, it would be the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon only to address this claim."
oed-Larsen's report is noteworthy in part because it provides a test of European will. Washington is lobbying for another Security Council resolution on the issues Roed-Larsen raised--namely stopping Syrian arms smuggling to radical Palestinians and demarcating the Syrian-Lebanese border. European governments, which often complain that the Bush administration does not do enough to support the Arab-Israeli peace process, now have an opportunity to promote peace on Israel's northern border by insisting that Hezbollah be disarmed. What's more, they have an opportunity to show clearly how much the West values Lebanese independence.
The temptation, unfortunately, will be to push Roed-Larsen's report off the agenda on the theory that the Mehlis investigation should take priority. But the Mehlis investigation, while important, dwells on the past. The Roed-Larsen recommendations are about the future--of Arab-Israeli peace, yes, but most directly of Lebanon. If that's not worth the world's attention, we don't know what is. Patrick Clawson is deputy director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Robert Rabil , an adjunct scholar at The Washington Institute, is an assistant professor at Florida Atlantic University.