sshatipoglu@beri.com

CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST:

The Second Act

A Fragile Cease-Fire   In mid-August, the expected took place and a temporary ceasefire agreement was accepted by Israel and Hezbollah.  Despite the cessation of daily rocket attacks from one border to another, it seems that Kofi Annan is the only person who truly believes in a long lasting peace with the full implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.  There is no genuine goodwill among the sides, and efforts by the UN leadership to create that false sentiment will fall short.  There are vivid examples of this lack of trust between the parties.  For example, Israel refused to lift its air-and-sea blockade of Lebanon, arguing that the "elements" of a ceasefire were not fully implemented.  Lebanon has already characterized the ceasefire as "shaky" and blamed Israel for actively sabotaging permanent peace efforts.  The government of Lebanon argued that Israel was conducting daily raids in Lebanon with the objectives of intercepting alleged arms smuggling to Hezbollah and discouraging the stationing of a European peace force in the country.  Lebanon argues that the true objective of Israel is to push Hezbollah forces to military action and resume the military conflict.

There are weaknesses in the arguments of both sides, which confirm the truly fragile nature of the current ceasefire.  First, Israel does not need, for security reasons, full implementation of the Resolution 1701 before lifting its blockade.  The government could have ordered a partial lift to show its support for the process, but the choice was made differently.  Secondly, the Lebanese government claimed that Israel was carrying out attacks to discourage European forces from entering and safeguarding peace, but the government of Israel has recently announced that it will "completely" withdraw from southern Lebanon when 5000 European troops were stationed in the region.  If Israel had the objective to stay in that zone indefinitely, it would refrain from assigning a specific number of peacekeeping troops required to initiate its withdrawal.  Policies and statements, so far, from both sides of the conflict clearly indicate that there is utter lack of trust, without which no peace process or ceasefire can become lasting.  

Limited Role of Peacekeeping    After a period of stalemate, the European Union (EU) decided to lead the peacekeeping forces, United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL).  Italy and France are contributing 2500 and 2000 troops, respectively, as part of the 6,900 UNIFIL total.  France will be the commander until 2007 when Italy will take the helm thereafter.  The goal is to create a total force of 15,000.  A variety of countries will be represented in the UNIFIL ranging from Nepal to Turkey, to Serbia and Indonesia.  The composition of the peacekeeping forces is eclectic and shows the broad commitment of nations around the world to establish long lasting peace in Lebanon.  Even though this is a good first step toward achieving the objective,  these sentiments by themselves will not be sufficient to ensure permanent peace in the region.

The key to peace is held by Hezbollah and its supporters, mainly Syria and Iran.  Hezbollah forces have already declared themselves to be the winners of the recent war by simply "surviving" Israel's attacks.  The group has increased its popularity in the Muslim world.  Hezbollah is further enhancing its stature by taking an active role in the reconstruction of the destroyed areas in Lebanon.  A smart counterstrategy will need to deal with the reality of Hezbollah to achieve long lasting peace in the country.  Although the concept of a 15,000 troop-force sounds encouraging, these troops will not be able to prevent rocket attacks should they resume.  If Hezbollah decides to fire rockets into Israel, Jerusalem will respond without waiting for the withdrawal of the UNIFIL from the region.  The reality of the limited role of the UNIFIL needs to be acknowledged so that more comprehensive strategies can be developed to overcome the obstacles to enduring peace.

The U.S., EU, and the U.N. must bring Syria and Iran to the negotiating table and provide a mutually-acceptable plan for Hezbollah to agree to disarmament.  This is an increasingly difficult task in the current political environment.  Washington, D.C., is unlikely to provide any type of concessions to Damascus and Teheran, interpreting such actions as a weakening in the war against terrorism.  The EU and the U.N. will need to convince the American government that a long-term peace in the region will require a certain level of compromise.  The EU does not have the power and the U.N. does not possess the influence to accomplish that objective without the support of Washington, D.C.  The lack of a unified and comprehensive leadership is the biggest threat to the continuation of ceasefire in Lebanon.       

Conclusion  Political maneuvering and the lack of optimism among the parties in the conflict, Hezbollah and Israel, are two key aspects that do not bode well for the future of the peace process.  A recent opinion poll in Israel revealed that over 70% of the population believe that Israel might be involved in a war against Iran or Syria because of the current political environment.  The mood in Lebanon is not much different, with a substantial portion of the population dismayed by poor economic conditions and the growing political rift between the majority Sunni and Christian parliamentary members and Shiite Hezbollah.  Syria's repeated warnings that the border to Lebanon would be closed if international peacekeeping troops are stationed on the Lebanese side also weaken hopes for long-lasting peace in the country.  Without genuine belief from Israel and Lebanon and the limited role of the peacekeeping troops amidst lack of political will, the future of the ceasefire in Lebanon looks bleak.

Most likely scenario: 

1-    UNIFIL forces are stationed in southern Lebanon and contribute to temporary stability in the region.  Sporadic clashes take place, but violence is largely contained in the short-term.  The presence of international forces does not prevent the restocking of Hezbollah arms and the halting of harsh rhetoric between Israel and Hezbollah during the remainder of the year.

2-    Israel is subject to suicide terror attacks within its borders.  Hezbollah is regularly blamed for the incidents, but Sunni Hamas is mostly responsible.  Tension begins to flare in mid-2007, and UNIFIL forces are increasingly unable to contain the crisis.  Limited rocket attacks across the border resumes, rendering the UNIFIL forces ineffective and unable to stop them.

3-    Diplomatic efforts begin from scratch.  Iran refuses to cooperate, but Syria is convinced by its neighbors to participate in the process.  Despite a new start, no permanent solution is achieved, and the violence continues at different levels of intensity.

4-    Resumption of conflict between the two countries has an impact on American policy on Iran.  Washington, D.C. continues to propose sanctions against Iran despite sporadic success in negotiations between the EU and Teheran.  No military attack occurs against Iran, but the threat remains, further worsening tension in the region.  The U.S. is supported  only by the UK in its demands for sanctions against Iran for failing to abide by the 31 August deadline to stop uranium enrichment.  Other members of the Security Council do not allow long-term sanctions or military action.  Having been under pressure in Iraq and with congressional elections approaching, the White House does not authorize an attack, broad-range or limited strikes, against Iran.

DIRECTOR'S PERSPECTIVE Last Updated 12 September 2006

For media inquiries: Contact Saruhan Hatipoglu (Director of BERI S.A.) at sshatipoglu@beri.com