DATE=6/1/2000
TYPE=ON THE LINE
TITLE=ON THE LINE: LEBANON: WHAT NEXT?
NUMBER=1-00853
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037
CONTENT=
THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE
Anncr: On the Line - a discussion of United
States policy and contemporary issues. This week,
"Lebanon: What Next?" Here is your host, Robert
Reilly.
Host: Hello and welcome to On the Line. Israel
has pulled its troops out of southern Lebanon. The
move ended twenty years of occupation undertaken
to protect Israel's northern border region from
terrorist attacks. But thirty-five thousand Syrian
troops remain in Lebanon, along with Iranian-
backed Hezbollah guerrillas. Their presence raises
questions about Lebanon's security and the
sovereignty of its own government.
Joining me today to discuss what might happen next
in Lebanon are three experts. Roscoe Suddarth is
president of the Middle East Institute and a
former U.S. ambassador to Jordan. Robert Satloff
is president of the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy. And Ahmad Moussalli is a senior
fellow at the U.S. Peace Institute and a professor
of political studies at the American University of
Beirut.
Gentlemen, welcome to the program. Mr. Suddarth, a
resident of one of the towns in northern Israel
made an interesting statement. He said, "what we
have had has been neither peace nor war. Now it
will be either peace or war." Do you think that is
what is at stake in the bold move of removing the
Israeli troops from southern Lebanon?
Suddarth: I hope that is a little dramatic, Bob. I
think we should all concentrate on the fact that a
good thing has happened. The Israelis have
withdrawn from occupied territory and they are
fulfilling a U-N mandate of twenty years ago. It's
a bit ironic that the Israelis opposed the mandate
initially, but now they are calling for the U-N to
come in and beef up their forces to help them.
Undoubtedly, the stakes have gone higher because,
if there are significant moves across the border,
the Israelis have said they will attack, in
effect, Syrian sites in Lebanon rather than
Lebanese civilian sites. So, to that extent, there
is an escalation, but I am hopeful. I think that
[Syrian President Hafez al] Assad and the Syrians
realize that the stakes have gone up and, in
effect, it is a net gain in terms of peace in the
region in my estimation.
Host: Do you agree with that, Rob Satloff?
Satloff: I think it could be, but I think the
stakes are very high. To me, the greatest irony is
how reluctant so many of the Arab parties,
especially Lebanon and Syria, were to accept
Israel's withdrawal from Arab territory. Now, the
Syrians have little interest in keeping calm along
the border in the long run because they want to
remind the world that their chief objective,
regetting the Golan Heights, has not been
achieved. And Israel from behind the international
border will now have full international legitimacy
to respond and retaliate with force. And the world
should be supporting that when, in fact, the
Syrians unleash their proxies to remind Israel -
don't forget the Golan Heights.
Host: Ahmad Moussalli, is that what's going to
happen in Lebanon? Syrian proxies are going to
start attacking Israel?
Moussalli: No, I don't think so, at least not for
the foreseeable future. And I think the reluctance
of both Syria and Lebanon for the Israeli
withdrawal at this point is that the negotiations
that were going on could have led somewhere. So
this was a sign that the negotiations that were
going between Syria and Israel had stopped and
that the future may be more dramatic. And possible
wars exist. In a way it is correct. Look at the
reluctance of Syria and Lebanon. On the other
hand, that is seen as a way of postponing the
possibility of a regional settlement, not only
withdrawing from Lebanon. Israel has picked and
chosen when to move in and when to move out, when
to stop the negotiations, when to restart the
negotiations. And that was a signal for all that
peace is far away.
Host: Would you accept that characterization -
that Israel stopped the negotiations? You mean
with Syria last January?
Moussalli: Yes.
Suddarth: I think that is a disputed point. Both
the Syrians and the Israelis, and the Americans,
siding with the Israelis, have different
interpretations of the Assad-Clinton meeting. But
I'm more positive on it. I think the Arabs should
see this as a gesture. You have an Israeli prime
minister who is very pro-peace, who is negotiating
-- making more concessions, from what we hear,
about the Stockholm meeting with the Palestinians
than any previous Israeli prime minister, and who
was very serious, and is still serious in my
judgment, about the Syrian negotiations. The
Arabs make a big mistake, number one, in being
euphoric in saying we have now triumphed over
Israel - this was a voluntary withdrawal - and,
secondly, not to take this prime minister as
someone who is extremely interested in peace.
Host: Do you want to jump in on that?
Moussalli: Yes. I think it was not a voluntary
withdrawal. I think it was brought about by
military action. Maybe the timing is voluntary,
but, in fact, it was seen and foreseen that it is
probably in the best interests of Israel to
withdraw from the area. Barak is more moderate
than others, if you want to put it this way. But
the main issue is still there. Israel still
occupies Arab territories. And there is no peace
if they do not withdraw. Now, whether they do it
willingly or unwillingly, whether people will be
euphoric about withdrawing from Lebanon, giving
examples to other movements to use arms, is very
important. But the basic problem is still there.
Palestinians are still, a lot of them, refugees.
Their areas are occupied. And a lot of their areas
that have been given back have settlers in them.
So the whole issue is not finished with
withdrawing from Lebanon.
Host: What about precisely the perception that
has been raised in Mr. Moussalli's
characterization of this withdrawal as having
resulted from military action from the Hezbollah
fighters? And I mention that because I want to
quote from Yasser Arafat's recent statement, when
he says, "My public sees Hezbollah as heroes who
succeeded in getting the Israeli army out of
Lebanon and believes that is the route we should
take as well." So that now this, rather than being
seen as a peace gesture, Rob Satloff, is a
precedent in some minds, in Palestinian or Syrian
minds, that it is force to which Israel responds.
Satloff: I think it is important to understand
what happened in Lebanon in the last number of
years. Israel had a military strategy of defending
its northern communities, instead of defending
from the border, to defend from within Lebanese
territory. The result was that Israel's northern
communities were defended. Virtually no civilians
died in Israel from cross-border actions in the
last decade. However, the price was about twenty-
five Israeli soldiers per year inside Lebanon
itself. Over time, the Israeli public was not
willing to withstand even that cost. Soldiers, not
civilians. So two things happened. Hezbollah
succeeded in attacking Israeli soldiers and the
public was not willing to bear that price over
time. Now, I think it is true that Palestinians in
the West Bank are looking at this as perhaps an
alternative model. They see their negotiations,
six agreements in seven years, but they still have
not achieved their sought goal of all the
territory in all the West Bank and Gaza, and
Jerusalem as their capital. Perhaps they are
looking at the Hezbollah model of attacking
Israeli soldiers as the way to speed up Israeli
withdrawal from the West Bank. That's what Arafat
is referring to and I think it is real.
Host: Which is just the opposite, I'm sure, of
what Prime Minister Ehud Barak wished to achieve
from this move.
Suddarth: It is not a certainty, by any means.
There are negotiations going on actively between
the Palestinians and the Israelis. I'm told that
the Syrians and the Israelis are still interested
in negotiations. I think we should be careful
about being overly pessimistic about what this can
generate. I mean, you have Hezbollah that is being
uncharacteristically peaceful now. You are talking
about perhaps moving the Lebanese armed forces
down. A lot of this depends on Assad and how he
reacts. He will be preoccupied with internal
matters for some time. But I say, let's not give
up on this process and assume that the worst is
going to happen.
Satloff: I would not focus on the worst or the
best, but I would say that we have entered a new
era. I think it is fair to say that Assad and
Clinton got about as close as they are going to
get for a period of time. Assad is now focusing on
domestic affairs, trying to put his house in
order, [arranging for] his son to succeed him.
There is a new security situation on Israel's
northern border. This is a different set of rules
than has applied on the Lebanon border for almost
twenty years. We don't know. This might turn out
to be more peaceful or it might turn out to be
more volatile.
Host: Let's talk about the impact of this
withdrawal on the interior political situation
inside Lebanon. Mr. Moussalli?
Moussalli: In terms of the internal structure of
Lebanon, I don't think in the long run people will
tolerate any military actions anymore against the
northern borders of Israel because I think, not
only is Lebanon very delicate in terms of
sectarian balance, and already there are major
calls to disarm Hezbollah, to bring the army into
the south, and not only by certain Christian
groups, but also among the Muslims and
specifically among the Shia. And Lebanon, in two
months time or so, is coming into parliamentary
elections. And different parties want to enter
different people, and I think the Christians in
that area will be a player in the future
elections. Personally, I think that the withdrawal
will be in the long-term interests of Lebanon in
terms of rearranging their internal house. And I
think the possibility of military action against
Israel at this point in time is very weak. And I
think the shift to military action will go to the
Palestinian territories more than Lebanon. The
issues of Shebaa Farms and the prisoners in
Israel, if they are not released, I think these
two outstanding issues may be used later, but not
in the foreseeable future.
Host: Israel has met the requirements of the U-N
resolution four-two-five.
Moussalli: Not yet.
Host: Just about. Are you talking about the
prisoners?
Moussalli: No, U-N Secretary-General Kofi Annan
has not yet announced that Israel has withdrawn
according to the four-two-five resolution. It does
not mean they have not, but it has not been
declared.
Host: It is expected that they will be found in
compliance. My point is not the detail there; it
is that there also exist U-N resolutions calling
for the removal of foreign troops in Lebanon, and
that means thirty-five thousand Syrian troops.
Suddarth: That's not a U-N resolution. That's the
Taif accord.
Moussalli: There is U-N resolution five-two-zero.
Suddarth: But the Taif accord is the one people
talk about.
Satloff: Since everyone focused on four-two-five,
I see no reason not to focus on five-two-zero.
Host: Go ahead and focus.
Satloff: Five-two-zero is a resolution that states
that Lebanon should be in a position to exert its
sovereignty over the entire country. All foreign
forces should be out of the country. One of the
two foreign forces has left. It is now time to
focus international attention on other foreign
force. The other foreign force says it is in
Lebanon at the invitation of the Lebanese
government. It is impossible really to judge since
Lebanon, over the last fifteen years, has been
dominated by the Syrian forces. It is not a fully
independent country. It does not have free will.
And the world should focus on getting that foreign
force out of Lebanon as well.
Shot: What is the likelihood of that happening,
Mr. Moussalli?
Moussalli: I think that what is going to happen
now is that even Syria is going to rethink its
role in Lebanon. And Syria's main focus has been
not to be isolated and dealt with alone. The
likelihood of Syrian withdrawal soon, or even in
the foreseeable future, is almost nil. It's not
going to happen like that. The possibility of even
enforcing five-two-zero is also difficult for the
very reason mentioned that there is a Taif
agreement that postulates the Lebanese government
will ask for Syria to leave or stay. There are
certain geostrategic alliances, military defense
agreements, and so on. So it is not quite the
same. The Lebanese generally looked upon Israel as
an occupying force. But most of the Lebanese look
at Syria as the country that helped to end the
civil war. Some of the Lebanese do call for Syrian
withdrawal from Lebanon and equate it with Israel,
but not most. The current political structure in
Lebanon will not call for any Syrian withdrawal
from Lebanon, at least not if things do not change
internally. And it is a very sensitive and
divisive thing in Lebanon.
Host: You mentioned the fragile situation. What
do you think, Roscoe Suddarth, about the role of
Syria in Lebanon and about the component parts of
the many groups that are vying for political power
there that may find expression in the elections
that are coming up? For instance, do you think
there is a prospect of Hezbollah becoming just a
political party?
Suddarth: There is a possibility. I think they
want to parlay their so-called victory into
political gains and they are doing everything,
helping in hospitals. They have helped evacuate
Christians. They have been extremely good
soldiers. At the same time rhetorically they are
making all kinds of claims. I don't really trust
Hezbollah. They are also supposed to be disarmed
under the Taif agreement. They are the only
militia that remains with arms. And they said that
they are not going to give them up. There are a
couple of verities. One is that Syria has
traditionally wanted to exert hegemony over
Lebanon. That will continue whether they move
their armed forces out or not. They will continue
to do it politically even after a peace agreement,
in my view. And the other is that the Lebanese
government has had a disproportionate influence
from the Christians who are in an overwhelmingly
Muslim population. So it is an unstable political
situation in Lebanon.
Host: Do you agree with that?
Satloff: I fear that Hezbollah may try to parlay
their success with the Israelis into political
gains, but there is no evidence whatsoever that
they are going to give up armed struggle as well.
It makes only sense for them not to attack Israel
this week or next week because they are ridding
high right now. Why should they invite Israeli
retaliation? But once elections are over and the
dust clears, then Hezbollah will still be in
retention of its arms. There will be a terrorist
capability that has attacked in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, and elsewhere around the world. And the
incentive for Syria to keep the pressure on Israel
will remain high. We need to be vigilant about
this.
Host: Can you make a comment, Mr. Moussalli,
about Iran's role? It was curious to see the
Iranian foreign minister in southern Lebanon, as
the Israeli troops were withdrawing, celebrating
with Hezbollah.
Moussalli: Definitely, Iran has an interest in
maintaining and keeping Hezbollah because it is
its window on the Middle East conflict and links
it to the area, or else it will be isolated in the
Gulf region. Hezbollah gets a lot of its help and
support and finance from Iran. Now everyone knows
it. There is nothing new about this. I think,
however, Hezbollah, as well as Iran, has been
changing its policies toward the area. If you look
ten years ago and compare it with today, there are
massive changes within Iran and massive changes
within Hezbollah itself. Just a quick note.
Hezbollah did not recognize originally the
Lebanese state because it was a secular state. Now
they are the largest parliamentary block in the
parliament and they play by secular rules,
although they hold up certain moral standards and
so forth. The possibility of disarming them -- it
is not very difficult, but it depends again on the
regional context. And Lebanon cannot be dealt with
as only Lebanon, but it should be incorporated
into regional arrangements, including Syria, the
Palestinians, and so forth.
Host: I'm afraid that's all the time we have and
I would like to thank our guests -- Roscoe
Suddarth from the Middle East Institute; Rob
Satloff from the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy; and Ahmad Moussalli from the U.S.
Peace Institute -- for joining me to discuss what
is next after Lebanon. This is Robert Reilly for
On the Line.
Anncr: You've been listening to "On the Line" - a
discussion of United States policies and
contemporary issues. This is --------.
01-Jun-2000 17:22 PM EDT (01-Jun-2000 2122 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
