| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US ready to see Hezbollah in Lebanon role? |
| 2005-03-10 |
| After years of campaigning against Hezbollah, the radical Shiite Muslim party in Lebanon, as a terrorist pariah, the Bush administration is grudgingly going along with efforts by France and the United Nations to steer the party into the Lebanese political mainstream, administration officials say. The administration's shift was described by American, European and United Nations officials as a reluctant recognition that Hezbollah, besides having a militia and sponsoring attacks on Israelis, is an enormous political force in Lebanon that could block Western efforts to get Syria to withdraw its troops. On Tuesday, Hezbollah showed its clout by sponsoring one of the biggest demonstrations of recent Lebanese history, bringing hundreds of thousands of largely Shiite supporters into central Beirut to support the party's alliance with Syria and, by extension, the presence in Lebanon of 14,000 Syrian troops. Lebanon's political crisis deepened Wednesday when Parliament renominated the pro-Syrian prime minister nine days after he resigned under pressure from street demonstrations. If opposition leaders refuse to join his transitional government, tension over the rules for elections in May and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country will be high. The United States and France sponsored a United Nations Security Council resolution last year calling for Syrian troops to leave Lebanon, and a special United Nations envoy, Terje Roed Larsen, is to press for the troop withdrawal. Officially, Mr. Larsen's mission is also to demand the disarmament of Hezbollah, but as a practical matter that objective has receded, various officials say. "The main players are making Hezbollah a lower priority," said a diplomat who is closely tracking the negotiations. "There is a realization by France and the United States that if you tackle Hezbollah now, you array the Shiites against you. With elections coming in Lebanon, you don't want the entire Shiite community against you." The new posture of the administration was described by its officials, who asked not to be identified because of longstanding American antipathy toward Hezbollah. "Hezbollah has American blood on its hands," an administration official said, referring to such events as the truck bombing that killed more than 200 American marines in Beirut in 1983. "They are in the same category as Al Qaeda. The administration has an absolute aversion to admitting that Hezbollah has a role to play in Lebanon, but that is the path we're going down." Only a few weeks ago, the United States was tangling with France over Hezbollah's status, as France blocked an effort by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to have Europe formally label Hezbollah a terrorist group, restricting its fund-raising. Now the United States has basically accepted the French view, echoed by others in Europe, that with Hezbollah emerging as such a force in very fractured Lebanon, it is dangerous to antagonize it right now and wiser to encourage the party to run candidates in Lebanese elections. Hezbollah has military and political wings. While it has a militia of 20,000 troops and is also said by American and Western and Israeli intelligence agencies to funnel funds from Iran to anti-Israeli militant groups, it runs an array of social programs for Shiites. It also has 13 seats in Lebanon's Parliament and is aiming to expand its representation there in the May elections. European officials say the situation with Hezbollah is analogous to that of the Palestinian group Hamas, which has won local elections in Gaza and the West Bank and has come under pressure to moderate its views and negotiate with Israel. The United States and Europe formally label Hamas a terrorist organization. Especially since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon on Feb. 14, France has argued that Hezbollah ought to be encouraged to concentrate on politics. At the same time, President Jacques Chirac of France has supported President Bush's call for a Syrian troop withdrawal. "Our own language on this has been since Hariri's death not to go too far beating up on Hezbollah," a French official said. "It might hurt, and it won't help. We could be a turning point now, with Hezbollah maybe turning to politics and politics alone. The United States is no longer making a case of using this issue to disarm Hezbollah and brutally crush them." Many European officials and Arab diplomats say there has been a backlash in the region against the recent American attacks on Syria and demands for a Syrian troop withdrawal, particularly the administration's claim that anti-Syrian protests in Lebanon vindicate Mr. Bush's call for democracy in the Middle East. "Why don't they realize that once America makes a case for something, the Middle East will go in the opposite direction?" said an Arab diplomat, asking not to be identified as criticizing the administration. "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but now its hand is strengthened because of American opposition." The emerging position of Washington on Hezbollah has put it in an unaccustomed position of being at odds with Israel and its supporters, especially those who say Hezbollah is the single biggest threat to the fragile peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Israeli officials declined to comment on the latest development, noting only that Israel has not changed its belief that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that must be disarmed. Under the 1990 accords that ended Lebanon's civil war, the country's many militias disarmed, but Hezbollah has remained, gaining nationwide respect because it was widely credited with forcing Israel's subsequent withdrawal from southern Lebanon On Tuesday, Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, played that card at the Beirut rally, declaring that to force Syrian troops out would be to do the bidding of the United States and Israel. One question the United States must consider is whether keeping up pressure to get Syrian troops out in time for the elections could backfire by enhancing Hezbollah's appeal. Another is how to work with Europeans and Arabs to ensure that chaos does not follow a Syrian pullout. Although the Lebanese Army of 72,000 troops might be able to handle any instability after a pullout, the administration is also said to be considering other methods of keeping the lid on potential violence, like a multinational force. "The goal has to be to get Syrian troops out," said Edward P. Djerejian, a former ambassador to Syria and now director of the James A. Baker III Institute of Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. "But it has to be done in a manner that is not destabilizing to Lebanon. We don't want any unintended consequences here." Hezbollah, he said, "is an important political and paramilitary force in Lebanon that cannot be ignored." He said one possibility might be to expand the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, which numbers about 3,000. But diplomats say they have been informed that the United States does not want an expanded force under the United Nations. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #15 Soft power only helps topple governments that already agree with the West as to what they consider legitimate. Syria doesn't consider its occupation of Lebanon to be illegitimate. If Syria is to be pushed out of there, it will take a lot more than trash-talking. I guess GWB didn't hurt anything by trying to brazen out his unwillingness to incur the cost of attacking Syria by simply ordering Assad out. But Assad has called GWB's bluff - and it looks like rhetoric alone will not win the day. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-03-10 9:20:07 PM |
| #14 The proof of the pudding will indeed be in the eating. I'm just thinking it's too soon to panic. |
| Posted by: markwark 2005-03-10 4:56:11 PM |
| #13 So, markwark-how does that square with Condi's carefully phrased comments on the fox website article today, or the Fox and Friends ditty this morning that pretty much coincided with what was in the NYT? The proof will be in the pudding. If Hezbollah is treated as a legitimate political party by this administration in any way for the elections, when Hezbollah is responsible for our Marines' and other innocents' deaths, or if change course and carry France's water on refusing to push for Hezbollah's identification as a terrorist organization, then I stand by my comments. As it is as of now, I find reports of Lebanon's PM returning to his post quite intriguing-is it a coincidence? |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-03-10 4:44:55 PM |
| #12 *ahem* http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_06_corner-archive.asp#057988 My advice is, be sceptical of everything you read. Even if it's in the paper of record :roll: |
| Posted by: markwark 2005-03-10 4:18:38 PM |
| #11 LH-"We" sure are. And Americans will pay for it with their lives. President Bush, you have something completely vile and despicable with this change of policy. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-03-10 3:17:05 PM |
| #10 I might have missed it but I didn't see a Bush administration official quoted in the article, just Phrench, Arib, and American think tank. I am sure that Bush wants to deal with Hebulla, but like the article implies. Call it wishful frog thinking Hezbollah has American blood on its hands," an administration official said, referring to such events as the truck bombing that killed more than 200 American marines in Beirut in 1983. "They are in the same category as Al Qaeda. The administration has an absolute aversion to admitting that Hezbollah has a role to play in Lebanon, but that is the path we’re going down." |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-10 2:22:40 PM |
| #9 Don't spose anybody here saw Fox this morning? It's not just the NYT... |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-03-10 1:40:15 PM |
| #8 I think Bush's speech has them terrified and the Phrench are trying to help the way they always do (surrender). That's like that one article that Bush is ready to sit down and talk with Al-queda. I am sure he told them to meet him at such and such coordinates at this time. At the appointed time the whole area is carpet bombed by 20 or so Buffs. BTW did the times hire Raines back to start writing crap again? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-03-10 10:43:46 AM |
| #7 yep - NYTimes has been sooooo right about soooooo little the last 4 years, huh? Losers and appeasers, whining when the agitprop doesn't take |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-10 10:28:45 AM |
| #6 Why don’t they realize that once America makes a case for something, the Middle East will go in the opposite direction?" said an Arab diplomat Perhaps this is why the admin is taking a softer line on Hezb:) I agree with 2b, this is a chess match - certainly in the long run we want Nasrullah and Fadlallah beaten, along with their Iranian sponsors. But the way to do that isnt necessarily to go up against them directly. While the Maronites, Sunni and even the Druze in Lebanon dont have the anti-US allergy described above, the Shiites probably do, for reasons that largely go back to the post-82 Israeli presence, among other things, and their historic suppression by the Maronites. We dont want to push the Shiites towards Hezbollah. Better to stand off a bit, let the euros take the lead, hope that Hezb is pushed toward the opposition and keep steering the Syrians out. Whether the Bush speech is a good thing or not is another matter. He clearly needs to keep global momentum going, and it may be worth a minor negative in Lebanon to get that. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-10 10:16:23 AM |
| #5 good catch - CS. NYT - "news" created by reporters from their cubes and barstools, using nothing but anonymous sources and a healthy dose of make-believe. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-03-10 10:15:22 AM |
| #4 I might have missed it but I didn't see a Bush administration official quoted in the article, just Phrench, Arib, and American think tank. I am sure that Bush wants to deal with Hebulla, but like the article implies. Call it wishful frog thinking. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-03-10 10:00:40 AM |
| #3 jules - Let's just hope the Administration is pursuing a larger goal to achieve their vindication. If I were the Syrians and Hezbollah - I'd find the administration's willingness to go along with this troubling. When your opponent in a chess match unecessarily offers up a good piece - you know he's got a bigger move in mind. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-03-10 9:49:38 AM |
| #2 Now the United States has basically accepted the French view, echoed by others in Europe, that with Hezbollah emerging as such a force in very fractured Lebanon, it is dangerous to antagonize it right now and wiser to encourage the party to run candidates in Lebanese elections. Thus, betraying every American who has died in an Islam-inspired terrorist attack. The Bush administration has just sold 200 Marine graves to France and sold our country's sovereignty and dignity to appeasement. From this day forward, my blogging, whether here with people who stand up forwhat's right, or elsewhere, will not be supportive of the Bush administration. It's a sickening day. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-03-10 9:33:03 AM |
| #1 We should silently deal with Hezbollah via contract killings. They still owe us for a few Marines. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-03-10 6:25:42 AM |