The Bahraini government officially accused Hezbollah of helping train anti-government opposition in an official report sent to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The report claims that the group has been training opposition figures at camps in both Lebanon and Iran and also accuses them of targeting other Gulf nations as well. Bahrain also claims that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah of meeting with senior leaders of Bahrain’s largest Shi’ite opposition group al-Wefaq and the banned al-Haq group. Hezbollah, Iran, and the Shi’ite opposition groups accused of complicity have all denied the charges. The U.S. State Department has said it believes Iran’s role in the unrest in Bahrain has been minimal and that protests reflect “home-grown frustrations” of the long marginalized Bahraini Shi’a community.
Writing in the International Herald Tribune, Jean Marie Guéhenno asserts that the ‘Arab revolutions are beginning to destroy the cliché of an Arab world incapable of democratic transformation.” In place of this narrative, she states, a new one is building and that the source of the revolutions stems from a thirst for Western style freedoms “mobilized by Facebook and Twitter.” She refutes these claims and states that the revolutions are “about justice and equity as much as it is about democracy, because societies in which millions of young men and women have no jobs… crave justice as much as democracy.” Guéhenno states that we have seen protests that are not only against Arab dictators, but also against Arab “profiteers” who have been supported by the West for generations. Thus, the revolutionaries are highly skeptical of Western interference and will most likely not seek to use the West as a model as was done in 1989. Consequently, the West “must abandon the illusion that the defining issue in the region is a battle between moderates and hardliners,” and begin to engage all parties including Islamist parties. In conclusion: “The West has to accept that it is not the central player anymore. But it need not be an indifferent and passive spectator. Finding the balance between engagement and restraint will be the policy challenge of this new phase.”
Last week, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy hosted an event entitled, “Lebanon Today: Internal Politics and the Arab Spring.” Speaking at the event were May Chidiac, president of MCF Media Institute; Michael Young, opinion editor for the Beirut Daily Star; Hisham Melhem, Washington bureau chief of Al-Arabiya; and Michael Doran, visiting professor at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service.
May Chidiac noted how protests in the Arab world echo “the spirit of the Lebanese model” as they abandoned anti-Israel and anti-West rhetoric for legitimate demands of good governance, economic opportunities and political freedom. Chidiac also called for the U.S. and international community to support the March 14th movement. Michael Young discussed three lessons for the Arab Spring from Lebanon: first, that foreign intervention is often necessary for liberation movements to succeed; second, the liberation may clash with Western interests; and third, the importance of luck. Young discussed how many in the Arab world fail to acknowledge the importance of the 2005 emancipation as they see a weak Syria as advantageous to the West and Israel. Hisham Melham stated that the Arab Spring differs from the events in Lebanon in 2005 as they represent a social and political revolution rather than an emancipation from foreign occupation. He also notes the reversion to sectarianism in Lebanon. Melham also called on the Obama Administration to take a stronger stance on the situation in Syria. Melham along with Michael Doran argued that regime change in Syria could benefit the U.S. as it would improve dynamics with Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and Iraq.
Nabih Berri, Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, has said he is optimistic that Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati’s new cabinet will be officially formed shortly after the Easter holiday. The speaker said that most of the “thorny issues” has been resolved and that negotiations were focusing on “final touches.” The formation of a new government has been in a three month long deadlock with political infighting over specific cabinet portfolios and Christian representation in the cabinet. The new cabinet will have 30 ministerial posts, nine of which will be shared by Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and the Hezbollah led March 8 movement.
After a violent crackdown on Sunday protests left up to 17 dead in Homs, thousands poured into the streets on Monday in funeral rallies to mourn the victims. More videos of Monday’s protests can be viewed at The New York Times blog The Lede. Meanwhile, Hezbollah expressed its support for embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Monday. Hezbollah MP Nawwaf Moussawi said that stability in Syria is essential for Lebanon.
Update: The New York Times reports that up to 10,000 people took part in the funeral protests on Monday in Homs.
On Monday, the Bahraini security forces released 86 detainees following legal procedures taken according to royal decree 18 regarding the State of National Safety. However, the government also expelled more than 15 Lebanese people living in Bahrain following a speech by Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in which he expressed support for the Bahraini opposition’s demands. Authorities also stripped more than a dozen Lebanese of their work and residency protests for “security reasons.” Lebanon’s ambassador to Bahrain, Aziz Azzi stated that “the Lebanese Embassy was not officially notified of these steps…the authorities directly contacted the individuals that were asked to leave.” A Facebook page has also been created (Arabic) to enlarge pictures of people who are at protests asking people to identify them, so that they can be arrested.
David Schenker, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former U.S. Defense Department official, argues that U.S. policy of maintaining stability in Damascus is not the country’s vested interest. Schenker says the Bush administration routinely sidelined any policy aimed at regime change or destabilization fearing that the possible alternatives to Assad were worse despite the regime’s active anti-U.S. policies, particularly regarding Iraqi insurgents. While the Pentagon never advocated toppling Assad, he claims that the Defense Department did not see any interest in helping him maintain power for the sake of stability, a policy that he says has cost the lives of hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq. Given Assad’s protection and help arming Hezbollah, political meddling and destabilization in Lebanon, harboring and support for Hamas, subversion of the U.S. in Iraq, and strategic alliance with Iran, “it’s difficult to imagine that a successor or replacement regime could be worse.” While policy planners in the U.S. should not dismiss concerns over a “perfect storm” scenario or directly advocate regime change, Schenker says it is time recognize that, “the regime is irredeemable,” and the U.S. has little interest in “throwing him[Assad] a lifeline.”
Bilal Y. Saab, writing for The National Interest, argues that a collapse of the regime would have ripple effects across the Middle East and the country’s network of external relations could collapse. He outlines two ways in which a post-Assad Syria could develop. On the positive side, Syrian intervention in Lebanese politics could essentially be eliminated along with its support for Hezbollah. This would significantly weaken Hezbollah he argues. The collapse of the Assad regime could also deprive Hamas of a political base in Damascus. This development could help spur the stalled Peace Process between Israel and the Palestinians, he posits. There could also be a regional power balance shift as a Sunni Syrian leadership may opt for terminating its partnership with Iran which would create an arc of Sunni states in the region which would greater serve U.S. interests. Furthermore, a democratic Syria could help security and stability in Iraq.
On the negative side, regime collapse could lead to sectarian conflict which could spread to neighboring countries and destabilize the whole region. This is particularly worrisome in Lebanon where the specter of armed sectarian conflict is never far from the surface. If Syrian Kurds start to demand autonomy, the Turkish military may feel the need to get involved. Saab also states that a new government in Syria could be dominated by a more militant and assertive group of Syrian nationalists that are determined to wrest the Golan Heights back from Israel. The Syrian branch of the Muslim brotherhood, being more radical and extreme than its Egyptian counterpart, could invite al-Qaeda to “set up shop” in the country. Saab indicates that the best outcome that would serve U.S. interests best would be for Bashar al-Assad to dismantle his regime but remain in power.
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held an open nomination hearing to confirm the appointments of Mara E. Rudman, to be Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development for the Middle East, and Robert Patterson, to be Ambassador to Turkmenistan. Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA) presided over the nomination hearing.
On Thursday, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on the implications of uprisings in the Middle East has on U.S. policy. The Committee—chaired by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) – with ranking member Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) in attendance –requested the testimony of William J. Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs.
To read full notes, continue below or click here for pdf.
On Thursday the Brookings Institute hosted an event focused on the recent trip of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to the Middle East entitled: “Revolution in the Middle East: A Trip Report by Senator John McCain and Senator Joseph Lieberman.” The event was opened by Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institute and moderated by Robert Kagan, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute.
For full notes, continue below. Click here for pdf.
Majdoline Hatoum, writing at the Arab Reform Bulletin, discusses the difficult road ahead for Lebanese PM-designate Najib Mikati as he attempts to form a new cabinet strong enough to endure the political turmoil expected to following the release of the UN’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL)’s report. Former PM Saad Hariri and the March 14 coalition has labeled Mikati as a tool of Hezbollah, placing Mikati in a difficult position as he attempts to form a national unity government. The coalition has refused to join the cabinet unless Mikati commits to respecting the STL’s findings, which he has thus far refused. General Michel Aoun, Hezbollah’s main Christian ally, is also insisting on choosing a new interior minister, which until now has been the prerogative of President Michel Sleiman. Hatoum notes that if Aoun’s request is met, it could mean a new era for the ministry which has been independent under Interior Minister Ziad Baroud, who is regarded as a champion for civil society and democracy. Hezbollah, which has supported Mikati, has been adamant that it wants the memorandum of understanding signed with the STL revoked. However, Mikati’s views on the tribunal and commitments he has made to Hezbollah remain unclear. Many Lebanese fear that failure to cooperate with the tribunal may lead to economic sanctions, which is especially concerning given the country’s $53 billion debt. Mikati will need to address the country’s economic concerns with a series of reforms; however, as Hatoum states, “passing such reforms requires political stability…which is likely to remain elsuive in light of the deep political polarization in the country.”
In a speech on Monday commemorating the 6th anniversary of his father’s (former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri) assassination, outgoing PM Saad Haririannounced that his party would be joining the opposition. He also directly challenged Hezbollah, accusing the group of having used the threat of violence to assume power: “Those who are in the leadership position now used their weapons to get there. So good for them. Congratulations on the stolen position.” Hariri spoke to a crowd of about 6,000 people.
U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, released a statement calling Rafik Hariri a symbol for Lebanon: “He transcended sect and stood with the people of Lebanon, giving hope to his country after 15 years of ruinous civil war.” The statement also called on the new Lebanese government to honor its obligations to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) and promote justice for the Lebanese people: “Those who would try to block Lebanon’s cooperation should desist and show a measure of human decency. Ultimately, without justice, there can be no peace and stability for Lebanon.”
Lebanese Prime Minister-elect Najib Mikati, backed by Hezbollah, is holding talks to form a new government. Outgoing Prime Minister Saad Hariri has said he will not join the new government while Mikati pledged to seek good relations with the United States and “consensus” on how to handle the U.N.-backed special tribunal. Michael Young of Lebanon’s The Daily Starposits Hariri’s options as the talks get underway. The first option, he points out, is to make good on his current rhetoric and not join the Mikati government. This would deny it “Sunni legitimacy” and would force Mikati to form a cabinet of “one color” that would reject the tribunal. This would cause damage to Mikati’s legitimacy and strengthen Hariri and his March 14 coalition. However, Hariri’s participation in the government may actually open up more opportunities for him and his coalition. Young argues that Hariri, as the dominant Sunni in the government, still has the ability to impose certain conditions in negotiations thereby limiting Hezbollah’s power.
Jennifer Rubinwrites that a Hezbollah-controlled government is essentially an Iranian “conquest” of Lebanon and represents a “horrible setback” for U.S. attempts to counter growing Iranian influence in the region. She quotes Tony Badran of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies who says that the current situation shows that the “main driver is Iran” along with Elliott Abrams who said that the U.S. may still be able to effectively back anti-Hezbollah opposition in Lebanon. Zvi Bar’elargues the opposite, that Lebanon is not more Iranian or “Hezbollian” than it was before the crisis. He points out the new Prime Minister Najib Mikati is not a a representative of Hezbollah, had served in the government of slain former PM Rafik Hariri, and has received foreign backing as well: “If Mikati has the support of Saudi Arabia, Syria and France, the United States will have a hard time opposing him.”
The militant group Hezbollah has won backing from a majority of Lebanese MPs after Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and six other members of his Progressive Socialist Party switched their allegiance from Saad Hariri and the March 14th movement. The group nominated Najib Mikati, a former billionaire businessman and Prime Minister, with support from 65 of the 128 members of the Lebanese Parliament. A Hezbollah-dominated government may signal a realignment of Lebanon away from the United States and would likely denounce forthcoming indictments from the STL. Hariri supporters have accused Hezbollah of launching a coup and have called for “day of anger” protests on Tuesday. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowleystated that a Hezbollah-controlled government would complicate ties between the two countries and it would be difficult for the U.S. to continue to assist Lebanon.
Following the release of sealed indictments by the United Nations Tribunal and the collapse of the Lebanese Government, Saudi King Abdullah has declared an end to the Saudi-Syrian initiative due to lack of progress. However, the Turkish and Qatari Foreign Ministers, Ahmet Davutoglu and Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, respectively, are attempting to mitigate tension by meeting with Hezbollah and other high-ranking officials in the Lebanese Government. Fears of potential Hezbollah actions in response to the indictments and renewed sectarian violence remain rife. The group conducted a show of force that began early Tuesday in which Hezbollah members silenty patrolled the streets of Beirut in black uniforms, causing fear and panic among city residents. The US State Department responded to recent events stating: “We do have ongoing concerns that various elements within Lebanon – both inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon – will continue to try to politicize this process.”
Writing at The American Conservative blog, Patrick Buchananargues that “in the Middle East, democracy is not necessarily America’s ally.” Buchanan criticizes the Bush Administration for its zealous calls for democracy in the region and points to the gains of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and most recently Muqtada al-Sadr’s party in Iraq as evidence that “when elections are held or monarchs and autocrats overthrown, the masses will turn to leaders who will pull away from America and stand in solidarity with the Palestinians.” He goes on to say that the kings of Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak have been “more reliable friends than any regime that might come out of one-man, one-vote elections.”
In a readout from Laura Rozen of President Barack Obama’s meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the White House remarked that Hezbollah’s efforts to collapse the government in Lebanon demonstrated, “their own fear and determination to block the government’s ability to conduct its business and advance the aspirations of all of the Lebanese people.” Secretary of State Hillary Clintonsaid the collapse was a deliberate effort by Hezbollah and its allies to disrupt the U.N. tribunal and “subvert justice” in Lebanon. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called for a new government to form peacefully in accordance with the Lebanese constitution. He reiterated that the U.S. does not want “outside parties” to take advantage of Lebanon’s internal crisis. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, blamed the “Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis” for the crisis and reiterated the U.S. must support pro-democracy forces in the country and, “stand up to those who threaten Lebanon and all free nations.”
As Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Haririmet with President Barack Obama today in Washington, Hezbollah resigned from the government in protest of the U.N. tribunal investigating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Hariri, however, pledged to continue efforts to resolve the political crisis despite the apparent collapse of the recent Saudi-Syrian initiative to break the political deadlock. Elias Muhanna, writing at Qifa Nabki, suggested that the walkout might have been planned well in advance and stated: “all they’ve done is ensure that when the indictments do become public, there will almost certainly be no Lebanese government in place to formally denounce them.” Elliott Abramsclaimed that the resignation is another way for Hezbollah to hold the nation hostage with support from Syria and Iran.
