Updating the Lebanon Update

In the past couple of days I have discussed a number of new developments in Lebanon. Here's a summary of the main points:

1) Syria continues to withdraw its military troops either across the border or to positions near the border. This of course means little because the intelligence services have not been withdrawn and Syrian troops, even from their new positions, can reach Beirut in a matter of hours. Still it is a minor concession to world opinion.

2) The US has told Israel to shut up and to stay out of the matter. This, of course, for historical and strategic reasons will be hard for Israel to do, but it is absolutely necessary if any accommodation is to be reached with Hizbollah.

3) Observers are divided on the significance of the recent massive Hizbollah demonstration in Beirut. Some see it as decisive and an indication that the democracy forces do not represent the will of the people of Lebanon. Others see it quite differently -- as a demand from Hizbollah that they, as representatives of Lebanon's Shiite minority, be granted a major role in the government of a free Lebanon. At first I tended toward the latter position. Now I have come to think otherwise, for reasons outlined below.

4) All observers agree that the anti-American demonstrations in Syria are of no real significance. I agree.

5) The NYT reported that the US was "grudgingly" following France's policy of normalizing relations with Hizbollah and removing their pariah status in order to entice them into the political mainstream. Boy, did they blow this one [see below].

6) Observers disagree on the role that the US should play in the negotiations. Some feel that US pressure will be necessary to force things to a conclusion and to protect the interests of the democratic opposition; others feel that US involvement would simply anger Hizbollah and stiffen Syrian defiance and make a positive outcome more difficult. I feel that the US should play a major role, but disguise its influence by working through France and the EU.

7) The Democratic Opposition is planning to hold massive demonstrations in Beirut on Monday. I argued that this would be a test of Hizbollah's intentions and would clear up matters greatly. If Hizbollah allows the demonstrations to go on peacefully then it will signal a willingness to cooperate in a new Lebanese government. If, however, it stages counter-demonstrations or tries to interfere with the Democracy movement, it will have aligned itself irrevocably with Syria.

Now the new stuff:

Publius Pundit reports:

European legislators on Thursday branded the radical Lebanese Hizbollah group a “terrorist” organization and urged EU governments to place the group on their terrorist blacklists, as the bloc did with the Palestinian Hamas group in 2003.

“[EU] Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hizbollah. The [EU] Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them,” legislators said in a non-binding resolution adopted during a session in Strasburg, France on Thursday. EU lawmakers also called on Syria to withdraw its troops and intelligence services from Lebanon.

This is more show than force. The resolution is non-binding and each country will do as it wishes with regard to Hizbollah. Consider it a shot across the bow of Hizbollah, warning them that they must cooperate with the democratic opposition. The reason it is important is that Hizbollah freely admits that nearly all their funding comes from the EU. Publius quotes an interview given last week by Hassan Narsallah, leader of Hizbollah, to the effect that,

Designating Hezbollah a terror group in Europe will mean “the sources of [our] funding will dry up and the sources of moral, political and material support will be destroyed,” Nasrallah told Al Manar, Hezbollah’s satellite television station.

The EU Parliamentary action has just signalled, very strongly, that unless Hizbollah cleans up its act and begins to cooperate and move into the mainstream that funding will dry up rapidly.

Why the need for pressure? Publius claims that the Syrian pullout is a sham. What Assad is really doing is:

They [Syrian forces] are basically pulling out of nonessential areas and consolidating power where they need to, places such as the Bekaa Valley and near southern Lebanon where they have considerable support from Shiites near Israel.

He quotes an article that reports:

Syria has moved its intelligence headquarters to a Beirut neighborhood controlled by Hizbullah.

Lebanese opposition sources said the Syrian military moved office in Lebanon from the so-called Beaurivage to southern Beirut. The sources said the transfer was completed over the last week as part of an effort to lower the Syrian profile in Beirut and central Lebanon.…

“The Syrians aren’t going anywhere,” an opposition source with connections in Lebanese intelligence said. “They are fusing with Hizbullah while pretending to pull out some troops from Lebanon.”

Publius argues, and I think he's right, that Syria and Hizbollah have struck at least a tentative deal to squelch the democracy movement and to allow Syria to maintain control after the May elections, and that they are simply trying to erect a respectable facade to cover their true intents. They have even suggested having Jimmy Carter certify the results of the elections. This is not going to fly. Carter has no credibility any more, not even in Europe, and Bush shows no sign of retreating from his position that free elections are impossible until all Syrian troops and intelligence services are completely withdrawn from Lebanon.

Can Hizbollah still be mainstreamed, or have they aligned themselves irrevocably with Assad? Certainly the EU declaration must give them pause. The first clues will come Monday. Stay tuned.

Read Publius here. He also provides links to several other sources. He's an indispensible source for information on Lebanon and the other freedom movements going on around the world. Check him out daily.