Paper
Paul Salem
{
"authors": [
"Paul Salem"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Levant",
"Lebanon",
"Middle East"
],
"topics": [
"Security"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Tensions Over Tribunal Threaten Country's Delicate Sectarian Balance
The possibility that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon might indict members of Hizbollah in its investigation into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has increased tensions and could result in the collapse of Lebanon’s fragile political balance.
By Paul Salem
Published on Oct 1, 2010
Source: Los Angeles Times
Hezbollah charges that the tribunal is neither professional nor neutral, and that it has been used by the U.S., the West and Israel, first to pressure Syria, and now to isolate and undermine Hezbollah. Officials of Hezbollah, Syria and other Syrian allies in Lebanon have warned that unless the prime minister changes his position, the tribunal and indictments will lead to civil war.
Prime Minister Saad Hariri has held firm, stating that the tribunal adjudicating his father’s assassination, and that of many others, was not a subject for negotiation. Walid Jumblatt, Hariri’s former ally, now says that he “wished the [tribunal] had never been set up,” and is trying, with house Speaker Nabih Berri, to find a negotiated resolution to this confrontation. But it is hard to find any middle ground between accepting or rejecting the tribunal and its indictments.
It's now clear that the Saudi-Syrian summit in Beirut in late July brought temporary calm, but did not arrive at a resolution of the tribunal issue. Syria has maintained good relations with Prime Minister Hariri but has not intervened directly in this case, leaving Hezbollah to lead the charge and encouraging its other allies in Lebanon to raise the pressure. Syria wants Lebanon to cut its ties with the tribunal but does not want to take the blame for forcing the issue.
Syrian-Saudi relations have worsened since Syria went along with Iran’s choice for prime minister in Iraq, Nouri al-Malki; this worsening might be part of the reason for rising tensions in Lebanon.
Without any security defenses, Hariri might be calculating that Hezbollah, as well as Syria and Iran, would not want to risk sectarian Sunni-Shiite civil war; or that at least such a move by Hezbollah would be very costly for it and would seriously affect its image in the Arab and Muslim world. Hariri has succeeded in making the issue of the tribunal a Sunni red line in Lebanon, with several other Sunni leaders falling in line behind his position.
Hariri is also aware that although Hezbollah and its allies can bring down his government, they want the tribunal concession from him — because he is the son of the deceased. In addition, it will be very hard to find a credible Sunni leader to take his place at the head of a new government and openly grant Hezbollah what it wants over this highly charged issue.
Hezbollah might stay its hand until after Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon Oct. 13-15. That visit in itself will raise tensions with Israel, as well as with the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab Sunni powers. The internal escalation will probably start after that date. Hezbollah has a wide array of military and political options to use against Hariri; but if Hariri refuses to concede, even if militarily and politically besieged, the country could enter an extended period of paralysis and open-ended tension that would further undermine the institutions of the state and erode the lingering consensus on the Taif Agreement.
The depth of division in Lebanon has reached a critical point as accord has been lost over key issues such as the principle of state sovereignty, the authority of the constitution and rule of law, the authority of national institutions, the power-sharing formula, and foreign and defense policies. At the tail end of a drawn-out crisis, Hezbollah might insist on revisiting the Taif Agreement, and revising the power-sharing formula in the country in its community’s favor.
Hezbollah is in a very tight position: facing potential international indictments, war with Israel or isolation if the peace process moves forward. It has a historic and overwhelming dominance in Lebanon, and it sees how its sister community in Iraq has institutionalized its ascendancy there. It is possible that facing such severe challenges, Hezbollah might opt to press its advantage and claim a more central role for its community in the government.
None of this is inevitable. But because there seems to be no middle ground regarding the tribunal, and because it touches on such sensitive issues for both Sunni and Shiite communities, it might usher in not only a period of crisis, but a meltdown of the post-Taif state. Perhaps a compromise can still be found; but as things stand today, the country is headed for a drawn-out standoff whose outcome might go well beyond the issue of the tribunal and current government."
About the Author
Paul Salem
Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute
Paul Salem is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.
- Iraq’s Tangled Foreign Interests and Relations
- Bracing for Impact in SyriaArticle
Paul Salem
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Why Russia Could Escalate Hybrid Warfare Against EuropeCommentary
Mounting economic strain and battlefield losses will not necessarily make the Kremlin less dangerous. They could instead push Moscow toward a more aggressive hybrid campaign designed to test NATO’s Eastern flank, exploit allied hesitation, and fracture European resolve.
Maksym Beznosiuk
- Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?Commentary
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- How NATO Became Anchored in the Black SeaCommentary
As Russia's war on Ukraine drags on, NATO is expanding its footprint in the Black Sea. Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria are upgrading their fleets and deepening trilateral cooperation.
Dimitar Bechev
- Managing Montreux: Turkey and the Russia-Ukraine War in the Black SeaArticle
For ninety years, Turkey has been positioned as the principal gatekeeper of Black Sea security. As a result, European and NATO efforts to support Ukraine will require closer engagement with Ankara.
Thomas de Waal
- Geopolitical Europe Needs Air-ConditioningCommentary
Western Europe’s dual-use infrastructure melted down during its latest heat wave. If a predicted hot weather event can take the continent by surprise, what chance does it have to withstand unexpected geopolitical crises?
Rym Momtaz
