By Dr Peter Germanos & Ms Camille Germanos

Download Insight 32 Germanos here

Camille Germanos is a Research Associate at the Middle East Institute. Dr. Peter Germanos is an examining magistrate in Lebanon.This piece was first published in French by the leading French-language newspaper in the Middle East, L’Orient-Le Jour on 20 July 2011 under the title Le Liban entre le marteau des sanctions internationales et l’enclume de la guerre civile. We are pleased to publish an updated English translation, followed by the original. Stamped by the West with Hizbullah’s effigy, the Lebanese State is struggling to avoid the international sanctions threatening its territory, economy and markets. The land is indeed imperiled by an international offensive, the threat of which has been weighing heavy on the country ever since the establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) in May 2007, and more specifically the applicability of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. As for the economic sanctions, they have been a matter of concern to the Lebanese public since the March sentencing of the Lebanese Canadian Bank in the United States andthe potential blow to the banking sector. Lebanon has been the subject in a war of perception in the five months since the Hariri government resigned last February. The western press is weakening its legitimacy by describing it as a hostage of a political coup conducted by Hizbullah. Moreover, the Mikati government is depicted as the Hizbullah Cabinet although the Party of God does not hold in it but a minority of portfolios compared to the prestigious nominations bestowed upon the Sunni and Christian coalitions. Hence, one cannot deny that the recognition of Hizbullah and the preservation of the trilogy of the Nation, the Army, and the Resistance, that were provided for in the ministerial declaration are merely seen as a national adoption of the battles of the Party of God, which changes thevery nature of the situation in the country of the Cedar. Thus, and for the first time since the 1914 Ottoman embargo, international sanctions are looming. Lebanon’s Christians, once considered an occidental icon deemed the Maronite nation by Louis XIV and both Europe’s prot and shield, are now seen by international observers as an insignificant minorityamong othersand an ally of the Shi’a Islamists. Their presence in Lebanon and their participation in power are no longer enough to belie the anti-Western image of the country, now in the firing line of the United States. The fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo encouraged some strategists to change US policy in favor of Hizbullah. Yet the issue of Bahrainand the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) armed intervention in Manama, along with the mass uprisings in Syria, brought the US administration back towards its traditional hostility against this Israeli rival. This rejection of opening to Hizbullah reinforced the position of the international community with the announcement of the indictments of the STL on 30 June 2011. Consequently, the Lebanese State once again stands before two difficult choices. The first option is to challenge international decisions, thereby incurring the risk of economic and political sanctions with heavy consequences for a Lebanese society more concerned with the cost of living than with the next Israeli attack. Further, economic deterioration will certainlyhave unfavorable effects on Lebanese political players. As for the second choice, it is to challenge the military arsenal of Hizbullah, important members of which were indicted by the STL. The Lebanese authorities haveuntil 11 Augustto report to the STL on measures taken regarding the arrest of the accused. Yet the implementation of resolution 1757 will be difficult. The Secretary General of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah, has rejected the arrests of those accused, claiming the STL is exploited politically against his organization. At the same time, rumors are circulating that the accused are no longer present on Lebanese territory. This legal pileup and its economic consequences are nurturing an apparent tension between the main followers of the March 8 and March 14 blocs. Indeed, an aggravated recurrence of the May 7 events would lead the Lebanese people towards yet another civil war. An armed conflict would begin between March 8 and March 14 clans and lead eventually to a demarcation, along Cornish el-Mazraa, between the United States and Iran, nay between the Sunni and the Shi’a. In view of these antagonistic pressures, Lebanon is witnessing the formation of a movement advocating neutrality. At the helm are President Michel Suleiman, Prime Minister Najib Mikati, Speaker Nabih Berri and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. Together, these politicians’belonging to the four main Lebanese communities’are working for the establishment of a movement to serve as a buffer between the two axes dividing the region. For the moment, the Westseems to be tolerating this initiative so that the Syrian crisis does not suck Lebanon in. The main strategyseems to be to destabilize and even overthrow the Syrian regime, while avoiding sectarian conflicts. The goal is to break the territorial continuity of the axis of the resistance, al–mumana’a,stretching from the Siberian steps in Asia to the hot water of the Mediterranean and reaching the border of both Israel and the European Union, while avoiding chaos and uncontrollable sectarian and ideological wars. Breaking the axis of resistance’while avoiding sectarian conflict as much as possible’is of the utmost importance for the West.For the first time since the defeat of the Muslim fleet in the Sea of Oman facing the Portuguese fortress of Hormuz in 1554, the old Silk Road is paved anew from Shanghai to Beirut, running through Moscow(North Korea – China- Russia Iran Iraq Syria Lebanon Gaza). The anti-tank missiles used by Hizbullah during the 2006 war with Israel and that contributed to its invincibility, are the tangible manifestation of this trans-Asian alliance. Not only does the anti-Western axis of the resistance benefit from territorial continuity, it is also strategically backed by military bases in the Mediterranean and by armed resistance currents in the Levant. Hence the need for profound change in Syria’s political orientations. NATO has been warned about the presence of Iranian warships in the Mediterranean Sea, particularly after the fall of Mubarak and the neutralization of the Suez Canal. Like its Israeli rival, Iran ismaintaining an offensive political discourse, conducting military maneuvers, and demonstrating its ability to cause damage. Its flag has been flying for a few months now over the Syrian shores, and a Russian military base has already been established in the coastal city of Tartus in return for the redemption of the Syrian debt. Alarmed, NATO reinstated its traditional ally’Turkey. Indeed, the same American foreign policy that drove the Anglo-French alliance to bomb Libya seems to be repeating itself with Obama. The US President seems ready to give free rein to the hegemonic ambitions of the descendants of the Ottomans in the Levant, if necessary. Turkish soft power may transform into an armed expansion that could reach the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon. The country of the Cedar may well witness the situation degenerating into a civil war under the international sanctions and may be subjected to yet another disaster: foreign military intervention. The chaos this security unrest would engender is not favorable to any model of foreign policy. Thereforethe authors of this paper believeit is critical to support the Lebanese political players working in favor of strong and positive neutrality in Lebanon. They can invent a new political position similar to the famous national consensus of 1943, Neither West nor East, contrived by Sheikh Bechara el-Khoury and Riad el-Solh. Yet this neutrality may be difficult to accomplish. Speaking at the Issam Fares Institute of the American University of Beirut last week, Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon Ghadanfar Rokon Abadi addressed the possible neutrality of Lebanon by clearly and firmly excluding this option for the Lebanese state. He promised that in case of a western embargo, Iran would provide massive military support to the Lebanese state on top of energy supplies’not only with oil but also with drilling and the construction of dams and other major infrastructure projects. With this statement the Iranian ambassador revealed his readiness for a conflict that includes Lebanon in the ranks of the axis of resistance. Such a conflict seems likely within the next months now that the Palestinian state is about to be declared in September, the internal crisis in Israel is expanding, the Syrian regime is at an impasse, and Hizbullah and Iran are on guard for aNATO offensive about to break the territorial continuity of the axis of resistance.

Dr Peter Germanos is an exercising magistrate in Lebanon, Doctor in Law and the writer of many monographs in Law and fiction novels. Email: pgermanos@yahoo.com Ms Camille Germanos is Research Associate at the Middle East Institute. Originally from Lebanon, Ms Germanos speaks Arabic, French and English. She has been researching ÔÇÿdivided cities’ within the French school for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences (EHESS). She holds a law degree, a Master of Arts in Communication, and a Master of Philosophy in Comparative Development Studies (EHESS). The views expressed herein are her own. E-mail: Camille.germanos@yahoo.fr Le Liban entre le marteau des sanctions internationales et l’enclume de la guerre civile 20/07/2011 Par P. et Camille GERMANOS*