15 - 21 November 2001
Issue No.560
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 15 - 21 November 2001 Issue No.560 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
New rift in alliance
Lebanese and US officials downplay a dispute over the latest US list of alleged "terrorist organisations." But its inclusion of Hizbullah has already proven a stumbling-block in US-Lebanese relations, as Zeina Abu Rizk reports from Beirut
Lebanon and the United States embarked on a war of words last week following a US decision to add Hizbullah and radical Palestinian groups to a list of organisations whose assets are to be frozen due to their alleged involvement in terrorism.
Inclusion in the US list would mean the imposition of stringent financial controls and the possible confiscation of Hizbullah's assets, as well as measures against other radical organisations advocating armed struggle against Israeli occupation. The latter include the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the PFLP-GC. Twenty-two organisations have been put on the list of "terrorist" groups so far.
The dispute flared up last Wednesday in a meeting between Lebanese Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri and the American ambassador, Vincent Battle. Their frank discussions on the role and nature of Hizbullah and other Lebanon-based Arab groups fighting Israeli occupation turned into heated exchanges and led Berri to accuse Battle of "adopting the Israeli point of view" and to state that "Lebanon rejects the so-called new terrorist list."
US Ambassador Battle was equally intransigent in stating that his government would not revoke its request for "cooperation in freezing financial assets" of groups deemed to be terrorist organisations, asserting that "a change of mind would be a change in US policy." His statements constitute strong proof of US frustration with current Lebanese policy.
For its part, Lebanon opposes classifying Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation and refuses to freeze its assets, basing its policy on technical and legal grounds. Lebanese officials argue that the fact that the US presided over the 1996 April Understanding Committee and subsequent Monitoring Group constitutes an implicit recognition of the legitimacy of Hizbullah's actions. On that occasion, Hizbullah representatives participated alongside Israel, France, Syria and the US. The committee's work led to an internationally ratified agreement which recognised Lebanese resistance against Israeli occupation as a legitimate response.
Government officials go on to cite the Taif Agreement, the Saudi and US-engineered document which ended the Lebanese civil war, and its stipulation that all measures should be taken to free Lebanon from foreign occupation. They regard this as a tacit recognition of the Lebanese right to resist outside encroachments.
The Lebanese Central Bank weighed in with its own opposition to US demands, offering four "technical reasons" for refusing to freeze resistance assets. In making their refusal to co-operate apparent, Central Bank officials argued that the list was not released by an internationally-binding body such as the UN or the International Court of Justice in The Hague, nor did it come about as a result of an internal Lebanese criminal investigation. Finally, compliance with US demands has no compelling legal basis as there are no bilateral agreements between the US and Lebanon that would allow for the automatic freezing of bank accounts to be undertaken at the request of one of the two parties.
Such initial heated exchanges were followed up, at the weekend, by concerted efforts to avoid a serious confrontation. Friday saw Ambassador Vincent Battle following up with more conciliatory comments. Following a meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri, he said that Washington "clearly understands" Lebanon's stand on America's controversial definition of terrorism, and will offer further discussions on the issue. As for Rafik Al-Hariri, he replied in kind on Saturday by saying that coordination on the issue between Lebanon and Washington will continue.
The general mood of reconciliation was curtly disrupted by Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's statement on Sunday. He asserted that the US list was aimed against "all elements of force in the country," implying by this the national resistance, Lebanese internal unity, and the ongoing political coordination between Lebanon and Syria. Nasrallah was following up statements in which he had condemned the Americans of kowtowing to Israeli policy while waging a war against "every Muslim who refuses to submit, kneel and bow to the US." As for Hizbullah southern commander, Sheikh Nabil Qaouk, he claimed that the US move was a feather in his party's cap. "The US lists don't bother us in the slightest. When America accuses Hizbullah, we take it as proof of the credibility of our goals," Qaouk remonstrated.
But public misgivings about the list were not confined solely to Lebanon. It was greeted by France and Russia cautiously, with both countries reportedly expressing reservations about the fact that, unlike two previously published lists which included the names of 66 terrorism- related organisations, the list's most recent incarnation has not been endorsed by the UN Security Council.
And following French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's disastrous visit to Israel last year, in which he denounced Hizbullah guerrillas as terrorists and caused an embarrassing diplomatic incident with Lebanon and Syria, French sources were particularly anxious to stress that Paris does not consider Hizbullah's operations against Israeli occupation to be acts of terror.
French reservation regarding the US list was made clearer when a spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry said that the list is still under scrutiny by government officials. The official statement made it clear that apparent US reluctance to submit the list to the Security Council may be put down to administration fears that the lack of evidence regarding the existence of a connection between the marked organisations and Al-Qa'ida would make the list legally untenable.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page