In a bold departure from the EU’s more diplomatic phrasing
of the matter, Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov announced on
February 5th that Hezbollah was responsible for the July 2012 bus
bomb that killed a Bulgarian national and five Israeli tourists. The EU continues to be reluctant to designate
Hezbollah a terrorist organization, claiming that it is divided into separate
political and military factions, despite Hezbollah’s assertions that its
members leading the government and its members leading the jihad are one and
the same. France and Germany have especially
tiptoed around the issue with the former citing fears over their security
should they outright condemn Hezbollah, a not unfounded fear given Hezbollah’s
1983 attack on French and American soldiers in Beirut (Weinthal).
Meanwhile, Lebanon appears much more focused on the Syrian
civil war and its potential to increase sectarian violence within Lebanon as
its religiously-diverse population chooses sides (Al Jazeera). In a region of the world where increased
access to free media has made for the spread of awareness and revolution,
Lebanon’s relatively free media has been disregarded by the country’s various
groups, which choose instead to gain their information from biased news sources
that cater to specific group identities (Prothero). This has the potential to increase sectarian
violence as groups fail to interact with one another and fail to build a
national identity outside their own.
The increased violence among these groups is unlikely to
result in a civil war since the sectarian democratic government remains one of
the less restrictive regimes in the Middle East and permits the country’s
various religious groups to participate in the government (Freedom House); however,
this assessment is based on the current way of things in Lebanon. Should Hezbollah—a very active participant in
Lebanese politics—be officially designated a terrorist organization, this could
potentially destabilize the government, as such an official recognition would
negatively impact Hezbollah’s financial, moral, political, and material support
(Weinthal). At a time when sectarian
violence is increasing, destabilizing the government could lead to groups
aiming to acquire more power in government for their own interests,
significantly increasing the chances of a civil war, as well as lead to more
violence by the aforementioned terrorist organization in the West and in the
region when an official terrorist listing would lessen its incentive to not
conduct terrorist attacks. For the time
being, and the EU agrees, it might be best to keep Hezbollah where it is.
Works Cited
"Is Syria's Conflict
Being Fought in Lebanon?" Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, 6 June 2012.
Web. 17 Feb. 2013. <http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/06/20126572818978965.html.
"Lebanon." Freedom
House. Freedom House, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.
Prothero, Mitchell.
"Live, from Beirut..." Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy
Group, 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/31/boob_tube_lebanon_hezbollah?page=0,0>.
Weinthal, Benjamin.
"Europe's Hezbollah Problem." Foreign Policy. Foreign
Policy Group, 6 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/06/europe_s_hezbollah_problem_bulgaria_bombing?page=0,0>.
This is a very interesting rationale against what would essentially be diplomatic intervention. The EU is clearly antagonistic towards Hezbollah as a perpetrator of terrorism supported by Iran. However, the act of declaring them a terrorist organization would do more harm, to citizens of the EU and Lebanon, than it would do good. In this case, it seems the best action for the EU to take would be to not intervene at all, at least for now.
ReplyDelete