A Tangled Web
The Beeb's Paul Reynolds takes a brief and orderly look at what's at stake in the current round of Middle East crises (Lebanon invasion, Palestine troubles, Iraq violence, Iran's nukes). Summarized from my own point of view below, it's all (as always) about interests:
Israel - credibility, not only to its own people but to arch enemies in Iran and Syria. Let's be honest here: Hizbollah is a disruptive and lethal nuisance, but it is not a threat to Israel's very existence any more than al-Qaeda is capable of toppling the entire Western world and creating a global Islamic caliphate. We need to be reasonable, and looking at this from a distance it's as much about Israel than it is about the extremists.
Lebanon - continued progress towards true independence and democracy. Lebanon needs to remove all foreign influences from its borders, not just Iran's proxies Hizbollah. It succesfully ejected Syria from the political scene last year, but the current conflict could see them creep back in. Lebanon will surely want assurances from Israel that it will not occupy its territory or manipulate its government as it has done. For Lebanon, national survival truly is at stake.
Hizbollah - their survival is not in doubt, and in fact the situation could be manipulated to strengthen them further, whether via new recruitment or extra supplies via Iran and Syria. As with all terrorism, their objectives are nebulous to say the least, and the conflict has now gone way beyond the release of a few prisoners.
Iran - nothing less than regional hegemony. With instability everywhere, Iran is on the rise and it knows it. The nuclear issue is closely related to this and if the West does not deal with it effectively then Iran will stack its deck even more. It's a win-win situation for Tehran. Even if airstrikes do take out its nascent nuclear capability, such an action would rally support throughout the region, not to mention the wider Dar-el-Islam (despite Iran's minority Shia faith).
Syria - in a sense is caught between a rock and a hard place. It would like to regain influence but may be relegated to the position of a junior partner to Iran in all this.
Palestine - also caught in a tricky situation. Israel's recent withdrawal from the Gaza strip and the election of Hamas have made a volatile situation even more delicate: the best the Palestinians should hope for is that the status quo remains and a deal can be brokered regarding the West Bank too. Unfortunately, the actions of Hizbollah and Iran reflect indirectly on Palestine too and they could end up victims of others' bravado.
United States - despite the plummeting credibility of this administration, it still clings to the dream of spreading democracy in the Middle East. Yet the lack of assistance to Lebanon and Palestine shows the qualified nature of this doctrine, since both of these entities are weak but de facto democracies that conceivably could become an alternative to the Iran-Syria-Hizbollah nexus. However, in order to retain credibility at home and abroad, the US is obliged to stand by Israel and its own War on Terror strategy, which is now leading it into a blind alley. The oil factor mustn't be forgotten either, since a more powerful Iran means more expensive oil and ultimately a poorer American economy. And what America does in the Levant also affects its standing in Iraq, and vice versa. It has to be seen to be strong and fair more than any other state.
Europe - Tony Blair looks increasingly ineffectual, while France is one of the few nations to have come of this smelling of roses. The weakened Blair will eventually bow down, and France will resume its authoritative position in the EU just as it has always wanted. However, as the Middle East situation drags on, the overall schism in the EU might grow even wider.
Russia and China - both will be watching very closely to see who ends up as the final victor in the battle for Middle East hegemony - the US via Israel or Iran. Both will probably be counting on Iran. If the Middle East should slide towards the Islamists, Russia would profit from the better energy security it can offer Europe as an alternative to the Mullahs, while China will be able to access Middle East energy more safely through its influence over Iran.
United Nations - make or break. Probably the very last chance the UN has to demonstrate its relevance and credibility, before it is either crippled or dissolved.
That's my two-pennorth. Original report below. See also the Winds of War briefing and also at at Security Watchtower.
Mid-East conflict: Who stands where
The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah is part of a wider conflict in the Middle East. The BBC News website's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds examines who stands where and what is at stake for the main parties involved.
ISRAEL
Israel sees this war as another part of its long effort to establish itself in the region. It has treaties with Egypt and Jordan and would like one with Lebanon.
However this war has put that prospect off, possibly for many years given the level of casualties in Lebanon. In the meantime, Israel wants Hezbollah removed as a threat since Hezbollah is hostile to Israel's existence.
Israel says the Lebanese government should do this but it is prepared to enforce what it identifies as its own interests anyway.
Israel sees the hand of mainly Iran but also Syria behind Hezbollah, especially in the supply of the thousands of rockets Hezbollah has acquired. One strategic Israeli aim in the war and one shared by the United States is to weaken those links and so weaken the influence of Iran and Syria in Lebanon and the region.
On the other hand, Israel itself will suffer a loss of power and prestige if it cannot show a clear victory.
LEBANON
The government fears that the Israeli onslaught will put all the progress Lebanon has made in recent years at risk and that there could be a return to civil war and strife and a return of Syrian influence.
Lebanon therefore wants an immediate end to the fighting and says that a political agreement should come afterwards, based on Security Council resolution 1559. Passed in September 2004, this called on all militias in Lebanon to be disbanded and the authority of the government extended to the border. Easier said than done, has proved to be the experience.
The Lebanese coalition government was formed after the Cedar Revolution of 2004 which led to the removal of Syrian forces from the country. Hezbollah has two seats in the cabinet even though it opposed the Cedar Revolution. However, Hezbollah feels it can act unilaterally, hence its cross-border raid to capture two Israeli solders. The conflict will help determine its future status in Lebanon.
HEZBOLLAH
Hezbollah, the Shia 'Party of God' in Lebanon, is determined to come out of the conflict in a stronger position. It also seeks wider support in Lebanon, which will make it harder for the Lebanese government to bring it under closer control afterwards.
Hezbollah sees itself as in the vanguard of the opposition to the state of Israel, which it regards as a Zionist intrusion into Muslim lands. It was instrumental in making Israel withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000 and sees in this war a chance for it to diminish Israeli power.
Hezbollah's fate will affect the future influence of Iran and Syria in Lebanon and the region. It is closely supported by Iran, which holds similar views about Israel and which has supplied missiles to its Shia brethren. Syria's interests are more to do with trying to maintain an influence in Lebanon and in supporting an opponent of Israel.
IRAN
Iran's President Ahmadinejad has said that the "elimination" of Israel is the solution to the Middle East's problems so clearly Iran would like to see Israel (and through Israel, the United States) diminished by the conflict and Hezbollah strengthened.
In that way, its own influence would grow not just in Lebanon but also in the region and among the Middle East's Shia population. Some think that Iran sees in the conflict a welcome distraction from its own nuclear programme. However that issue will return.
Equally, if Hezbollah's power is eventually reduced, so too will Iran's, since Iran Hezbollah's principal backer.
SYRIA
Syria lost out in Lebanon during the Cedar Revolution and probably knows that it cannot return to its former position, even though at heart it regards Lebanon, for historical reasons, as basically part of Syria and certainly part of its sphere of influence. However it probably sees an opportunity to regain some influence through Hezbollah if Hezbollah emerged intact.
It would like the US to recognise it as a power-broker in the area but so far Washington has refused to do so.
Syria does not want to get drawn into a war, even a limited encounter with Israel. It could not win. It prefers to play a very long game.
PALESTINIANS
The Palestinians never quite know how Israel's battles and deals with others will affect them. Over the years they have concluded that they will have to make their own arrangements so when the dust has settled from this war, their own struggle will come to the fore again though of course it has not gone away.
A key issue for them is whether the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's plan to leave further parts of the West Bank and consolidate in others will now be abandoned.
The prospect for the Palestinians is that despite the international talk of resolving the fundamental issue of who owns which part of the land, nothing much will be done in practice.
UNITED STATES
The Bush administration sees the battle against Hezbollah in the wider context of its effort to promote what President Bush called in 2003 a "Forward Strategy of Freedom to Promote Democracy in the Middle East".
This means that it wants Hezbollah to be destroyed as a military force. It would see this as an important milestone in its "war on terror".
The risk for the US is that its efforts are seen as aggressive by some and might be counter-productive in that they could provoke more opposition to US policy.
The US wants to see Iranian and Syrian influence reduced as well. Iran, with its nuclear programme at issue, is seen by the US as a potential threat and anything that undermines Iran is useful in American eyes. However, Israel's own strategic relations with the US might also come under close examination if the conflict ends without Israel achieving its stated aims.
FRANCE AND BRITIAN
France has emerged with increased influence. It has capitalised on its traditional links with Lebanon and has taken a leading role in the negotiations for ceasefire. It has also maintained its philosophical opposition to the Bush administration while forcing the US to take it seriously.
Britain has generally followed US policy. It has thereby attracted criticism but hopes to recoup some of it losses if a long-term agreements can be made.
Comments
You are certainly right about everything coming back to interests. However, I wonder what you mean when you write:
"United Nations - make or break. Probably the very last chance the UN has to demonstrate its relevance and credibility, before it is either crippled or dissolved."
How do you define its "relevance"? I think the UN is extremely relevant, credible, and crucial for the 750,000 displaced people whose existence is now largely dependent on the efficient relief programs being coordinated by OCHA and including WFP, UNICEF, UNHCR, and many other parts of the UN.
I also think the UN is highly "relevent" for those concerned about the Mediterranean ecosystem being destroyed by the thousands of gallons of oil and gas spilled by decimated power plants.
Likely, however, I imagine you meant "relevant" only within the realm of international security. First, I remember hearing exactly the same thing in 2003 from both sides of the Iraq debate - yet 3 years later THE forum in which issues from this to Iran to North Korea are debated is the UN.
Second, it is important to remember that when it comes to Security Council issues, the UN is simply a house for states to gather. I think their role was certainly challenged in the late 1990's - with several missions being undertaken outside their purview - but the answer - from Darfur to East Timor - seems to be that indeed the UN does bring something unique and valuable to the table.
I think the real story which is unfolding is exactly how relevent the US is to global security today. On NK, they clearly capitulated despite Amb Bolton's protestations last week. On Iran the story is still out, but increasingly I feel like the myth of American hegemony is about to be burst.
Commentators may be willing to entertain thoughts of "dissolving" the UN, but I assure you that in 6 months when it is time to pick up the pieces and rebuild Lebanon the UN will be on the top of everyone's call list - like they are in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Congo.
Posted by: David | August 8, 2006 1:35 AM
Yes, you do have some very good points here, and I admit to having forgotten about the UN's other roles outside the security field. Such is the mindset of a student of International Relations, and I'm falling into it - even though I'm trying to look at the bigger picture there's always something I miss.
However, I'm sure you'll agree that there are many detractors of the UN, the Bush administration and John Bolton being among them, and for them the current crisis is a good opportunity to make some sound and fury about the situation. I do believe that the UN and the Institution of International Law have come under great strain since the end of the Cold War, and that there need to be some serious revisions to the structure of the Security Council and several conventions in order to take account of the conflicts that exist today.
The UN was designed for a post-World War II international society, where the US and USSR were dominant and colonialism was just on its way out. The planet today is very very different.
Posted by: Philip Sen | August 8, 2006 9:15 AM
As an aspiring IR scholar myself - especially one who is focused specifically on conflict issues - I can certainly sympathize with an occasional case of myopia.
You are absolutely right that the UN has a lot of detractors. But - and this is directed far beyond just you - people need to stop simply replaying those messages and start to ask about the messengers role in on-going problems. Sure, Bush can whine that "the UN" (and I shudder everytime I read that phrase) isn't "solving" the crisis, but the reality is that it - Kofi Annan - has nothing beyond a bully pulpit while the US has a half a trillion dollar war machine, billions in direct economic assistance, and its role as guardian of last resort to employ.
Sure the UN and ILaw are antiquated and could use some updating. Japan should be on the security council, the veto must be tamed, and there is a desperate need for a new convention on non-conventional warfare. That said, it isn't like if we tried to create a UN 2.0 from scratch Russia would give up its veto, China would try to block out Japan from remilitarization, or the US would suddenly become amenable to actually ratifying international conventions (we are after all about the only country which is not a party to the Conv. on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW, or the Geneva OPII which covers how you deal with irregular forces).
Does this mean multilateralism is dead? Of course not; there is no less - or for that matter more - reason for it to exist today as 25 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago. There is a reason realism is so enduring: because states actually do behave like rational actors, and because like people the first rule is DON'T GET DEAD. Sure, there are some problems with a unitary actor model, but the same way people rationally band together and create government as a solution to collective action problems, there is no reason to expect that an analogous democratic forum is any more likely to collapse beneath it's own weight because states don't always get the best outcome.
Bringing it full circle, this is why I think people (all 99.9% of them) are WRONG to think of the UN as the house of global security/global parliament. Can people in the US or UK agree on how the police should combat crime? Of course not! During my year in London, PMQ was my one can't miss TV program because they are absolutely savage to
one another. The reason the UN survives and is so useful is because - just like with local government - they make sure the phones connect (ITU), planes land on time (Civil-Aviation), mail gets delivered (UPU), medicine is safe (WHO), on and on.
Posted by: David | August 9, 2006 3:58 PM