Hard questions about a NATO force
Given the serious risks involved in Lebanon, a strong mandate is critical, says former diplomat MICHAEL BELL
MICHAEL BELL
Yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated he is loath to commit Canadian troops to a possible NATO force for southern Lebanon. This despite an American request to do so -- and our friends in Washington do not take "no" easily. Nor are the Prime Minister's musings that the countries of the Middle East should take upon themselves responsibility for peacekeeping practical. The Arab states are too badly divided both among themselves and within their own borders, their governments too out of sympathy with their own streets, their capacity too limited and their will too weak to make this other than a flight of fancy.
But whatever his preference, the question of Canadian participation is likely to be back on the Prime Minister's agenda sooner than he might wish.
That's because a NATO force is no longer beyond discussion in Washington or among the Western allies now that the Israeli cabinet and military establishment have decided a robust military enforcement mission, composed of relatively sympathetic Western countries, may be in their interest. The Israelis know from the bitter experience of their 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon that despite their current offensive they cannot ultimately control the situation. Since Israel's withdrawal under pressure in 2000, Hezbollah has bounced back and is more lethal than ever. It is likely to rebound again. It will certainly do so as long as the Palestinian dilemma remains a running sore, with the Israelis seen as the occupier and exploiter.
As Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay heads to Rome for meetings with the Americans, Saudis and others, he will carry firm direction from the Prime Minister's Office. But my hunch is Mr. Harper will continue to brood over the question.
The Lebanese government rightly claims Israel has violated its sovereignty and caused suffering beyond any real need. This should, however, be no surprise in the hard-edged world of realpolitik. The Israeli signature, when its soldiers are kidnapped, its cities shelled and its public opinion gripped by fear, is one of relentless force. The first question Mr. Harper, the Americans and our other allies should be asking themselves is whether, knowing the Jewish state's mindset, Israelis will restrain themselves if Hezbollah still finds ways to get at them despite a NATO presence along its northern border. If they do not hold back, as is more than possible, what would an international force do then?
Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora maintains that his country's sovereignty should be sacrosanct but, in fact, Hezbollah is the pre-eminent violator of that sovereignty -- not Israel. At best it operates as a state within a state, exercising virtually complete freedom of action, able to provoke international crises at will, with the complicity of the regimes in Damascus and Tehran. Many Lebanese (Christian, Sunni and Alawite) although they will not say it openly, deeply resent these jihadists. The turmoil Hezbollah creates, despite the social welfare services it provides in impoverished southern Shia communities, denies Lebanon's other groups the prospect of normal lives. Western governments should be asking themselves, before making any decision on participation, whether a NATO force could contend with such an unrestrained Hezbollah, determined to provoke Israel.
Hezbollah will continue to be a threat, despite whatever undertakings it might make to get itself out of the current mess. Thus the question of a NATO-force mandate and rules of engagement become absolutely critical. The present UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, is seen to have failed not because it has not fulfilled its mandate, but because its mandate is so weak. This cannot happen again -- and advocates of a new force know that. An operation with real teeth, however, will bring real costs in human life if part of that mandate is to disarm a rampant Hezbollah when Israel is threatened. In such a case, this force risks being viewed as an Israeli surrogate or worse, a reincarnation of the Crusades, which may be ancient history in the West but is alive in the modern Arab memory.
All in all, these are solid reasons for the Prime Minister to follow his instincts and the advice of the Department of Defence to stand down -- but whether he will do so remains to be seen. It's a given that any new peacekeeping force will be touch and go. But despite the high risks it may be the only alternative to the present crisis. Certainly, it will be another stop-gap at best.
Ultimately, for peace and stability, there will have to be a political settlement. Western countries, particularly the United States, have not played their hands well. It is both sad and ironic that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, now in the region with the hope of devising a solution, is not talking to those largely responsible for the present situation, Syria and Iran -- the very countries whose co-operation she needs. This is what happens when ideology trumps pragmatism.
A career in the Foreign Service tells me that if you want solutions you don't cut off lines of communication. It tells me that military solutions rarely solve political problems. It also counsels that sometimes countries have to take risks -- but that these risks are only acceptable when the issues are thought through thoroughly. Finally, it suggests that in some circumstances, there are simply no solutions.
Michael Bell, former Canadian ambassador to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Egypt, is Paul Martin (Sr.) scholar on international diplomacy at the University of Windsor. He is chairman of the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq.
Useless.
