BRUSSELS – The decision last week by the 28 EU ministers for foreign affairs to put Hezbollah on the list of ‘terrorist organizations’ did not come easy. It was only after France and Germany, who had long opposed the move, finally decided to rally to the U.K., a long-time defender of the blacklisting of the Lebanese Shia organization, that they managed to find some sort of consensus.
The Hezbollah blacklisting debate has long been a divisive issue. The United States, which listed it as a terrorist organization as early as 1995, had been pushing the European Union to do the same ever since. In 2005, in particular, the George W. Bush administration strongly encouraged the Europeans to take the move, but to no avail.
In recent months, pressure from the U.S. and Israel had been mounting again; this time, the Europeans gave in, marking a major shift in EU policy in this regard.
The decision, welcomed by both the American and Israeli governments, only applies to the so-called ‘military wing’ of the organization. But although Hezbollah functions both as a political party and as a militia with thousands of armed guerrillas, the distinction between a political wing and a military one is completely artificial; it was created by the U.K. for the purpose of rallying other countries. Interestingly, this distinction is not recognized by the United States, most European governments, or even Hezbollah itself.
The move will lead to a freezing of Hezbollah’s assets in Europe with the aim of hindering its fundraising and thereby limit its capacity to act; sanctions could also include travel bans for some of the most prominent figures of the movement. It means EU officials and leaders will no longer be allowed official contacts with any of its members.
The EU was nevertheless prompt in stressing that the blacklisting of Hezbollah would not be an obstacle to dialogue with “all parties in Lebanon” nor to legitimate financial transfers and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese government. It made clear that it would maintain contact with all political parties, including Hezbollah, which is part of the country’s current government. The party, an important and widely supported representative of Lebanon’s sizeable Shia Muslim population, has reacted by saying that “you determine your delegation and we will determine who we send. If you lecture us on who can be part of our delegation, we prefer not to talk.”
Dubious reasoning
Lebanon’s caretaker foreign minister, Adnan Mansour, fears the blacklisting of Hezbollah will complicate Lebanese politics. “This will hinder Lebanese political life in the future, especially considering our sensitivities in Lebanon,” he told Reuters. “We need to tighten bonds among Lebanese parties rather that create additional problems.”
Many EU countries had resisted the move for so long over concerns that it would undermine Lebanon’s fragile stability and add tensions to the Middle East. And with the war raging next door in Syria, now more than ever Lebanon is at risk of being destabilized. What, then, has suddenly led the EU-28 to change their minds?
The EU ministers cited evidence that Hezbollah was behind the bomb attack on a bus in the Bulgarian city of Burgas last year, which killed five Israeli tourists and the Bulgarian driver. But the involvement of the Lebanese organization was, in the words of Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov himself, nothing more than an “assumption.” The investigation into the attack is still ongoing and it is impossible to predict if and when prosecutors will be ready to press charges against specific individuals. Hezbollah itself denies any involvement in the attack.
Second, if the British proposal gained urgency – and some support – in Europe in recent weeks, it is because of Hezbollah’s deeper involvement and support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against the rebels groups in that country. It is a fact that ‘terrorism’ is a much contested – and abused – word, as it has different meanings depending on who uses it. Whatever the definition, however, it appears clear that the organization’s involvement in Syria doesn’t qualify as ‘terrorism’ – the official reason for blacklisting Hezbollah.
General Michel Aoun, a former Lebanese Army Commander and now leader of the Free Patriotic Movement political party — and a Maronite Christian — has criticized the European ministers’ decision. In an open letter to the European Union, he writes that he is “choked by the decision of the EU to put Hezbollah’s military wing on the list of terrorist organizations. Indeed, this decision is in clear contradiction with the UN Charter that recognizes a natural right to self-defense, individual or collective, in case a member of the United Nations is the object of an armed aggression.” He goes on to explain why he considers Lebanon is still facing an Israeli aggression.
Different narratives of legitimacy
General Aoun puts the finger on something essential here: the way Hezbollah is seen in different parts of the world. Ever since its inception, the Shia party-cum-militia has been the object of different narratives, because in international affairs, each actor involved in a conflict produces its account of events according to its own aims and interests.
Hezbollah was born in 1982 during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Its military activity generally has been committed to the goal of ending various Israeli occupations of and attacks on southern Lebanon.
In other words, its main aim has been to drive Israel out of Lebanon and defend Lebanon’s border against any Israeli aggression. It considers that by invading Lebanon in 1982, Israel was guided by Western imperialism with the aim of reshaping the Middle East and imposing its power — hence, says Hezbollah, it was legitimate for Lebanon to resist. More importantly, Hezbollah believes its cause is just and that a majority of people in Lebanon and throughout the Arab and Muslim-majority world agree.
Israel — not to mention the United States — have always refused to admit the link between the invasion of Lebanon and the creation of Hezbollah, because establishing such a causal link would legitimate Hezbollah’s action. Therefore, the Israelis would rather describe the Shia movement as being somehow naturally prone to terrorism, thereby legitimizing their own interventions of Lebanon since their stated aim is to ensure their security.
These different actors each struggle to impose on to the international scene their own account, since this is likely to determine who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’ in the eyes of public opinion. Nations don’t only clash over land, wealth and interests — they fight to compel others to see the world as they do. Each side wants the other to accept its historical narrative.
Hence, if the world can be convinced that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, this would give Israel – and maybe others – a free hand in Lebanon. Because the justification would always be that they are fighting “terrorists,” a convenient all-encompassing excuse.
In the end, the EU’s decision is not about Hezbollah being a terrorist organization. At best, it’s about trying to please everyone, thereby confirming the bloc is a parochial fence-sitter that manoeuvres in the middle ground so as to avoid committing to anything. At worst, it signals an increased rallying behind the United States and Israel’s unilateral vision of events, not boding well for those in the Middle East who don’t share those countries’ interests and policy objectives.