Franklin LambIt may well have seemed like a fine idea at the European Union’s
Foreign Ministers cocktail reception in Brussels, where ample alcohol
freely flowed the night before last week’s vote to blacklist the
“military wing” of Hezbollah. But shortly after the vote the EU
appeared to be experiencing a severe hangover as the stark reality of
its impetuous decision began to soak in.After periodical discussion of the US-Israel demand for blacklisting
Hezbollah for more than a year, and adding its name to the EU list of
26 organizations and 11 individuals currently being designated as
‘terrorists’ is in becoming clearer by the day the EU actions may not
have been in anyone’s interest except possibly Israel’s.
It is true there was never much enthusiasm at EU HQ for taking the
blacklisting step given some fundamental uncertainties of what it
would mean in reality. But American and British pressure, and
headlines from Israel screaming: “We told you about rising
anti-Semitism from Europe” following the EU decision to blacklist
illegal Zionist colonies implanted on the West Bank portion of
occupied Palestine, weeks earlier. To round up EU votes, the US State
Department staff designated to lobby the 28 EU foreign ministries also
focused on the unproven Bulgaria bus attack, and Hezbollah’s
involvement in Syria as reasons to go along with the blacklisting
decision which required a unanimous vote for the 28 EU countries
foreign ministers.
Minutes after the EU vote, problems began to appear and it became
obvious that buying into the US-UK Hezbollah “military wing”
blacklisting project was not an attractive product after all.
Some of the reportedly emphasized ‘talking points’ to the EU Foreign
Ministries from Washington and London included the following:
· The EU blacklisting Hezbollah’s military wing would “compensate”
Israel, as it has been demanding, for the EU vote early this month
that essentially boycotted Zionist colonial projects throughout the
illegally occupied West Bank
· The action would not affect UNIFIL or UNSCR 1701 because Hezbollah
has good relations with UNIFIL and they would likely continue to work
with the 15 European countries nations making up UNIFIL including the
five EU members ,France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Ireland who have
troops patrolling the Lebanon-Palestine border;
· Israel would be assuaged and can claim a victory in its war with Hezbollah;
· The Lebanese political parties backed by certain EU member states
and the Gulf Countries such as Saudi Arabia would benefit in terms of
establishing a new pro-March 14th dominated government, significantly
pressuring Hezbollah’s delegation in Parliament and at the ballot box
by the blacklisting—although it was not spelled out precisely how to
would work;
· US-led western aid to the Lebanese army would likely increase and
Hezbollah’s international reputation would suffer;
· There would be no damage to EU-Lebanese relations and any negative
reactions would soon dye down.
However great all this may have sounded in some capitols before the
ill-considered vote, a rude awakening began to dawn almost immediately
after the votes were counted. Criticisms, complications and doubts
from the EU action are continuing to be voiced and second thoughts are
spreading despite efforts of the EU Ambassador to Lebanon, Ms.
Angeline Eichhorst at damage control.
Even before the EU’s decision to blacklist Hezbollah’s “military wing”
was publicly released, Ms. Eichhorst sought and was granted
appointments with Hezbollah’s Ammar al-Musawi, Liaison for
International Relations, and Minister of State Mohammad Fneish, at
which she repeatedly offered assurances that the EU vote will have
zero effect on relations with the group’s “civilian wing.” She assured
the gentlemen that the EU votes do not reflect on the Lebanese
government in any way, explaining that the EU “has no problem with
Hezbollah participating in any future government.”
Ambassador Eichhorst declared that “this decision is a political
message to Hezbollah for the attack in Burgas, Bulgaria, which is a
terrorist attack on European soil.”
She added, however, that this does not reflect on the Lebanese
government in any way, explaining that the EU “has no problem with
Hezbollah participating in any future government.” After her meeting
with Hezbollah’s minister in the current caretaker government, she
stated, “Financial assistance will continue, of which Minister
Fneish’s ministry gets a sizable share, and we want for this
cooperation to continue.”
For his part, and ever gracious towards the EU’s well-meaning
Ambassador , who appeared to understand some of the diplomatic
complications the EU action unlearned, Hezbollah MP Fneish reminded
the ambassador that “Israel occupied our land for many years, and we
did not hear a single objection (from the EU) “we were careful to
maintain good relations with Europe, despite the terrible legacy
Europe left behind among our people – from the Palestinian cause to
colonialism – and despite this, you choose to remind us again of this
painful history.”
Minister Fneish reiterated Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan
Nasrallah’s statement that the European decision will provide Israel
with political cover for any future attack on Lebanon, in which case
Hezbollah would consider the EU a partner in such a crime. Eichhorst
replied that the EU decision has nothing to do with Resistance to
Israel or Lebanese sovereignty.”
Both Musawi and Fneish stood their ground in their discussions with EU
ambassador Eichhorst, insisting that the decision was an insult to the
Resistance. They dismissed the decision as politically motivated,
particularly given that the outcome of the Burgas investigation is
rooted in allegations and conjecture, even by the admission of the
ambassador herself who conceded that there are no firm results
regarding responsibility for the Burgas incident that cost innocent
lives.
Ms. Eichhorst’s hosts were reportedly far too polite to ask the EU
ambassador just how the EU planned to somehow go about distinguishing
a “civil wing” and a “military wing”.
And they are not alone in appearing a bit puzzled. According to a
lawyer at the American Society of International Law in Washington DC,
the EU decision was a big mistake from an international law standpoint
and could be an international lawyer’s worst nightmare or a dream come
true. Which would depend if the lawyer was representing the EU in
trying to unravel the civil-military conundrum or advising thousands
of EU member states businesses and agencies wanting to continue any
business with the Lebanese government, UNIFIL, or countless NGO’s who
regularly interact with Hezbollah.
“It’s a real legal mess!” the ASIL source explained, as he described
the legal confusion the EU action caused. “The best thing for EU
credibility and international relations right now on this subject
would be for the EU to forget what it did and to desist from any
implementation whatsoever. And then let the designation be removed
after the six months trial period as provided by EU regulations.
Otherwise, their decision will swamp courtrooms and complicate Middle
East-European political and economic relations with challenges from
all points on the compass with uncertain outcomes to say the least.”
It is not only Hezbollah, the leader of the National Lebanese
Resistance and American international lawyers who have expressed
concerns about the EU action last week. It seems that nearly everyone
else does too and this reaction is adding to the EU’s ‘morning after’
queasiness.
Many citizens of Lebanon are expressing concern that the EU brush
stroke aimed at Hezbollah’s “military wing” may tar them as well due
to the ‘terrorism’ label toxicity these days. A Sunni taxi driver
wondered if his children could now get visas to Europe because of the
ruling. Lebanon is very sensitive to the issue of Visas as they see
fellow citizens are being forced out of Gulf countries due to
fabricated claims of association with Hezbollah. In these countries
hundreds of thousands of Lebanese have had visas for decades. It is
the uncertainly among many-understandably paranoid Lebanese living and
working abroad than is causing near panic among some in Lebanon.
It’s hard to find in Lebanon, even among Hezbollah detractors, a
political party that is publicly endorsing the EU decision because
they basically see no advantage for Lebanon of their own tightly
controlled sects, whether Christian, Muslim, or Druze.
On 7/27/13 Former premier Fouad Saniora, head of al-Mustaqbal
parliamentary bloc, no friend of Hezbollah, voiced “concern and regret
over the reasons that led the European Union to take the decision of
putting Hezbollah’s so-called military wing on its terror list.”
Saniora added in a statement released from his party’s media office:
“We had commented on this issue in the bloc’s statement and voiced our
regret and also our concern over the reasons that led the EU to take
such a decision, especially that we in Lebanon have ties of solid
friendship with 28 European countries, and thus none of us would have
liked to see this happening.”
Saniora’s friend and colleague, Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel
argued over the week-end that the European Union’s decision to
blacklist Hezbollah’s military wing is “ambiguous,” pointing out that
it will have a negative impact on the country. In an interview with
Voice of Lebanon radio (100.5) he argued that “The decision confused
the Lebanese situation and will constitute negative repercussions on
all matter especially the cabinet formation process,” Gemayel said. He
pointed out that the decision targets Hezbollah members who his party
considered “ghosts,” saying: “The members that are responsible for
Hezbollah’s military action are unknown.”
Even Israeli officials have problems with the EU’s decision. Yisrael
Beiteinu Chairman and MK Avigdor Lieberman slammed the EU’s decision
to put military wing of Hezbollah on terrorist list, saying that not
only military wing, but the entire organization should be blacklisted.
“
As usual, Lieberman found some antisemitism lurking among the
Europeans, claiming that they were satisfied with going only halfway,
and like the West Bank Settlements EU decision, the EU wants to punish
not the terrorists but those (like-Israel!) who reject terrorism and
fight it. Half a dozen other Israeli officials including the ever
garrulous Shimon Peres chimed in to form a chorus condemning the EU.
Far be it for this observer to advise the European Union’s Foreign
Ministry or to promote an American association’s legal analysis and
advice. However, the American Society of International Law lawyer,
quoted above, makes a valid point.
The best move for the EU now, as it tries to recover from the current
self-inflicted debacle is to do nothing to inflame the situation by
cooking up some dubious terrorist lists. Rather, in six months the EU
should assure that this month’s blacklisting decision acquiesced in
under US-Israel pressure, lapses. – Eurasia Review
