Perhaps the most regrettable thing about US envoy Tom Barrack’s outburst of condescension aimed at Lebanese reporters during a news conference on Tuesday was how it overshadowed some significant points he made about America’s position on Lebanon.
Although the Lebanese presidency and country's press unions understandably condemned Mr Barrack’s behaviour – imperiously scolding journalists for being “chaotic” and threatening to walk out if reporters failed to “act civilised" – it is worth looking closer at the US envoy’s remarks about disarming Hezbollah, a key priority for Lebanon’s government.
In his speech at Baabda presidential palace in Beirut, Mr Barrack said the US is offering incentives to Lebanon, including a new economic zone in the south, in exchange for Hezbollah’s disarmament. More importantly, he also highlighted the need to offer the militia’s rank-and-file members something more than unconditional surrender.
“For the south … there are 40,000 people there being paid by Iran to fight. What are you going to do with them?” Mr Barrack asked. “You want to take their weapons and say, 'by the way, go plant more olive trees?' It's not going to happen; we need to help them.”
An important reason for Hezbollah’s resilience and longevity is the fact that, as well as a military structure, it also works as a social system for many in Lebanon’s Shiite community, providing salaries to fighters and their families as well as health, education and banking services to the public, much of it with Iranian backing. To unpick this network without offering people a credible alternative could pave the way for more division and destabilisation.
Therefore, the Lebanese government’s plan to disarm Hezbollah, expected to be submitted by the end of this month, should contain measures to replace the current reality of Hezbollah as a state within a state. That as senior Washington envoy has now indicated that the US is willing to work in partnership to make that happen is an important step forward.
However, Lebanon’s leadership also cannot allow one foreign power to be replaced by another. One way to do this, and to encourage Hezbollah members’ participation in a united country, is by building up a robust, accountable military. As an institution, the Lebanese Armed Forces have the potential to command widespread public support across all communities. It is also a key manifestation of Lebanese sovereignty, something that was sadly insulted by Mr Barrack’s performance from the presidential podium on Tuesday, an incident that led to the cancellation of a planned visit to south Lebanon by the US envoy. Furthermore, Lebanon is in need of external support due to its current financial troubles, so it can to provide services in Hezbollah strongholds.
Most importantly, Israel need to stop its strikes on Lebanese soil and the occupation of territory in the south, where local people are prevented from rebuilding their homes and livelihoods, fuelling the very threat it claims to be acting against. Hezbollah insists that it remains the “resistance” to Israeli aggression but the militants’ reputation as an effective deterrent is now in pieces. Instead, Hezbollah’s continuing presence arguably provides Israel with the excuse – were it to even want one – to continue with its attacks and military occupation.
Whatever the outcome of this process, business as usual is no longer an option. Lebanon has to break free from external aggression, the influence of foreign-backed fighters and shadow states operating on its territory. No amount of condescending statements from visiting officials can obscure that reality.
