International Involvement in Lebanon: Not only Military Aspects Count

Narcís Serra, President of the CIDOB Foundation, warned of the difficulties in achieving lasting peace in Lebanon if the international community forgets about the principles of human security. Serra made this declaration in the presentation of a round table organised by the Mediterranean Programme of the CIDOB Foundation and the European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed), in which the role of the international community in Lebanon following last summer’s conflict was analysed. 

Apart from the intervention by the President of the CIDOB Foundation, the act featured the participation of Senén Florensa, Director-General of IEMed; Mosbah al-Ahdab, Sunni MP in the Lebanese Parliament; Tomás Alcoverro, foreign correspondent for La Vanguardia in Beirut; Fred Halliday, lecturer at the London School of Economics and the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI); Álvaro Iranzo, Director-General of Foreign Policy for the Mediterranean, Middle East and Africa in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Rosa Meneses, journalist with the newspaper, El Mundo; Samir Moubarak, Lebanese Ambassador to Spain; and Nadim Shehadi, researcher at Chatham House in London. (Consult programme) On the assessment of international involvement in Lebanon, Rosa Meneses voiced her concern that militarisation may push the reconstruction agenda into the background. The El Mundo reporter, who covered the conflict in Lebanon as a foreign correspondent, also highlighted the tensions in Lebanese politics, the difficulties in creating a national government of unity, and the under-representation of the Shi’a population in the power structures. 

Along these same lines, Tomás Alcoverro warned of the risk that the UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) may be perceived as an occupying force. The correspondent for La Vanguardia contributed a pessimistic view concerning the current development of events. “The culture of consuls has been established; there is an influence of international representatives in Lebanon which is greater than what is usual in other countries”. In contrast to Alcoverro’s opinion, Mosbah al-Ahdab stressed that the UNIFIL is not seen as a force of occupation, but rather the contrary. According to the Sunni Lebanese MP, who levelled hard criticism at the interference of Syria and Iran in the conflict, “a very important segment of the Lebanese population supports UN Security Council Resolution 1701”. However, the participants did not only talk about Europe’s role in the Lebanese conflict; they also discussed the influence of other countries. Nadim Shehadi highlighted the importance of the increasingly tense relationship between Iran and the United States. 

This researcher at Chatham House in London emphasised that “European presence in UNIFIL gives a new significance to transatlantic relations, since U.S. policy in the region could affect the European soldiers deployed in Lebanon”. In addition, Fred Halliday manifested that the positions of two other important actors in the conflict, Iran and Hezbollah, are not limited to military aspects. This lecturer at the London School of Economics and the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI) described the conflict as “the first Israeli-Iranian war”, foreseeing that it would not be the last. Halliday also stated that “we are not looking at a war about borders, but rather about recognition of sovereignty”.