Western Diplomats: Tripoli Clashes Do Not Undermine Lebanon’s Stability
A Lebanese army soldier stands near a tank in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli on October 29, 2013 as army deployed following a week of clashes between supporters and opponents of Syria's regime. (Photo: AFP - Ibrahim Chalhoub)
In a recent meeting between Western ambassadors and Lebanese officials, the latter sensed a varying degree of concern on the diplomats’ part over the recent clashes in Tripoli. The diplomats see such events as inconsequential, with little risk to stability. Overall, the diplomats did not give their Lebanese interlocutors the impression that Tripoli was a priority or a source of much concern for them.
Some of the diplomats linked the incidents in Tripoli to multiple reports about an imminent Syrian army offensive in the mountains of Qalamoun, which could have reverberations in Lebanon, especially along its eastern border.
The diplomats’ questions centered mostly on exploring official Lebanese attitudes on the impact of recent security-related developments on the country’s stability, and whether they posed a serious risk.
The Lebanese officials made the following remarks on statements made by the Western ambassador:
1. As grave as they are, the incidents in Tripoli, for the diplomats, are a tractable issue, and have not yet reached a crisis point. It is uncertain whether or not they would undermine overall stability in the country, according to the ambassadors. Most of the city’s residents are moderates, they said, and would back a political solution. But on the other hand, the ambassadors voiced their concerns regarding the unchecked growth of extremist Salafi groups in Syria that possess huge stockpiles of weapons, and their attempts to infiltrate Lebanon. Some diplomats said they feared a repeat of what they had warned Lebanese officials against more than a year ago, when they shared their views on Syria.
Back then, the ambassadors defended the Syrian opposition, which they believed represented the majority of Bashar al-Assad’s opponents, as opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood and the extremist groups, which they claimed at the time were small in number and had little influence. That is, before they were surprised to see the equation turned upside down over the subsequent few months, with these groups becoming the strongest armed factions on the ground, while the peaceful opposition retreated to the point of disappearing. The same diplomats also said they feared the same thing that hit Syria could hit Tripoli, with extremists becoming the strongest faction, overtaking Prime Minister Najib Mikati and former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the leaders of what they termed the moderate camp in the city.
2. The armed clashes in Tripoli, they say, reflect Sunni restlessness, which the ambassadors believe is somewhat justified. They then turned to Saudi Arabia as a more interesting example for the West, citing Saudi’s rejection of the UN Security Council non-permanent seat and Saudi’s exaggerated criticism of Washington. No one – in their opinion – could ignore the Saudi frustration, which may be a reflection of Sunni restlessness in the Gulf in general over Iran’s growing power. The diplomats thus believe something similar is happening in Tripoli, but say the logic of moderation is still stronger.
3. The Western ambassadors asked the officials about their expectations for the reportedly impending battle in the Qalamoun Mountains. They were keen to verify the reports claiming the battle is certain, and also reports about the extent of Hezbollah’s participation in the battle, concluding that its occurrence would explain Iran and Saudi’s lack of interest – for the time being at least – in building bridges with one another.
However, the diplomats claimed, the outcome of the battle, which will be more political and sectarian in nature than military, will not alter the military balance of power, but would aggravate the Sunni-Shia conflict. Regardless of the results of the battle in Qalamoun, it will most definitely not lead to a political solution, in the view of the Western ambassadors, just as happened with other fierce battles fought by the regime of the Syrian president against his opponents in Homs, Hama, Aleppo, and the Damascus countryside.
Yet the Lebanese officials did not sense that the ambassadors had any particular interest in the battle in Qalamoun beyond these questions. However, what caught their attention was the ambassadors’ assertion that Lebanese politicians, especially in March 14, had spoken to them extensively about the repercussions of the battle on the security situation in Lebanon and its direct impact on Tripoli, despite the huge distance between the city and Qalamoun. They were talking about sectarian repercussions that would exacerbate armed clashes in the city.
But after conveying these politicians’ concerns, the ambassadors said that they did not necessarily share this view, and did not believe that the battle in Qalamoun would have strategic implications equivalent to the Geneva II conference, which the West believes is a true strategic goal that could lead to a political settlement of the Syrian conflict..
4. The Western diplomats believe there are a number of interactions that impact armed clashes in Tripoli, including: Iranian-Saudi; Shia-Sunni; and inter-Syrian interactions. However, the ambassadors told Lebanese officials they hoped to see a political solution reached in Tripoli and Ersal through the authorities, rather than at the hands of Lebanese factions, especially Hezbollah. They believe that Hezbollah’s attempt to impose a solution in Ersal as part of its intervention in the battle of Qalamoun would further aggravate Sunni-Shia tension, as well as unrest in Tripoli.
5. The ambassadors noted that Nabih Berri, in his capacity as a Shia leader and parliament speaker, can play a positive role by encouraging the president to convene the national dialogue, seeing as most factions, including moderate Sunni leaders, continue to have open channels of communication with him. The ambassadors urged a return to the dialogue table, and reckoned that the speaker can appreciate whether there is a need for “new rules” to manage this dialogue, or whether the old rules could still be followed.
Nicolas Nassif is a political analyst at Al-Akhbar.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Some of the diplomats linked the incidents in Tripoli to multiple reports about an imminent Syrian army offensive in the mountains of Qalamoun, which could have reverberations in Lebanon, especially along its eastern border.
The diplomats’ questions centered mostly on exploring official Lebanese attitudes on the impact of recent security-related developments on the country’s stability, and whether they posed a serious risk.
The Lebanese officials made the following remarks on statements made by the Western ambassador:
1. As grave as they are, the incidents in Tripoli, for the diplomats, are a tractable issue, and have not yet reached a crisis point. It is uncertain whether or not they would undermine overall stability in the country, according to the ambassadors. Most of the city’s residents are moderates, they said, and would back a political solution. But on the other hand, the ambassadors voiced their concerns regarding the unchecked growth of extremist Salafi groups in Syria that possess huge stockpiles of weapons, and their attempts to infiltrate Lebanon. Some diplomats said they feared a repeat of what they had warned Lebanese officials against more than a year ago, when they shared their views on Syria.
Back then, the ambassadors defended the Syrian opposition, which they believed represented the majority of Bashar al-Assad’s opponents, as opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood and the extremist groups, which they claimed at the time were small in number and had little influence. That is, before they were surprised to see the equation turned upside down over the subsequent few months, with these groups becoming the strongest armed factions on the ground, while the peaceful opposition retreated to the point of disappearing. The same diplomats also said they feared the same thing that hit Syria could hit Tripoli, with extremists becoming the strongest faction, overtaking Prime Minister Najib Mikati and former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the leaders of what they termed the moderate camp in the city.
2. The armed clashes in Tripoli, they say, reflect Sunni restlessness, which the ambassadors believe is somewhat justified. They then turned to Saudi Arabia as a more interesting example for the West, citing Saudi’s rejection of the UN Security Council non-permanent seat and Saudi’s exaggerated criticism of Washington. No one – in their opinion – could ignore the Saudi frustration, which may be a reflection of Sunni restlessness in the Gulf in general over Iran’s growing power. The diplomats thus believe something similar is happening in Tripoli, but say the logic of moderation is still stronger.
3. The Western ambassadors asked the officials about their expectations for the reportedly impending battle in the Qalamoun Mountains. They were keen to verify the reports claiming the battle is certain, and also reports about the extent of Hezbollah’s participation in the battle, concluding that its occurrence would explain Iran and Saudi’s lack of interest – for the time being at least – in building bridges with one another.
However, the diplomats claimed, the outcome of the battle, which will be more political and sectarian in nature than military, will not alter the military balance of power, but would aggravate the Sunni-Shia conflict. Regardless of the results of the battle in Qalamoun, it will most definitely not lead to a political solution, in the view of the Western ambassadors, just as happened with other fierce battles fought by the regime of the Syrian president against his opponents in Homs, Hama, Aleppo, and the Damascus countryside.
Yet the Lebanese officials did not sense that the ambassadors had any particular interest in the battle in Qalamoun beyond these questions. However, what caught their attention was the ambassadors’ assertion that Lebanese politicians, especially in March 14, had spoken to them extensively about the repercussions of the battle on the security situation in Lebanon and its direct impact on Tripoli, despite the huge distance between the city and Qalamoun. They were talking about sectarian repercussions that would exacerbate armed clashes in the city.
But after conveying these politicians’ concerns, the ambassadors said that they did not necessarily share this view, and did not believe that the battle in Qalamoun would have strategic implications equivalent to the Geneva II conference, which the West believes is a true strategic goal that could lead to a political settlement of the Syrian conflict..
4. The Western diplomats believe there are a number of interactions that impact armed clashes in Tripoli, including: Iranian-Saudi; Shia-Sunni; and inter-Syrian interactions. However, the ambassadors told Lebanese officials they hoped to see a political solution reached in Tripoli and Ersal through the authorities, rather than at the hands of Lebanese factions, especially Hezbollah. They believe that Hezbollah’s attempt to impose a solution in Ersal as part of its intervention in the battle of Qalamoun would further aggravate Sunni-Shia tension, as well as unrest in Tripoli.
5. The ambassadors noted that Nabih Berri, in his capacity as a Shia leader and parliament speaker, can play a positive role by encouraging the president to convene the national dialogue, seeing as most factions, including moderate Sunni leaders, continue to have open channels of communication with him. The ambassadors urged a return to the dialogue table, and reckoned that the speaker can appreciate whether there is a need for “new rules” to manage this dialogue, or whether the old rules could still be followed.
Nicolas Nassif is a political analyst at Al-Akhbar.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Comments