The Crisis in Lebanon: The Immediate Response and How the U.S. Can Help Broker a Sustainable Peace

The recent violence, despair and devastation from the Lebanese–Israeli conflict has come at a terrible human, political, and economic cost. However, the rise in hostilities in July and August may finally focus the minds of American policy makers on a critical foreign policy decision.

Over 1,000 Lebanese civilians and 163 Israeli civilians have paid the ultimate price. The conflict has raised both the need for immediate and informed U.S. action as well as the urgency to rethink America’s foreign policy approach and engagement in the Middle East. The U.S. must ensure that its role in the region in the 21st century is part of the long-term solution and not, as it has often been, in reality and perception, part of the problem. While a robust peacekeeping operation will bring immediate and urgently needed security to southern Lebanon, a lasting approach to this crisis and others in the region will require a “grand bargain” to resolve the complex and interconnected issues that destabilize the Middle East as a whole.

Addressing the Immediate Crisis

In the short term, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice must be fully engaged in diplomatic efforts to ensure that U.N. Resolution 1701 is implemented. Specifically, the Resolution requires, inter alia:

• the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks against Israel and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations in Lebanon;

• the deployment of Lebanese forces and the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) throughout the Southern part of Lebanon and the parallel withdrawal of all Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;

• immediate international financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people;

• an increase in force strength to a maximum of 15,000 troops and mandate of UNIFIL;

• and "stress [on] the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

The U.S. must prioritize persuading nations to contribute troops to the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon before the fragile ceasefire dissolves. Much rests upon the United Nations’ ability to quickly ramp up a robust peacekeeping force that can, together with the Lebanese army, secure the southern Lebanese border with Israel. Unfortunately, nations have been reticent to engage, and the United States has ducked responsibility with U.N. Ambassador John Bolton saying that securing commitments really “is a responsibility of the Secretariat.”

It is vital that the United States immediately commit to providing significant technical and financial support to the mission and that Secretary Rice instruct Ambassador Bolton that his highest priority is procuring the force needed. The United States should also join other nations and international institutions in immediately providing resources for humanitarian relief and reconstruction in the area. Given the gravity of the situation and its implications for the entire region, the consequences of a shortsighted U.S. approach to this crisis could lead to a debacle as severe as the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

A Comprehensive Solution

Peacekeepers and humanitarian aid will provide an interim solution in Lebanon and their deployment should be seen as only the beginning of a long term, cooperative process to achieve a comprehensive solution; one that will lead to sustainable peace and security throughout the region. It is doubtful that this or other incremental steps will have a lasting impact unless U.S. policymakers answer some vital questions: Will the United States continue down a path where it neither acts as an honest broker on the global stage nor allows the United Nations to play such a role? Or will it instead utilize its leadership potential to engage and cooperate with the United Nations, regional leaders, and stakeholders on the ground to seek a multilateral agreement spanning not only Israel and Lebanon, but the entire geographic arc ranging from Turkey to India that includes the greater Middle East?

Like the U.S., the United Nations needs to be a credible neutral party. The governments of Lebanon and Israel have looked to the U.N. for and agreed to the solution brokered at the Security Council. U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has bolstered the organization’s role as an honest broker in recent weeks by traveling extensively in the region to meet with leaders that are key to ensuring that the ceasefire holds, including leaders in Palestine, Syria and Iran. This U.N. role is invaluable for the U.S. and other countries that do not have the relationships and access that allow for this type of shuttle diplomacy in the region.

The choice is stark but clear. Now more than ever, U.S. foreign policy must be based on sustainable, far-sighted solutions designed not just to mitigate the damage caused by each horrifying eruption but to address the root causes.

The United States needs to recognize that its attempt to solve the Afghanistan, Iraq, Israeli-Palestine and Lebanon crises independently of one another has failed. A similar effort to address the potential flare ups in Iran and Pakistan will also suffer the same fate. The United States must engage in a diplomatic full court press to solve these interlinked crises with the United Nations as a partner and facilitator. The current approach tolerates and even fuels a seemingly never ending series of violent incidents, in a geo-strategically critical region, that will continue to feed on each other while fanning the flames of militancy on all sides. This path ultimately threatens the national security of the United States.

American policy makers may question why the U.S. has to view and respond to this situation in a holistic way, and more importantly, why it needs the United Nations as a full partner. The second question is essentially answered by the first, namely that the Israeli-Hizbollah conflict and the invasion and brewing civil war in Iraq—the two front burner crises—are being ineffectively addressed by a siloed American foreign policy response that ignores reality; specifically that these two situations, along with a host of others are all interconnected – not merely geographically and historically, but also politically. In the current crisis alone, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iran are all linked. Each of these countries has concerns that affect and are affected by a broader set of countries. To tackle such a challenge comprehensively and sustainably the broad range of actors, including the power broker nations and regional entities, must work together to negotiate and assist implementation of a “grand bargain.”

We envision a high level U.N.-sponsored international conference that would lead to an agreement and action plan that goes far beyond one that includes the four or five Middle East countries currently foremost in the minds of U.S. foreign policy experts. The specifics of such a grand bargain should result in real regional ownership of a solution. Only by promoting a comprehensive solution that fully engages all of the region’s major powers and stakeholders can the United States hope to achieve its most pressing policy goal: peace and stability in the Middle East.

Working with and through the UN will create opportunities for dialogue that do not currently exist, in part due to the relationships that the UN Secretary General has by virtue of the position. In fact, the United States should consider a candidate’s ability to bring divergent regional players to the bargaining table as a prerequisite for the next U.N. Secretary General.

It is important to underscore that, effectively, the choice for the U.S. is between the current, counterproductive band-aid approach to each country situation or a good-faith, diligent push for a just and lasting peace for all peoples and governments from Turkey to India. For a comprehensive approach to even become a possibility, the United States must choose dialogue and responsible leadership over short-sighted partisan considerations and engage fully with key partners through a process driven by the United Nations and the U.N. Secretary General. This task is an integral foundation piece of a comprehensive, principled and cooperative U.S. foreign policy for the 21st century.


Updated August 31, 2006