Satterfield’s mission and a cautious Lebanon

The American’s willingness to act so quickly puzzled the Lebanese, given that this issue has been on hold for years, specifically since 2000, when the Israelis and the Lebanese did not agree on the delineation of the borders, and accepted the UN’s drawing of a temporary “Blue Line” while two parties settled their disputes related to at least thirteen points along the land border.

At the same time, Lebanon, which is under great economic and social pressures due to the sanctions imposed on Hezbollah by the Americans and their allies –sanctions that have a significant impact on the economy as a whole-, cannot afford to reject the American offer to put this issue back on the table. In order to avoid any pitfalls that may be hidden in the American proposal, the country’s leaders, namely Lebanese President Michel Aoun, House Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Saad Hariri, have decided to unify their stance on this matter, giving Berry the role of chief negotiator. This decision was made firstly, because for a long time the House Speaker has been following this matter, which is directly related to the issue of oil and gas resources off the Lebanese coast. Secondly, Berri is very close to Hezbollah’s Secretary General (Berri went so far as to say that he and Nasrallah are one person in two different bodies), and it is crucial at this stage of the negotiations to have Hezbollah’s approval, until now the party has been playing the role of a silent observer.

The Lebanese position is as follows: the refusal to give up the smallest inch of territory or cubic meter of water, and the request for American and UN mediation in order to avoid the trap of bilateral negotiations. From this fundamental position, Lebanon would be willing to start discussions with the presence of an American mediator and under a UN umbrella. A few months ago, the Americans refused to countenance the United Nations’ participation, and during his meeting with the delegation the Lebanese parliament sent to Washington, David Satterfield made very harsh remarks on the subject, stating that if the Lebanese want the participation of the UN, they must know that it will only have a logistical role, in other words, a role different from the one it played in 2000 which resulted in the drawing of the Blue Line.

Apparently, the US administration has changed its mind, and now UN participation in the planned negotiations has been approved by both the Americans and the Israelis. This is the first positive point that the Lebanese should put to use. The UN should serve as a framework in the coming negotiations. But it is still unclear whether this will happen through UNIFIL, or via the representative of the UN Secretary General in Lebanon, in other words, we do not know whether the military or civilians will be representing the international organization during this process. This point should be decided quickly, but it requires a meeting of the Security Council.

According to sources close to Ain el-Tine, we are not there yet. That the negotiations will happen under the American and UN’s umbrellas is a given. Another point also agreed on is that both the land and sea disputes should be resolved together. During the preliminary meetings, the separation of the land and sea disputes was discussed t, as was the creation of a kind of “maritime Blue Line”, similar to the land’s Blue Line, which would leave some critical issues on the side, and allow the Lebanese and the Israelis to start exploration work for oil and gas and temporarily avoid sensitive issues. This idea seems to have been abandoned, the House Speaker refusing to dissociate the sea and the land borders, and resorting to temporary solutions, as was the case of the Blue Line, which could last indefinitely, and could hinder Lebanon’s process of exploiting its own resources; keeping in mind that bloc 9 – 860km2 of which is a subject of litigation between the Lebanese and the Israelis – could be a very rich source of oil and gas.

On the other hand, the process is stumbling on one issue before it even starts: the expected duration of the negotiations. The Israelis want to limit negotiations to six months, while Lebanon does not want a time limit. What will happen if in six months no agreement is reached? Do we give up on the negotiations? According to Lebanon, it would be neither wise nor efficient to fix a short time limit for such crucial and important talks.

Moreover, and according to the same sources at Ain el-Tine, the US wish to move quickly aims to serve Israeli interests. First, because the international companies who will handle the exploration, the drilling, and the extracting of the oil and gas resources, will not do so as long as there is any instability in the area.

Second, because up until now, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has failed to form a new government, and will organize new legislative elections, which this time he might not win. This is why the current American administration wants to act quickly, to allow Netanyahu to score a pivotal point in front of his voters.

For its part, Lebanon is not concerned with Israel’s internal timetables.

It prefers to move slowly so as not to make any mistakes, especially as the timing coincides with regional tensions, leaks in the notorious American plan regarding the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the US’s openly declared wish to fight Hezbollah’s influence.

(This article was originally published in French in L'Orient-Le Jour on the 5th of May)

Contentieux frontalier : Satterfield transmet au Liban la réponse d'Israël