|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
National Defense College of the Philippines |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EXECUTIVE POLICY BRIEF
Philippine Perspective on the Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict* August 2006
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Click here for the PDF Version
Background on the conflict A month-long conflict in
the Lebanese border started when Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers in a
cross border raid in 12 July 2006.
Israel retaliated by launching air strikes and imposing blockade in
Southern Lebanon. Last 14 August
2006, a ceasefire agreement brokered by the United Nations took effect. Hezbollah is a legitimate
political party in Lebanon with a mass base and complex organization and structure
which includes political and development components and an armed wing called
the “Islamic Resistance,” regarded as the most powerful militia in the Middle
East. However, Hezbollah is
considered as a terrorist organization in full by the United States, the
Netherlands and Canada, and in part by the United Kingdom and Australia. Strategic Assessment:
The crisis is likely to escalate Ceasefire will not hold
up The fragile ceasefire is
characterized by sporadic attacks by both parties. Israel and Hezbollah
maintain military capabilities to launch another round of attacks.
Hezbollah’s psychological victory over Israel will embolden it to retaliate
should Israel attack again. When Israel left Lebanon in 2000, Arab states
considered it as an erosion of Israeli deterrence. For Israel, the July
2006 conflict was meant to regain a sense of respect, an issue which is
larger than border and missile concerns. At the same time,
traditional anti-Hezbollah forces in Lebanon have stepped up criticisms
against Hezbollah and its patrons, Iran and Syria. This opens up the
possibility of heightened antagonism and deeper fissures within Lebanese
society.
Hezbollah has repeatedly
defied UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and faced no serious consequences
from the international community for failing to disarm. It is reported
that the Lebanese government concluded a deal with Hezbollah which allowed
the latter to retain its structure and equipment in Southern Lebanon discreetly.
Currently, the Lebanese
military is incapable of gaining full control of Southern Lebanon. It
is weak despite training, funding and military support from the US, France
and Egypt. As long as Iran and Syria will continue their financial,
technical and moral support, Hezbollah will remain strong, both militarily
and politically. UNIFIL is greatly
challenged
The second
UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL2), the guardian of the ceasefire,
lacks a clear mandate and adequate manpower to carry its mission. Its predecessor, UNIFIL 1 has been
criticized as a failure during its 28-year existence. The Three O’s of
Philippine National Interest The
Lebanon crisis brings to the fore once again the country’s vulnerability to
instability in the Middle East, central to which are three fundamental
interests, namely, the Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), Oil, and the
Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC). OFWs
Despite pronouncements by the government that it does not promote overseas employment as a means
to sustain economic growth and achieve national
development, the deployment of Filipino migrants has
been a de facto policy that has kept the national economy
afloat amid the countless oil shocks, regional
financial crisis and other fluctuations in the international
economic
system. The large volume of OFWs especially in the maritime sector
is well recognized as the country’s concrete
contribution to the global economy. According
to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), the number of
documented OFWs has exceeded the one million mark
last year, registering a total of 1.205 million. Of the 750,000 land-based OFWs deployed as new hires and rehires,
half of them went to the Middle East alone. In fact, among the top
10 destinations for newly-hired OFWs, 6 are Arab countries with Lebanon ranking 8th. There are an estimated 30,000 OFWs in Lebanon,
three- fourths (25,000)
of whom work as domestic helpers and the rest
working in hotels or UN missions. Geographically, 68% (17,769) of the OFWs can be found in the
capital city of Beirut with around 2,000 more OFWs spread across
southern Lebanon in the cities of Zahle, Sidon, Jazzin, Ez Zahrani, Tyre, and
Noquora. Since, the Philippine
government declared alert level 4 in Lebanon requiring the mandatory
evacuation of all Filipinos from the country, a total of 6,143 OFWs or 20.47 % of the estimated number of OFWs in
Lebanon have been repatriated. With the ceasefire taking effect, most OFWs
refuse to return home despite the clear danger posed on their lives due to
economic reasons.
In 2005, OFW remittances posted a record of 10.3 billion dollars,
a 15.38% increase from the previous year.
The Middle East accounts for 13.3 % of the total OFW remittances in 2005
and ranks as the 3rd top source of remittance next to the United
States and Europe. Oil
The Philippines remains highly dependent on oil for its energy needs and the Middle East
continues to be its primary provider accounting for 92.8 % of
the country’s total crude oil imports. At present, the
Philippines sources its crude oil from 6 major oil exporters in the world.
However, 2 Middle East countries already account for 81
% of our oil imports, namely, Saudi Arabia (56 %) and
Iran (25 %). Thus, conflicts in the
Middle East make the country vulnerable not only to disruptions in
the supply of oil but also to price fluctuations in the world
market. OIC and the Mindanao
Peace Process The country’s interest in
relation to the OIC is not as well articulated as its interests on the
welfare of OFWs and on sustainable energy sources. However, whatever decisions we make with regard to finding
permanent solutions in the Middle East will always have to consider their impact on our own significant Muslim
population. Based on various
government pronouncements, a permanent observer seat of the country in the
OIC is crucial to a lasting resolution of the conflict in the Southern
Philippines. It is this same principle that has guided the country in
actively seeking the support of the 57- member countries of the OIC in its
bid for inclusion in the organization.
The OIC provides
significant support to the numerous development projects being undertaken in
Mindanao. Likewise, it performs the
important role of brokering peace negotiations between the government and the
secessionist groups such as the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Since 2001, the OIC and
the countries in the Middle East have played an increasingly significant role in preventing the
radicalization of our own Muslim communities. The support of Middle East
countries to the Philippine government is a crucial element in curbing the
rise of radical Islam in the country and in stemming the flow of funds to radical
Islamic groups such as the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and the Rajah Sulayman
Islamic Movement (RSIM). Recommendations
The recent conflict in the
Middle East underscores the importance of the region to the Philippines for
three reasons: the presence of a significant Muslim population in the
country, the country’s need for oil, and the safety of OFWs. At the same time, the
underlying factors of the Lebanon conflict have deep historical roots. As such,
the various courses of action identified to address immediate concerns such
as the evacuation of OFWs in Lebanon need to fall under the scope of more
strategic and far-ranging solutions.
1. Adopt
a Comprehensive "Middle East" Policy
Click here for the
PDF Version Return to NDCP
Home
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
