Page 1 of 2 INTERVIEW Hizbut Tahrir's view on Lebanese politics
By Mahan Abedin
Osman Bakhach is the deputy chairman of the Executive Committee of Hizbut
Tahrir (HT) in Lebanon. Prior to 2007 he was in the media office of HT Lebanon.
He was born in 1960 in Tripoli, north Lebanon. He joined HT in 1977 when he was
at high school. Bakhach completed his university studies in medical engineering
and is currently the head of the biomedical engineering department at a major
hospital in Beirut.
Hizbut Tahrir was founded in 1953 in Palestine by Sheikh Taqieddin Nabhani.
Since then the party has spread all over the Muslim world and amongst Muslim
communities in the West and according to conservative estimates it has hundreds
of thousands of members worldwide. As a trans-national and Pan-Islamic party
HT is committed to re-establishing the Islamic Caliphate and as such it regards
all the nation-states and regimes in the Muslim world to be illegitimate.
Mahan Abedin: What is HT's analysis of the recent Lebanese
elections (June 2009) and its aftermath?
Osman Bakhach: Lebanese politics is intermixed with the regional
politics of the Middle East, which, in turn, reflects the chess game of
international politics and the major power's quest for domination and influence
in the region. The June 2009 election was the latest episode which showed that
Lebanon has never been a viable independent state since its creation by the
colonial French in 1920. Lebanon is the place where conflicting political
interests in the Middle East clash. Lebanese politics has always been shaped by
regional and international players, and the latest election merely confirmed
this fact.
Although the so-called 14 March coalition [led by Saad Hariri's Future
Movement] won the elections they have been unable to form the government while
the losers, the so-called March 8 coalition [led by Hezbollah] continue to
wield their veto power, which is the continuation of the status quo forged by
the Doha Agreement of May 2008. This balance of power - which flies in the face
of notions of a national unity government - reflects competing geopolitical
interests in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the Lebanese people continue to put up
with tough economic conditions and in fact their living conditions are steadily
deteriorating.
MA: Conventional wisdom in the West regards the March 14
coalition as pro-Western and conversely views the Hezbollah-led March 8
coalition as anti-Western. Does HT subscribe to this analysis?
OB: No, we don't. We consider both camps to be aligned with the
West. On the surface the opposition is regarded as anti-Western because of its
regional backers, namely Iran and Syria. Notwithstanding Syria's role as a
major power-broker in Lebanon, we need to bear in mind that when Syria moved
into Lebanon in 1975 it did so with the full backing of the United States
government. Since then the Syrian role in Lebanon has been coordinated with
that of the United States, and has fully served American interests.
MA: There has never been a conflict of interests between Syria
and the United States in Lebanon throughout this period?
OB: Not a bit!
MA: What about Iran's strategic and ideological relationship with
Hezbollah?
OB: Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran has striven to
become the dominant player in the region. Iran has given full support to
Hezbollah and recently even to Hamas. The question that we have for the Iranian
regime, which claims to be Islamic and supportive of Islamic interests on a
global scale, is where they stand vis-a-vis the American presence in the Middle
East. Our position is that without active Iranian complicity, the United States
would not have been able to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, and on that basis we
don't see any conflict between Iran and America.
MA: Does that mean that you don't see a deep rift between
Hezbollah's role in Lebanon and American interests in this country?
OB: We don't say that Hezbollah is fully aware of the grand games
being played out in the Middle Eastern setting. Hezbollah has heroically
resisted Israeli aggression in Lebanon. No one can deny the sincerity of their
sacrifice. But at the end of the day Hezbollah is no more than an instrument in
the hands of the Iranian and Syrian regimes in their complex strategic
positioning and deal making with the Americans.
MA: But surely you can't deny the fact that the Americans wish
nothing but ill-will towards Hezbollah. They would like nothing better than to
see the group disarmed and, better still, disbanded altogether.
OB: The Americans will have no problem in disarming Hezbollah
when the group's mission expires. For now and until further notice, Hezbollah
is a useful instrument in the hands of the Iranian and Syrian regimes and
ultimately the Americans' requirement to balance Israeli hegemonic ambitions in
the Middle East.
MA: Most experts believe that American and Israeli interests in
the Middle East are virtually indistinguishable and your analysis flies in the
face of all conventional wisdom.
OB: Indeed! Israel is useful as a springboard for the Western
colonial project. Let's not forget that Israel was created by the British to
serve a distinct colonial agenda. With the eclipse of British colonial
interests in the Middle East, the Israelis served US colonial interests. But we
need to bear in mind that the US has vast interests stretching from North
Africa to Central Asia, in the so-called Greater Middle East. In this vast
geo-strategic space Israel is merely a small player and American interests go
far and beyond securing the Zionist entity. This point has been underlined more
brazenly in recent years by senior American politicians and strategists who are
concerned that unconditional American support for Israel is damaging long-term
American interests in the so-called Greater Middle East region. The bi-partisan
Baker-Hamilton report (also known as The Iraq Study Group Report) of December
2006 was a case in point. Indeed, none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski [1] has
openly called for the US Air Force to shoot down any Israeli planes crossing
Iraqi air space to attack Iran.
MA: There is broad international support - in the form of United
Nations resolutions - for the disarmament of Hezbollah. Where does HT stand on
this issue?
OB: We place Hezbollah's weapons within the greater context of
fighting the Israeli aggression. We maintain that Israel is an illegal and
usurping entity and must be eliminated. In this regard any and every force that
counters the Israeli threat is legitimate and we are against their disarmament.
In short, we are against the disarmament of Hezbollah.
MA: But Hezbollah has shown a propensity to use its weapons
against internal political actors in Lebanon. Where does HT stand on the armed
conflict that erupted in Beirut and elsewhere in May 2008?
OB: Sadly, the events of May 2008 exposed the Achilles' heel of
Hezbollah. Hezbollah suffers from myopic strategic vision. The events of May
2008 exposed Hezbollah's weakness and brought its dependence on Iranian and
Syrian strategic maneuvering into sharp relief. We hope that Hezbollah learns
from its mistakes and develops a more comprehensive long-term strategy. A
strategy based upon the reversal of the colonial legacy of the Sykes-Picot
mutilation of the Muslim nation. We maintain that any other vision is doomed to
fail, and is no more than knee-jerk reaction to the rules imposed by the
Western colonial order. From the Islamic perspective, nothing can justify
Hezbollah sitting idle during the last Israeli aggression against Gaza in
December-January 2009.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
