National Liberation Movements, Influenced by Post 9/11 Events; Case Study: Lebanon’s Hezbollah Alireza Rahimi * MA of Defensive & Strategic Studies, Researcher at comprehensive University of Imam Hossein.

Mohammad Hossein Salahshour MA of political Sciences.

*Corresponding author: kparahimi@ihu.ac.ir Keywords Abstract Terrorism National Liberation Movements Fighting Terrorism Lebanon’s Hezbollah Movement

Terrorism is a phenomenon which has experienced several changes during its evolution. Along with its evolution, fighting terrorism has seen several changes as well. After September 11th, 2001, suppressing terrorism was accepted as a dominant world approach in fighting terrorism. As a result, the liberation movements, which were fighting against occupation, colonization, and racial segregation within their country’s legal framework, were affected by this approach. Since then, some liberation movements have been under pressure because world powers mapped out dual approach against terrorism, based on their interests. These movements were pressured since their policies did not align with western governments’. Hezbollah movement was not an exception; it was accused of terrorism for its anti-western approach and armed fights against Israel. This paper studied Hezbollah within the world’s frameworks for fighting terrorism. It has been affected by post September 11th process of world’s fighting terrorism. In order to dismiss accusations, Hezbollah has made a functional change in itself by more participation in political, cultural, and economic arenas. This helped it reduce the pressures and introduce itself as a public, nationalist, and effective party in Lebanon, while it sustained its military and ideological nature. This paper intends to explain the anti-terrorist process after September 11th and analyze its influence on Lebanon’s Hezbollah, using a descriptive-analytic methodology, and library sources.

1. Introduction On the onset of third millennium, while the world was released from traditional and political divisions and moved ahead in hope of development, advance, democracy and human rights, justice, and domination of law in the international community, it faced a phenomenon whose significance had not been understood due to the lack of common feeling, despite it had occurred before. September 11th terrorist attacks in the United States made the international community conclude that terrorism is really “a threat against world peace and security”, although there was not an agreed definition of terrorism. Although nobody doubted they were terrorist attacks. Terrorism also has changed from an insignificant security issue into a strategic security issue due to the probable relation between terrorism and technology. Currently, countries, the United Nations, and other international and regional organizations define terrorism differently, based on their understanding, interests, values, and culture. After 9/11, the phenomenon of modern terrorism and fighting against it have become the basis and main axis of international relations, as well as political, military, economic, and even cultural attitude of international players in the global scale. Consequently, the military structure of current international arena has been formed aligned with fighting against terrorism. Accordingly, the majority of states have acted to fight with this phenomenon, to the extent that a new variable called ‘fighting with terrorism’ has entered the international arena. But significantly, actions should be targeted, aligned with the powers interests, and create limitations for freedom movements. Moreover, actions should introduce anti-imperialist movements as terrorist groups. Hezbollah is active in Lebanon as a political party. It also has military activities in order to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence and also to release lands occupied by Israel. Putting pressure on Hezbollah is a good example of the double standard which exists in fighting against terrorism. The main question is what have been the effects of post-9/11 pressures and limitations placed on Hezbollah on its activities and attitudes. In order to answer the above question, this article intends to examine post 9/11 attitude of fighting against terrorism and to describe Hezbollah’s different political, cultural, social, and economic activities in the period after 9/11. In recent years, pressures on Hezbollah have been escalated due to 33-days war with Israel, the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the court for this assassination. These events also challenged Hezbollah’s existence. Therefore, studying Hezbollah’s actions in domestic and international arena and its change of attitudes is of great significance. Furthermore, Hezbollah was allegedly accused of assistance with the assassination. Four member of Hezbollah were summoned to the court to answer the accusation against them. Finally, the court called Hezbollah a terrorist group. It also said Hezbollah is forbidden of any activities in domestic and international arenas. So the current research is necessary to prove Hezbollah’s functional change. It is also necessary because of Hezbollah’s activities in the framework of legal ad more legitimate institutions when Hariri’s court is continued.

2. Theoretical background This paper intends to use the theory of structure-agent and analyze the cause and effect relation between Lebanon’s Hezbollah as an agent and the process of fighting terrorism in the international community in the form of structure. The structuralist view of structure-agent places the importance on structure and seeks to describe political and social events and process according to the performance of invisible social and political structures, which merely players are their carriers. Structuralism offers a view in which structure is mostly limitative and even determinant of the agent. In structuralism, specifications are not based on motives, wills, strategies, and actions of the agents because these factors are considered as the product of structures which are finally determining. Instead, the concept of causality should emerge from the consideration of complicated interaction or being excessively determinative of structures and systems which have relative independence. [17] From the viewpoint of Fridman and Star, we can name three characteristics of awareness, power, and deliberate selection in the conceptualization of agent. Awareness can be considered as the most primary and original feature of agent. Giddens considers the perceptive

Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci., Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015. pp. 323-329

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Scienceswww.tijournals.com

ISSN:

2306-7276

Copyright © 2015. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

ability as anything which players know or believe to be achieved from its production and reproduction. The main example here is the accessible tacit and argumentative knowledge. Awareness and insight make two other features of agent, power and selection, possible. The power to select and the power to affect the processes of social actions need awareness and insight about the situation. From Giddens’ standpoint, the concept of agent is related to power; agent means man’s ability to do something which itself includes not to do something. Fridman and Star believe that the feature of ‘selection’ contains needs, values, interests, the right to select, and decision-making procedures, as the following diagram shows. [27]

Diagram 1. Features of the agent According to the theory of agent-structure, there is always a relation between the agent and the operational environment. The agent is affected by the environmental situation, and consciously seeks to adapt purposefully to the environment in order to achieve the goals and promote national interests. Whatever attracts the agent in the process of adaptation involves adopting desirable procedures and using the opportunities in the operational environment in order to achieve the goals. Bourdieu thinks that structuralism involves the belief in the existence of objective structures, which are independent from awareness and inclinations of the agents; despite their performances, these structures produce limitations for agents’ activities or conduct their behaviors. [8] The global process of fighting terrorism, which is represented in the resolutions and statements of the General Assembly or Security Council of the United Nations, is like a structure which affects Lebanon’s Hezbollah as an agent which possesses three features of awareness, power, and selection.

3. The meaning of Terrorism The word ‘terrorism’ is derived from the verb ‘terror’ which means “producing intimidation and fear among people” or “threaten others.” Oxford Dictionary defines it “intense fear; a person or thing which produces intense fear.” [22] Despite several decades of academic literature on terrorism, there is not a comprehensive definition. However, it seems Paul Pillar offered the most comprehensive definition of terrorism. He believes that “terrorism is a pre-planned violence, with political inclination, against non-military targets, by clandestine agents and sub-national groups, in order to influence the audience.” [14] Although terror and its consequences have a long history, we can find the historical root of terrorism after the French Revolution as well as the ascendancy of Jacobean Administration. After the French Revolution, the growth of anti-capitalist ideologies like Marxism and Communism made terrorism close to its contemporary meaning. Apart from the growth of revolutionary terrorism, the Principle of Self-Determination, which was supported by European countries and the US to help Ottoman Empire and Hapsburg in Europe collapse, paved the way for separatist terrorism to grow. Therefore, two revolutionary organizations in Macedonia and Bosnia, Inner Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and Yound Bosnia, were among the pro-independence movements which use terrorist actions to achieve their goals. The main terrorist attack in this period was the assassination of Habsburg Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the crown prince of Hapsburg Empire, in Sarajevo by Gevrilo Princip, a member of Young Bosnia Organization, on June 6th, 1914. This assassination helped the WWI break out. Since then, the international community has seen many terrorist acts which targeted many kings, presidents, ministers, public officials, and state and public organization; among them were Alexander, King of Yugoslavia, Louie Bartho, French Foreign Officer. 1930s was a turning point in international community’s attempt to fight terrorism. ‘Terrorism’ was firstly entered legal texts in debates and talks in the Conference of “equalization of plenary laws” in 1930 in Poland, Warsaw. [28] 3.1. International Community’s Legal Approaches towards Fighting Terrorism Fighting terrorism, at the regional or international level, has passed several stages so far. Generally, there are three definite approaches to fighting terrorism, each of which was used more in a period of time: 3.1.1. Prevention Approach Prevention Approach is one of the oldest approaches to fighting terrorism, which is the basis of 13 UN conventions and resolutions up to beginning 1990s. In fact, this approach seeks to find the root of terrorism. The first UN resolution based on this approach is Resolution 3034 which concerns itself with the issue of the relationship between countries, makes colonialism illegitimate, repeals segregation laws, and encourages countries to take some considerations to some points in their foreign policies. [1] Prevention approach has two parts; the first part is extralegal, which concerns the causes of terrorism and ways to prevent it. Some causes of terrorism are poverty, lack of development, segregation, dictatorships, and violating of minority rights. Apparently, people use violent measures which are considered terrorist acts, if they do not achieve their goals via legal procedures. The second part is response to terrorist acts. It is always predicted that terrorist groups and organizations intend to challenge the existing order in the society, having excessive demands. In such conditions, the prevention approach is to enact practical measures in order to find and prevent terrorist acts, instead of adopting a passive and reactive approach. Adopting a practical and active approach to fighting terrorism has been emphasized since it was found that terrorists can have access to weapons of mass destruction. [2] Generally, it can be said that prevention approach seeks to find the causes of terrorism which have been controversial issues.

Agent

Power

Selection

Awareness/Ability to Interpret

Agent

Decision-Making Procedure

Right to Select

Needs

324 Alireza Rahimi *, Mohammah Hossein Salahshour

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

3.1.2. The Law Enforcement Paradigm The Law Enforcement paradigm was mostly created in the third committee of UN Human Rights Council from 1993 to 2000. This paradigm turns a blind eye to the roots and causes of terrorism and focuses on its criminal act. The paradigm considers terrorist acts solely as criminal acts which should be sued, prosecuted, and punished via internal, legal, executive, and police mechanisms [29]. Investigation, prosecution, and detainment are the main mechanism of the Law Enforcement Paradigm [23]. State officials are strictly prohibited from any “arbitrary measures” by highly supportive standards. Compared to other paradigms and approaches to fighting terrorism, the Law Enforcement Paradigm is precise and limitative; that is why that some legal experts frankly speak about the insufficiencies of it and suggest other paradigms like Armed Conflict Paradigm. They believe that fighting terrorism spoiled citizens’ freedom. Governments restrict freedom of speech and information under the pretext of fighting terrorism. They interfere with people’s private lives and violate their privacies. Moreover, rights of many prisoners as well as people who are accused of terrorism are violated. Therefore, such concerns are among the consequence of adopting the Law Enforcement Paradigm. 3.1.3. Measures to Eliminate Terrorism The paradigm of Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism appeared in 2001 and it is still the world’s dominant paradigm of fighting terrorism. It tries to include major elements of two previous paradigms; consequently, its bases are United Nations Charters’ principles and objectives, UN Declaration of Human Rights, Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security, definition of invasion, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Vienna Declaration, The World Conference on Human Rights, and International Convention of Human Rights [11]. Also, this paradigm uses the mechanisms of UN security councils. Since the beginning of 1990s, the UN Security Council introduced terrorism as threat to world peace and security in general and special terms, based on its intensity and international consequences. But from the outset of 21st century, it opened a new chapter in counter-terrorism procedures. Resolutions 1368 and Resolution 1373, which consider international terrorism “a threat to international peace and security” regardless of its intensity and consequences, is an example of the new era in counter-terrorism policies. The resolutions require a committee formed by the 15 members of UN Security Council. The committee supervises the implementation of related UNSC resolutions, especially Resolution 1373, by all countries, not merely UN members. These resolutions caused a wave of attitudes to principal norms of international laws in the contemporary era, yet the dual movement of change and resistance is still continuing [30]. ‘Measures to Eliminate Terrorism’ is a paradigm which underlines destroying terrorism; it introduces terrorism as a criminal act. It allows the killing and captivation of terrorist agents; therefore, human rights is of secondary importance and can be virtually ignored. The solution to tackle terrorism is military, intelligence, and police measures. Also, in this paradigm, terrorism is mostly discussed in the Sixth Committee and the Security Council, so all UNSC resolutions about terrorism are according to the Paradigm of Measures to Eliminate Terrorism. 3.2. The International Counter-terrorism Measures Taken by Community Since 1963, the international community has passed and issued 13 international legal documents about fighting terrorism. These documents are drafted and produced under the supervision of the UN, the affiliated organizations, and also World Agency of Nuclear Energy and the right to join them are still reserved. The conventions are sorted in seven categories: international conventions and the related protocol to fight aviation terrorism, conventions and the protocol to fight maritime terrorism, international conventions on fighting illegal acts against freedom and individuals’ security, conventions on fighting terrorism and materials with dangerous powers, conventions on fighting terrorist bombing, international conventions on fighting with funding terrorism, and conventions on fighting nuclear terrorism. Moreover, the conventions passed by regional organizations like the Organization of American Countries, the Islamic Conference Organization, the Arab League, Commonwealth Countries, etc. has offered some definitions of terrorism and passed some laws to fight it. General Assembly of UN and UN Security Council also has taken some actions; from 1969 to January 2001, General Assembly of the United Nations has totally issued 16 recommendations for preventing world terrorism. In two periods after September 11th, the UN Security Council had played a role in combating terrorism. In fact, the UN Security Council’s role in fighting terrorism started before 9/11, four years after Flight 103 of Pan-American airplane in Scotland in 1988 and death of some American and Britain citizens, by issuing Resolution 731 and Resolution748 [7]. But after 9/11, the Security Council has played a more active role in fighting terrorism. It issued Resolution 1368, a day after the event. It can be said that the most crucial point in this resolution is the UNSC’s emphasis on identifying the right of self or collective-defense according to the UN Charter [21]. It seems the UN Security Council has tacitly acknowledged the US and many western countries’ viewpoint of terrorist acts as a kind of “armed attack” or “military aggression”. Identifying terrorism as armed attack allows the countries, based on Article 51 of UN Charter, to use military forces to defend themselves [7]. On September 28th, 2001, the Security Council passed Resolution 1373. This resolution has made a single set of commitments for all 191 members of the United Nat ions. These commitments are beyond counter-terrorism conventions and protocols which are signed by a few countries. The new commitments are obligatory for all countries, regardless of their commitments to above conventions. It was an unprecedented action in the procedure of the UN Security Council. Resolution 1373, like Resolution 1368, was issued in the UNSC unanimously, with all 15 members votes for, in the framework of 7th Chapter of the UN Charter. Generally, UN programs for the elimination of terrorism are developed according to 5 principle axes: Preventing individuals from using or sponsoring terrorism; Preventing terrorist from any access to funds and devices; Supporting countries to increase their capabilities of fighting terrorism; Making countries not support terrorism by offering practical guarantees (like economic sanctions, and any strict measures), supervising the implementation of treaties and resolutions issued by the UN, and requiring countries to uphold international laws and regulations; Fighting against terrorism considering the general theme of the Declaration of Human Rights [3].

4. National Liberation Movements Since the appearance of the principle of self-determination and the end of the colonial era were taken considerations and liberation movements appeared in the international community, different definitions and interpretations were offered to know them before because western governments define these movements according to their interests, which ended to suppress them [24]. Third world countries and socialist states tried to offer comprehensive, complete, and acceptable definitions, in the framework of the General Assembly of the United Nations, in order to find a valid position in the international community. “Nations are liberation movements “when they are under the yoke of foreign or racial colonial powers and have presentable and justifiable political organizations” [16], that is, “organized battles of oppressed people which are done to achieve independence against all forms of Imperialism and Neo-colonialism” are liberation battles. This issue is discussed in the United Nations: supporting the liberation movements,

325 National Liberation Movements, Influenced by Post 9/11 Events; Case Study: Lebanons Hezbollah

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

the General Assembly of the United Nations tried to offer a logical definition of legitimate and legal justification of the pro-liberation battles in the international era. Accordingly, the General Assembly of the United Nations calls a movement a “liberation movement,” when they try to achieve autonomy, freedom from colonialism, foreign occupation, and apartheid regimes, and get the right to determine their destiny. The assembly emphasizes on the right of nations to have autonomy, as a principle, and the right of colonial lands to become autonomous [13]. 4.1. Distinction of Terrorism from Liberation Movements It is more than half a century that international terrorism and liberation movements are intermingled in the political literature and the border between them are not definite since the international community has not found and offered exact criteria and regulations to define them. In fact, the distinction between international terrorism and liberation movements depends on political interests and expediencies. That is why some governments call liberation and pro-independence movements’ fighting terrorism acts. Some others know these movements’ activities legitimate. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish liberation movements which are supported by people and terrorist groups which are not legitimate in the international community. The main obstacle to reach a consensus on a comprehensive definition of terrorism in the last decade is without doubt the issue of distinguishing terrorist acts and liberation fighting. Today, it is apparent that liberation movements cannot reach their goals by performing terrorist acts. This has been verified by the international community [10]. The international community has given an international position to liberation movements wanted to require them obey to international regulations on armed conflicts, especially the Geneva Convention, for giving a set of rights and privileges to them. Therefore, we should never study and examine terrorism and liberation movements in the same context. These two are completely different. It fact, it can be said that the border between liberation movements and terrorism is a continuum, in which there is a degree of overlap. The continuum is rooted in the essence of the action, that is, ‘violence’, which is done against people by extra-national actions whose motivations are political, ethnic, religious, and social [18]. Both liberation movements and terrorism seek to make huge changes in their particular countries or in the international conditions: that is why the liberation movements are misinterpreted. On the other hand, it was one of the greatest successes of the third world countries that in 1977 the first protocol of the amendment to the Geneva Convention (1949) recognized the liberation movements to use force to achieve their goals only if they obey the Human rights and laws of armed conflicts. According to Article 1, Clause 4 of the first protocol (about supporting the victims of international armed conflicts) of the amendment to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the armed conflicts in which nations fight against the colonial powers, foreign occupiers, or apartheid regimes for their right of self-determination are considered as international conflicts. Consequently, liberation movements, like governments, must obey all rules and regulations, related to the Human Rights, in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949and the second protocol of the Amendment (Clause 3, Article 96, 1st Protocol, four Geneva Conventions of 1949). They must do their military actions according to the above rules, like to avoiding deliberate attack to non-military people of targets, and obey the principle of distinction between non-military people and targets. Yet, terrorist attacks are mainly done arbitrarily against innocent people and no-military targets, mostly in peace time.

5. Lebanon’s Hezbollah Movement Lebanon’s Hezbollah Movement is one of the most original intellectual-social movements in the contemporary era. Hezbollah was formed and entered political, cultural, and social equations in early 1980s, inspired by the Islamic Revolution in Iran and its leader, Imam Khomeini. It is currently a role model for other freedom fighters in the world. 5.1. Lebanon’s Hezbollah, before 9/11 The formation of Hezbollah was contemporary to the civil war and the conflict between revolutionary and radical groups in Lebanon. In this period, Hezbollah’s way of using political violence was different from other groups and parties in Lebanon. It used coercive acts against military targets in a targeted, creative, and planned ways. In 1980s, Hezbollah was trying to expell Israel, the US, France, and the allies from Lebanon, bring the Falange to trial, and bring complete freedom for the Lebanese nation [4]. At domestic level, Hezbolla tried for the political regime change and at the regional level, it wanted Palestine to be released from Zionists. It also opposed foreigners’ interference in the Middle East issues. In 1990s, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah was appointed as the secretary general of Hezbollah as a result of the new political atmosphere in the region. The National Reconciliation Accord (the Taif Accord), which was a new era in Lebanon’s political atmosphere, also affected Hezbollah’s political attitudes. It adapted its political stance according to the current realities. New expressions were created in the organizational structure of the party, that is, five Jihadi, Political, Operational, Parliamentary, and Judiciary Councils were formed [13]. The fresh political atmosphere in the region was hugely affected by the end of Iran-Iraq Wars, Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait, a new round of Israeli-Arab Talks in Madrid Conference, the Collapse of Soviet Union, and the US gradual attempt to materialize its new world order [5]. After the end of the civil war in Lebanon and the Taif Accord, Hezbollah adapted its strategy in order to have interaction with political forces in Lebanon. Therefore, it preferred interaction to enmity and cooperation to disunity. All its efforts were focused to fight against the occupiers. It also turned its attention to social services by establishing Jihad Construction which rebuilt the ruins of war. It also devoted its efforts to agriculture, education, and services to Martyrs’ families. In 1991, the Lebanese government recognized Hezbollah. So it was agreed that Hezbollah remained armed in south Lebanon. If Hezbollah focused merely on fighting and resistance against Israel, it definitely limited to a militia group, which could not justify its existence after Israel’s pullback from south Lebanon. Therefore, it had to prepare itself for the period after Israel’s pullback by taking a political role. It joined to the Lebanese political system; that was what its advocates wanted [15]. Hezbollah decided to participate in 1992 election providing that it was held free and based on the vote of people. It did not complete its election list and tried to make coalitions with all groups. In domestic politics, Hezbollah showed its disagreements in 1990s to different Lebanese groups in the parliament and government as an opposition group. In 1995, it formed a department of Syndicates and Unions in its Political Council in order to participate preparedly in syndicate and union activities. It intended to break up the monopoly of government [9]. In fact, Hezbollah achieved to influence in the government’s decisions and prevent the breakup of Lebanon’s civil society by entering syndicate activities. Participation in city and village councils was another political move by Hezbollah in 1990s. Consequently, it succeeded in entering the country’s social-political executive system. Therefore, having recognized the new conditions in Lebanon, Hezbollah reformed its policies and could reach more audience. City and Village Councils Elections was the most important issue during the apex of its activities (1996-98). In summer 1998, after three decades, City and Village Councils Elections was held again in Lebanon in which all Lebanese political parties, groups, and figures participated with their utmost efforts; so did Hezbollah [4] because it could enter the executive system. In Lebanon, the government controls the municipalities. Their budgets are mostly provided by the government. On the other hand, if Hezbollah won the elections, municipalities’

326 Alireza Rahimi *, Mohammah Hossein Salahshour

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

relative independence from the government let the movement increase its political, social, and economic influence among Lebanese Shiites. Hezbollah had great successes in the elections and a new phase of relationship started between Hezbollah and the government. 5.2. Hezbollah after 9/11 After September 11th, 2001, many events happened in the Lebanon, the consequences of which was in favor of the global policy of counter-terrorism and putting pressure on Lebanon’s Hezbollah in order to disarm it. Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701, the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the court for Rafiq Hariri’s assassination, its case in International court in the Hague, Hezbollah being deemed to be guilty, and the movement being arraigned in 2011, Israel’s 33-day war against Hezbollah, the Lebanese Governments’ ratifications on May 6th, 2008, were among the pressures exerted on Hezbollah. 5.2.1. Resolution 1559 Resolution 1559 was made in the UN Security Council on September 2nd, 2004. Although the resolution stressed the Lebanese government’s integrity, political independence, sovereignty, and the evacuation of non-Lebanese forces from the country, it discussed mainly the disarmament of militias in Lebanon; so it is called the resolution for the disarmament of Lebanese militias. Although the resolution did not mention Hezbollah, the ratifying countries and March 14 Alliance thought that Hezbollah in on the list of the militias mentioned in the resolution; moreover, they believed that Hezbollah was the major militia group in Lebanon which should be disarmed. Once in Article 3, and twice in the Introduction, the resolution emphasizes on the issue of militias and disarmament [30]. The introduction of the resolution expresses its concern about the militias as an obstacle for Lebanese government’s full sovereignty. And the next paragraph highlighted the government’s absolute sovereignty over Lebanon. Article 3 directly requires the disbandment and disarmament of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militia groups, the main of which are thought to be Hezbollah [6]. 5.2.2. 33-day War and Resolution 1701 On January 12th, 2006, Israel launched a full-scale invasion to Lebanon on the pretext of releasing its two soldiers which had been abducted in two Hezbollah operations called “al-Va’d al-Sadegh”. Israel had two main objectives: firstly, break up or disarm Hezbollah, and secondly, releases its two abducted soldiers. Israel failed t reach both objectives. The Israeli army’s disappointment, and the failure its military strategies and tactics, have weakened the most important principle of Israeli security, that is preemption. Consequently, the discourse of Resistance was strengthened and fighting against Israel, resistance in the region, and the probability and possibility of using military forces by Israel’s enemies increased. Politically, due to the public distrust to army, military forces, political system, and the Zionist ideology, Israel’s level of national security was hugely diminished. [26]. On the other hand, after its victory, Hezbollah had more room for political maneuver. Its popularity among the people in Lebanon and region has widely increased. Consequently, March 14 Alliance and the Lebanese government have seen their interests directly threatened. Moreover, the US and Britain found that their estimation of Hezbollah’s strength was wrong so they got disappointed in Hezbollah’s disarmament by Israel. So they offered their plan of gradual disarmament. Accordingly, resolution 1701, “full cessation of hostilities between Lebanon and Israel”, was issued. One of the main points mentioned in the resolution was again the disarmament of the militias [25]. In the introduction, the resolution recalled all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, as well as the statements of the President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000, of 19 October 2004, of 23 January 2006, and of 30 July 2006, and expressed its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel, emphasized the need for an end of violence, and Called for a full cessation of hostilities. The resolution also thanked Prime Minister Siniora of Lebanon for his seven-point plan. It also welcomed Siniora’s attempts to send 15 thousand armed forces to south Lebanon in order to extend its authority. It also mentioned that “there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon”, that is, Hezbollah’s disarmament [25]. In fact, the main goal of the resolution was to eliminate Hezbollah and organized armed resistance in Lebanon against Israel. They imposed international limitations on weapon sales to any entity in Lebanon except the Lebanese government. This means that armed groups in Lebanon like Hezbollah cannot get weapon, so any help by the supporting countries has been hindered. 5.2.3. Assassination of Hariri On March 14thm 2005, Rafiq Hariri, who was Lebanon’s prime minister from 1986 to 2004, and then a parliamentarian, was murdered, along with the Christian former minister of economy, in a bomb explosion. After that, the US accused Syria of plotting the assassination. The opponents of Syria in Lebanon used the opportunity to achieve the majority of seats in the parliament in 2005 election. They named themselves ‘March 14 Alliance’. Therefore, Syria’s evacuation from Lebanon, and March 14 Alliance’s success in the election was two consequences of Hariri’s murder. The third consequence was a court was formed to investigate the explosion. After the assassination, the UN Security Council primarily issued a resolution, and determined a commission to investigate about the event. Siniora’s government and its supporting party, along with the US and Britain, were among the advocates of an international court for the investigation of the murder. On the other side, the opposing parties did not disagree with the formation of an international court. They just demanded some adjustments in the statute of the court. Finally, Siniora’s government ratified the controversial plan of the international court, heedless to its opponents, in session without the presence of its 11 Shiite members ccording to Article 58 of Lebanon’s Constitution, the president of Lebanon has the authority to implement the plan of forming an international court, but Emil Lahoud disagreed with the plan. He argued that the cabinet’s ratification were illegal. The cabinet was not legitimate to pass any plan because 6 members quitted the cabinet and one of the biggest tribes (the Shiite) did not participate in the cabinet sessions. On the other side, Siniora’s could not use legal authorities and mechanisms due to the problems as well as legal obstacles. According to the Constitution, if there is a conflict between the government and the parliament, the government can ask for the dissolution of parliament. But the government did not want dissolution because it had the majority of the seats. Moreover, March 14 Alliance thought it would not have secure its seats in the next election, due to its performance, so it resorted to foreign supports in order to force Lebanese legal body by the UN Security Council to accept the formation of the court [6]. As a result, according to the Lebanese government’s request, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 1757, based on Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. Lebanese judges would be appointed by the Secretary-General to serve in the Trial Chamber or the Appeals Chamber or as an alternate judge from a list of 12 persons presented by the Government, upon the proposal of the Lebanese Supreme Council of the Judiciary. International judges would be appointed by the Secretary-General to serve as Pre-Trial Judge, a Trial Chamber Judge, an Appeals Chamber Judge or an alternate judge, upon nominations forwarded by States at the invitation of the Secretary-General, as well as by competent persons. The resolution requires the establishment of special 12-member tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. The tribunal formed after two years. The case had been investigated by an international group and now it referred to the tribunal due to international pressures. On June 25th, 2009, Spiegel issued a report that some members of Hezbollah are suspects in the assassination. The report met with many reactions. But most of the political analysts called it an effort to influence the election. After a while “Gabi" Ashkenazi”, the Chief of

327 National Liberation Movements, Influenced by Post 9/11 Events; Case Study: Lebanons Hezbollah

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

General Staff of the Israeli regime’s Defense Forces, announced that Lebanon was experiencing an important event. Later on, news about the tribunal was leaked out. The evidence to accused Hezbollah members was 8 SIM Cards, which had been activated and deactivated nearby the location of the assassination on the same day. The tribunal claimed that these SIM Cards has only contacted each other, and only one of them contacted a member of Hezbollah in south Lebanon after the explosion. The evidence was based on the witnesses who did not agree to testimony in the court, so the court accepted their written testimony. 5.2.4. Decisions Made by the Lebanese Government on May 6th, 2008 Lebanon entered a political crisis by the decisions made by Siniora’s government on May 6th, 2008. Violent clashes erupted between opposing parties on Lebanese streets. The government’s two decisions was the beginning of a plan to gradually disarm Hezbollah: to shut down Hezbollah's telecommunication network and remove Beirut Airport's security chief Wafic Shkeir, who was a member of Amal movement (al-Safir, May 7, 2008). Consequently, the day after the decisions made, Hezbollah seized the control of Beirut’s main roads, its airport, and some of other regions of the capital. In a press conference on May 8th, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said the government's decision to declare the group's military telecommunications network was a "declaration of war" on the organization, and the beginning of the disarmament. He said Hezbollah would resist against them. The events in May 2008 and later on made Hezbollah more popular among people; on the other side, the party in power has made more efforts to stop Hezbollah becoming stronger. 5.2.5. Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Political and Social Arena The new political atmosphere created after the Taif Accord in 1989 and 16 years of civil war caused Hezbollah to find itself in a new situation. Hezbollah could not mobilize all its resources against the Israeli occupiers in Lebanon. Therefore, it was a new reality that Hezbollah could not ignore it. However, Hezbollah has always been facing the issue of disarmament. The Lebanese government in March-April 1991 wanted the dispersion of all militias according to Taif Accord. It required all militias to submit their weapon to Army and stop their trainings. Hezbollah, in response, issued political declaration and set a comprehensive plan and succeeded in starting a struggle in public diplomacy. Since the Lebanese government recognized Hezbollah as a resistance movement, not a militia group, Hezbollah had been exempted from the disarmament plan. This allowed Hezbollah to keep its weapon and continue its resistance against Israel (19, p: 16). Hence, public diplomacy took its effect and Hezbollah adapted itself to a new dual role in resistance against Israel and activities in the Lebanese society. The new role of Hezbollah was affected by Israel’s pullback from south Lebanon after 2000 because opponents of Hezbollah claimed that there was no reason for Hezbollah to remain armed so Hezbollah like all other political groups in Lebanon must be disarmed. The pressures were exerted by pro-US Lebanese groups, the US, and other western powers. Hezbollah’s leadership responded these pressures one after the other. After 9/11, Hezbollah tried to avoid any violent and armed measures, offer an exact logical cogent definition of itself as a resistance group against Israel in Lebanon, and resist against disarmament. Another policy of Hezbollah after 9/11 was its commitment to a comprehensive economic-social plan which aimed to support the Islamic resistance. In 1990s, Hezbollah offered only its priorities in educational and social services since its economic and social policies were not determined. It was changed after 2000. Israel’s evacuation in 2000 changed Hezbollah’s priorities as well as its strategies. Its new attitude was mostly manifested in Lebanon’s domestic politics in 2001. Its activities in new arenas culminated in 2004 city council election, Central Labor Syndicate Election, and Union of Syndicates Election in August 2004. Hezbollah unveiled its economic and social plans, explained them exactly, and emphasized on political, administrative, social, and economic reforms. It also encourage the Lebanese government to strengthen its human resources by a comprehensive economic and social plan so that poverty would be eradicated, the production sector would be supported, natural resources would be preserved, government’s capabilities would be increased; consequently, the society would see fair development, social justice, and government’s support of its citizens [19]. Adopting an open door policy, Hezbollah pays attentions to all social, economic, religious, and political issues. It has a holistic attitude. In fact, there are many NGOs which give services like reconstruction of destroyed buildings, agricultural trainings, helping cheap sales, medical and health care, free education, scholarships for poor students, and providing healthy drinking water for the underprivileged. In order to increase its popularity among people, Hezbollah has made a network of infrastructure, civil institutions, and NGOs. It extended its plan even to women’s role in public. Hezbollah and its affiliated NGOs’ economic and social plan is based social justice. In fact, its strategy stresses an organized effort for resistance identity and its intellectual, cultural, economic, and social activities.

6. Conclusion Looking at the process of the General Assembly of the United Nations and UN Security Council’s attitude towards terrorism show a substantial change after 9/11 and other terrorist acts in the US, Europe, and other parts of the world later on. This change has been in the intensity, attention, and importance of the issue of terrorism and considering it as the most serious threat against international peace and security. The new attitude looks at the international terrorism as a crime against humanity. Moreover, countries’ viewpoints about terrorism have been closer than before. It seems that all of them agree that terrorism is a criminal act for creating fear among people in order to achieve political objectives. The UNSC has put the issue of terrorism among its top priorities. It believes that any measures should be taken in order to eliminate terrorism. Finally, before 9/11, terrorism was not among the top agenda of the UN, but after 9/11, it not only became a major issue in the UN, but also it turned into the most critical concern of the international body. Terrorism also became the most crucial concern for all international players; thus, counter-terrorism paradigms and approaches have seen essential and sustentative changes. Along with these changes, after 9/11, Hezbollah, as a resistance movement, tried to diminish the allegations and pressures against itself. 33-day War, assassination of Rafiq Harriri, formation of international tribunal to try suspects, Lebanese government’s decisions in May 2008, and resolutions 1559 and 1701 are among the pressures imposed on Hezbollah after 9/11 in order to fight terrorism and disarm this movement. In response, Hezbollah decided to play a stronger role in Lebanon’s political, social, and economic arenas, for example, its participation in Lebanese 2005 cabinet, parliament, and city and village councils, as well as formation of election and non-election coalitions. It can be concluded that after 9/11, the US and Israel intended to use the opportunity to put pressures on Hezbollah via regional and international bodies like the UN, and disarm it under the pretext of counter-terrorism measures. But Hezbollah managed to change the pressures into opportunity by an effective leadership, as it is currently not only a strong political party in Lebanon but also an influential movement Lebanon’s administration.

328 Alireza Rahimi *, Mohammah Hossein Salahshour

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

References [1] Abdullah Khani, Ali (2006); Terrorismology, Tehran, Abrar Moaser Inistitue of Cultural Studies and International Research, Tehran. [2] Abdullahi, Mohsen (2008); Terrorism: Human Rights and Humanitarian Rights, Tehran: Shahre Danesh Institute of Legal Research and Studies. [3] Anan, Kofi (March 10th, 2005); Speech in the Conference in Spain. [4] Asadollahi, Masoud (2000); From Resistance to Victory; A History of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Tehran: Andishesazan-e-Nour Research Center. [5] --------- (2003); Lebanon’s Hezbolla Movement, Past and Present, Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. [6] Ataei, Farhad, Mohsen Bayat (2009); Disarmament of Hezbollah and Political Crisis in Lebanon, Journal of Politics, Journal of Faculty of Law and

political Sciences Round 40, No 1. [7] Baghaei Hameneh, Ismaeil (2002); A Survey of the Change in the International Community’s Aproach towards Terrorism, Nehzat Quarterly, 3rd

Year, No. 13. [8] Bourdieu, Pierre; (1990), In the other words, Cambridge: Polity Press. [9] Effat Panah, Hassan (2006); Lebanon’s Hezbollah Movement and Middle East Changes, Security and Defense Studies, Year 14, No. 46. [10] Ghaderi Kangavari, Rohoullah (2008); Liberation Movements and Principle of Self-Dtermination, Akhevat Scientific-Political Journal, 2nd Year, No.

6 [11] Ghaderi Kangavari, and Kazem Zoughi Barani (2010); A Criticism of Theoretical and Practical Bases of US Counter-Terrorism Policy, Journal of

Defense Policy, 19th Year, No. 76. [12] Ghasem, Naeem (2008); Lebanon’s Hezbolla: Policy, Past and its Future,Tehran: Ettela’at Publication. [13] G.A. Res/2625(xxv). 1970, 24 october, available at http://www.un.org. [14] Hersij, Hossein(2000); The Relationship between Terrorist Act and US inteferring Policies, Etela’at Economic-Political Monthly, No. 171-172. [15] Ismaeilbegi Mahani, Masoud (2009); A Study of Hezbollah’s Impact on Lebanon’s Politics and Military; MA Thesis, Supervisor: Dr. Mohammad

Javad Sobhanifar, Tehran, Jaame University of Imam Hossein (PBUH), Defensive Sciences Faculty and Research Center. [16] Kassesse, Antonio (1990); International Laws in a Disunited World, trans. Morteza Kalantarin, Tehran, Office of International Legal Services, 1st

Edition. [17] Marsh, David, and Jerry Scooter (2004); Method and Theory in Political Sciences, trans. Amir Mohammad Hajiyousefi, Tehran: Research Institute of

Strategic Studies. [18] Masaeli, Mahmoud (1998); A Review of the Legal-Political Dimentions of International Terrorism and Liberation Movements, Foreign Policy, 13th

Year, No. 4. [19] Mousavim Seyyed Hossein, and Asgar Ghahremanpour (2000); Lebanon’s Hezbollah; Politics, Power, and Authority, Tehran: Research Institute of

Strategic Studies. [20] Naeim, Ghasem (2007); Lebanon’s Hezbollah:Policy, its Past and Present, trans. Mohammad Nehdi Shariatmadar, Tehran: Etela’at. [21] Naji Rad, Mohammad Ali (2007); Globalized Terrorism, Tehran: Office of International and Political Studies, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [22] Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, Fifth Ed. 1997. [23] Reisner, Daniel (2003); Proceeding of 97th Annual Meeting, A.S.I.L, Washington. DC, 2-5 April. Available at:

<http://www.asil.org/pdfs/ASIL2003programtext.pdf>. [24] Sadeghi Haghighi, Diddoukht (2003); Liberation Movements and International Terrorism in International Laws, Political-Economic Journal, No. 205

& 206. [25] Saed, Nader (2006); Resolution 1701 of UNSC on Security in 33-day War between Hezbollah and Israe in International Laws, Journal of Legal

Studies, 5th Year, No. 10. [26] Shafiei, Nouzar, Ahmad Moradi (2008); The Impact of Lebanon’s 33-day War on Iran’s Regional Position, Journal of International and Political

Research, Azad University of Shahre Reza, No. 1. [27] Sotoudeh Arani, Mohammad (2001); Structure-Agent Relation; A Framework for Studying Iran’s Diplomacy Change, Journal of Foreign Policy, 16th

Year, No. 1. [28] Tahami, Gholamreza (2002); The History of Using ‘Terrorism’ and Problems of Defining it, Nehzat Quarterly, 3rd Year, No. 12. [29] Travalio, Greg and John Altenburg (2002); Terrorism, State Responsibility and the Use of Military Force, Wisconsin International Law Journal,

Vol.4, No.1. [30] Zamani, Seyyed Ghasem (2011); Counter-terrorism; the Criterion of Action in Human Rights, in Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei and Nader Saed, Terrorism

and Counter-terrorism, World Council of Islamic Peace Publications.

329 National Liberation Movements, Influenced by Post 9/11 Events; Case Study: Lebanons Hezbollah

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.