- The Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire Deal
- Trump’s China Hawks…Beijing’s Response?
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
The Middle East Conflict
A ceasefire deal to end 13 months of conflict between Israel and the Lebanese militant group has taken effect.
The US and France said the agreement would “cease the fighting in Lebanon, and secure Israel from the threat of Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations operating from Lebanon” (BBC, Nov. 28).
Hezbollah has been given 60 days to end its armed presence in southern Lebanon while Israeli forces must withdraw from the area over the same period.
The ceasefire is meant to be permanent
US President Joe Biden said last week that it was “designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities.”
The 13-point agreement between the governments of Israel and Lebanon – and not Hezbollah – also says both countries are “prepared to take steps to promote conditions for a permanent and comprehensive solution” (BBC).
It also states that the Lebanese government will “prevent Hezbollah and all other armed groups in the territory of Lebanon from carrying out any operations against Israel” [which is quite a tall order!].
Israel, meanwhile, will “not carry out any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, including civilian, military, or other state targets, in the territory of Lebanon.”
The basis of the deal, the agreement notes, is the “full implementation, without violation” of UN Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the last war in 2006.
That resolution required, among other things, Hezbollah to remove its fighters and weapons from the area between the Blue Line – the unofficial border between Lebanon and Israel – and the Litani river about 30 km to the north. Israel said that was never implemented, allowing Hezbollah to build extensive infrastructure in the area, while Lebanon said Israel’s violations included military fights over its territory.
The agreement also notes that the resolution reaffirmed previous Security Council calls for the “ disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon” [i.e. militant groups of all factions, including the Shia Hezbollah].
10,000 Lebanese troops will deploy to the south of the country
Biden declared that “Hezbollah terrorist infrastructure in southern Lebanon will not be allowed to be rebuilt” (BBC).
The ceasefire agreement says Israel forces will move south of "
The Lebanese army’s troops will deploy “in parallel to the positions.
A senior US official said this was “to prevent any vacuums from being formed.”
Without mentioning Hezbollah, the agreement says the Lebanese army will “dismantle all infrastructure, and military positions, and confiscate all unauthorized entry of weapons into Lebanon and dismantle any unauthorized weapons production facilities.
The agreement also says that “Lebanon’s official military and security forces, infrastructure and weaponry will be the only armed groups, arms, and related material deployed in the Southern Litani Area.
The only exception is the UN Peace Keeping Mission in southern Lebanon, UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon established by the Security Council in 1978 after Israel’s first invasion), which has about 10,000 troops (of which 877 are from Nepal, the third largest contingent after Italy and Ghana).
The US official said that meant Hezbollah would have to pull back its fighters and “all their heavy weaponry” to the north of the area.
A map of the Southern Litani Area shows that it extends north of the river in some locations, notably around the village of Yohmor, and extends to Hasbaya and Chebaa in the east.
A total of 10,000 Lebanese army troops will eventually be deployed to the south, according to the agreement.
However, questions remain about the troops’ role in enforcing the ceasefire, and whether they would confront Hezbollah if needed, which would have the potential to exacerbate tensions in a country where sectarian divisions run deep.
The Lebanese army has also said it does not have the resources --- money, manpower and equipment – to fulfil its obligations, although the agreement says the U.S. and France will work with the international community to provide support and improve its capabilities.”
Many Western officials say Hezbollah has been weakened and that this is the moment for the Lebanese government to re-establish control over the country’s territory (BBC).
The U.S. and France will monitor implementation
The U.S. and France will join the existing Tripartite Mechanism involving UNIFIL, the Israel military and Lebanese army that was set up to help reach agreements on contentious issues.
The ceasefire agreement says the U.S. will chair the “reformulated and enhanced” mechanism, which will “monitor, verify and assist in ensuring enforcement” of both sides’ commitments.
Israel and Lebanon will be expected to report any alleged violations to the mechanism.
“What this means is that the United States, both through diplomats and military personnel, is going to be receiving any complaints by either side,” the senior US official said. “Information can flow on a real time basis to make sure that any potential violations are deterred” (BBC).
The official also stressed that “there will be no combat troops in the area.”
Israel claims the right to respond to violations
The agreement states that “these commitments do not preclude either Israel or Lebanon from exercising their inherent right of self-defence, consistent with international law.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu said last week Tuesday that Israel would “maintain full freedom of military action” in Lebanon “with the United States’ full understanding.”
“If Hezbollah violates the agreement and tries to arm itself, we will attack. If it tries to rebuild terrorist infrastructure near the border, we will attack. If it launches a rocket, if it digs a tunnel, if it brings in a truck carrying rockets, we will attack,” he asserted (BBC).
Biden supported that view, telling reporters: “If Hezbollah or anyone else breaks the deal and poses a direct threat to Israel, then Israel retains the right to self-defence consistent with international law.
But Lebanese officials said they would oppose any violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Trump & Sino-American Confrontation
One of Trump’s cabinet picks called China an “existential threat.”
Another called for a “whole-of-society effort” to confront China and was sanctioned – twice – by Beijing.
A third claimed the Chinese military was “specifically dedicated to defeating the United States of America” (CNN World/Nectar Gan, Nov.29).
US President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed cabinet is stacked with so-called China hawks who have made abundantly clear an ambition to confront America’s ascendant superpower rival in nearly every policy realm, from the economy to security.
But unlike at Trump’s first inauguration eight years ago, China’s leaders may not be caught off guard by a more confrontational approach.
Instead, experts say this time around Beijing is more experienced in dealing with the transactional leader and the ideological hardliners around him and may seek to establish back-channels through more China-friendly figures in Trump’s inner circle, such as Elon Musk (CNN).
Observers of China’s foreign policy have no illusions about the potential downward trajectory of relations under Trump, who on the campaign trail threatened to slap Chinese imports with upwards of 60 % percent tariffs. Last week, he said he would impose an additional 10 % percent tariff on Chinese goods on top of all existing levies. [“Tariff Man” is surely getting haywire!].
“If you look at Trump’s team, most, if not all, are China hawks. The appointed officials are likely to pursue a hardline policy to bring competition with China to a new level,” said Yun Sun, director of the China programme at the Stimson Center in Washington. “I don’t think Beijing sees any of them as good news.”
But other foreign policy thinkers on China believe the president-elect ultimately still wants to make a deal with China – and may be more flexible than his cabinet picks suggest.
Trump is known to be more concerned about the economic challenge from China, while many officials in the incoming administration – from the National Security Council to the Separtments of State and Defence – are preoccupied with the military and security challenges China poses, said Hal Brands, professor of global affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
“The interesting question is whether they can use Trump’s general economic hawkishness on China to drive through policies that are strong and assertive on the security dimensions, or whether Trump makes that difficult because he’s just less interested in those aspects of US-China policy,” Brands said.
Trump’s choice for national security adviser, Representative Mike Waltz, has declared twice in recent years that the Chinese Communist Party is in a “Cold War” with America.
His nominee for secretary of state, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, is known in China as the “anti-China vanguard” and currently sanctioned by Beijing.
Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host tapped for defence secretary, has warned that China is bent on defeating the US and achieving global domination.
Wu Xinbo, director of the Centre for American Studies at Shanghai’s Fudan University, said it’s important for Beijing to distinguish Trump’s hawkish advisers from the president-elect himself.
“Many of the hardliners indeed want a full confrontation and decoupling with China, but is that truly Trump’s objective for US-China relations? If not, their policy actions may be tempered by Trump himself,” he said.
The Musk factor
The lineup of China hawks in the incoming administration will likely add to the urgency of Beijing to find alternative channels to Trump’s ear, starting with Elon Musk.
The world’s richest man and the billionaire founder of Tesla has extensive business interests in China, where his company makes half its electric vehicles. Musk is often invited to meet Chinese officials on his trips there.
“Everyone is watching what role Elon Musk will play on China,” Sun said. “China definitely wants him to be at least a channel of communications and potentially play a positive role.”
Musk often echoes some of Beijing’s talking points, such as maintaining a healthy “win-win” economic relationship and even calling Taiwan an “integral part of China”. The future success of a key Musk business like Tesla could hang on what course relations between the world’s two largest economies take over the next four years.
But it remains unclear whether Musk is willing, or able, to sway US policy in favour of China.
“It seems the role that Trump carved out for him is more on the government efficiency front, so I don’t expect Musk to have a prominent role in foreign affairs,” said Lyle Morris, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute.
“Although given Elon’s significant business interests in China, I imagine Trump will listen to Elon’s views on the US-China business relationship.”
Taiwan and ‘red lines’
Some Chinese experts argue that Beijing now has a deeper understanding of Trump’s playbook and is better prepared to deal with his second presidency.
“China is no longer the same as it was eight years ago when Trump first took office, either in terms of mindset, strength or international standing. China has gained more status and confidence,” said Wang Yiwei, a professor of international studies at the prestigious Renmin University in Beijing.
“We now understand Trump’s personality – once China shows weakness, he will push further. Therefore, China absolutely cannot make concessions, especially at the beginning.”
Chinese leaders will be particularly concerned about Trump’s foreign policy stance on Taiwan, the reddest of red lines for Beijing.
Rubio has been a steadfast supporter of Taiwan, a self-governing democracy Beijing has vowed to bring under its control, by force if necessary. He has pushed for a raft of legislation to strengthen ties between Washington and Taipei, including fast-tracking US arms sales to the island republic.
Taiwan president Lai Ching-te congratulated Rubio on his nomination in a post on X, thanking him for his “staunch support for Taiwan” and expressing anticipation for “furthering Taiwan-US relations.”
National security choice Waltz, meanwhile, has urged the next president to bring the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East to a “swift conclusion” and focus strategic attention on Asia to better prepare for a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan – a stance that Trump running mate JD Vance also repeatedly voiced on the campaign trail (CNN).
But that doesn’t mean Trump – whose “America First” agenda has promoted a more isolationist foreign policy – will spoil for an overseas fight. Instead, he has long viewed alliances and Washington’s historical commitments in more transactional terms, while often praising autocratic overseas leaders (Xi, Putin, Kim, Orban).
On the campaign trail, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” the chip industry from the US (which was, of course, wildly false) and said that the self-governing democracy should pay the US for protection.
Industry experts know that Taiwan grew its own semiconductor industry organically through a combination of foresight, hard work and investment.
And the island has purchased the vast majority of its weaponry from US arms manufacturers over recent decades.
But Trump’s campaign rhetoric nonetheless hinted at a more transactional approach to Taiwan.
Asked by The Wall Street Journal in an interview if he would use military force against a blockade of Taiwan by China, Trump said it would not come to that because Xi respected him and knows he’s “crazy”!
[Suggesting the so-called “madman theory” of international relations – first put forward by Niccolo Machiavelli, 1517], which has been debunked by serious scholars].
Instead, he said he would slap 150 % percent to 200 % percent tariffs on Beijing.
Wang, the professor at Renmin University, said whatever their ideological leanings, Trump’s cabinet picks will ultimately have to comply with his vision.
“I believe Trump is willing to make deals with China, and he will ensure his team stays on course,” he said.
Comments:
Leave a Reply