Clinton's Visit Showed New U.S. Thinking Has Yet to Materialize

Hillary Clinton’s whirlwind visit to Lebanon on Sunday generated the expected sound bites. There was also a signal that new foreign policy thinking by the Obama administration, when it comes to this part of the Middle East, has yet to materialize.

The U.S. secretary of state’s surprise touchdown didn’t contain any surprises in terms of the itinerary. President Michel Sleiman and MP Saad Hariri were the beneficiaries of face time with Clinton, who said she supported Lebanon’s sovereignty and promised that no deals would be made with Damascus at Lebanon’s expense. She also stressed the importance of seeing fair elections on June 7, without intimidation and violence.

Two items did stand out, however. Clinton added that Lebanon has a fundamental role to play in a Middle East peace, and stressed the Obama administration’s support for “moderates.”

The latter statement recalls the policy of the last few years, when we heard constantly about moderates and extremists.

In fact, moderates in Lebanon are in need of gaining some political footing, as their situation has been eroding for quite some time. Within the majority camp, too many of the incompetent elements have taken control, and without going into who exactly is responsible, it’s enough to say that the political process hasn’t produced effective moderates. Perhaps elements of the country’s private sector and general public have been “moderate” enough to generate the stability that’s helped us survive the past few difficult years, with our dysfunctional political class.

On the other hand, the external situation hasn’t exactly helped the moderate politicians.

When Clinton brought up Lebanon’s sovereignty, she didn’t add that Washington had any plans to end Israel’s violations of this sovereignty. Nothing about ending overflights by Israeli aircraft. Nothing about movement on the Shebaa Farms-Ghajar axes.

In order to help Lebanon’s moderates, Clinton should get Israel on her agenda, and fast track it. Both words and deeds are needed here. Israel’s role in violating our sovereignty might appear from time to time in the statements of American officials, but so did the need to implement UN Security Council Resolution 425. In the end, it took 22 years for that to come to pass, and not thanks to international statecraft, but local armed resistance.

Clinton should identify policies – and not principles – that would enable Lebanon to play it’s supposedly fundamental role in a Middle East peace.

Lebanon could be a good beginning for a real-world policy of this kind, based on ensuring that all sides – and not just the moderates – are satisfied, or else there will be no durable deal.