Shared Fence Problems: An Update on the Lebanese-israeli Southern Maritime Border Dispute
Opinion Analysis by Mounia El Khawand, Staff Writer
February 10th, 2021
Among the many points of contention between hostile neighbors Lebanon and israel, a hitherto silent yet longstanding issue is steadily gaining traction across the Middle Eastern political scene. Although it caused some ruckus during the early 2010s, the question of the Lebanese-israeli Southern Maritime Border Dispute has since faded into the background in favor of more pressing regional challenges. Nevertheless, the question reemerged in 2019, when Lebanon charged a consortium of Eni, Total, and Novatek – Italian, French, and Russian companies respectively – with conducting its first offshore energy exploration expedition in two maritime areas, Blocks 4 and 9, the latter of which contains disputed waters with israel. After almost three years of the US’ ‘shuttle diplomacy,’ a process through which a third party assumes the role of intermediary between the belligerents, Lebanon and israel have finally agreed to engage in talks to settle their claims on waters in the Mediterranean. This decision has been hailed as a historic leap, since, according to Al-Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr, “This is the first time since 1990 that the israelis and the Lebanese are talking about the civilian matter.”
The Origins of the Border Dispute:
In January of 2007, Lebanon entered into a deal with Cyprus on the delineation of their respective Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), with respect to the International Law of the Sea. A few years later, Cyprus and israel passed a bilateral agreement on the delimitation of their respective EEZs which violated the previous Lebanese-Cypriot terms. Consequently, when Lebanon submitted its proposed EEZs to the United Nations in 2010 and israel presented its own proposal a year later, the contradictory maps resulted in approximately 860km2 of disputed waters, supposedly rich in coveted fossil fuels. Since then, and considering Lebanon’s non-recognition of israel, talks had to be conducted via mediation, with the role of third-party falling on the United States. The US sent no less than four different envoys to try an broker a settlement, to no avail.
Recent Developments:
On the 1st of October, 2020, a round of talks between Lebanon and israel was announced; a move that was welcomed by the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres. The Spokesman of the UNSG released a statement, saying, “The United Nations through its representatives is fully committed to supporting the parties in the discussions, as requested by them, as they work towards a final agreed outcome.” The first round of talks took place on October 14, 2020, under the joint auspices of the United States and the UN. They were hosted at the UNIFIL Headquarters in Lebanon, and facilitated by the efforts of Assistant Secretary of State David Schenker as well as the US Ambassador to Algeria, John Desrocher. The hour-long meeting was concluded with promises of resumption on the 28th of October. Further rounds were held throughout November, before being postponed indefinitely, for reasons that will be listed further along the article.
Catalyzing Factors:
After years of attempts and mediation, the US finally succeeded at bringing the two foes to the negotiations table. This feat, however, has been lubricated by a number of factors listed hereafter. Since October of 2019, Lebanon has been trudging through its worst economic crisis to date. The financial woes were only exacerbated by the infamous Beirut Blast of August 4, 2020, which claimed the lives of hundreds of people and leveled the Beirut port as well as a substantial portion of the city. Lebanon has grown desperate to assuage its economic afflictions through a new source of income, and israel’s Ministry of energy estimated an annual $6bn in revenues for Lebanon from the presumed resources of the disputed area. The multiplication of israeli and Cypriot offshore expeditions and exploitations has created an additional incentive for Lebanon to quickly settle the matter so that it may launch expeditions of its own.
Framework of the Talks:
Naturally, an undertaking of such sheer political magnitude necessitated an exhaustive procedural framework, the details of which remain confidential. The information that was released, however, has raised several question marks. For instance, the israeli Minister of Energy, Yuval Steinitz, stated that the talks would be conducted face-to-face, a fact that was later denied by Lebanese officials. In parallel, while Lebanese Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri claimed that the talks would include the land border dispute – whose settlement Lebanese authorities hinge the maritime outcome upon –US and israeli authorities did not mention it. When it came to dialogue mechanisms, the Lebanese delegation “made a fuss” about being in the same room as the israelis, according to israeli Brigadier-General Assaf Orion. A decision was made to have each delegation to sit on a separate table. The Lebanese, refusing to address the israelis directly, tasked the UN table in the middle to relay their message, even though the other group could hear them, but this method was eventually replaced with direct communication.
Challenges:
The talks overcame one of the major challenges that stood in their way: while israel insisted on the US as a mediator, Lebanon strongly advocated for any process to be done under the aegis of the UN. The involvement of both those entities was hence agreed upon. Nonetheless, another issue remains: Beirut’s desire to link the maritime border dispute to the land border dispute has provided a number challenges for all parties involved, and continues to be a source of contention. Moreover, the inauguration of the new talks have brought about their own share of hurdles, which resulted in an abrupt halt in negotiations. Indeed, both parties presented contradicting maps during their meeting, and Lebanese President Michel Aoun’s claim that the delineation line should extend seaward from Ras Naqoura more than doubled the size of the disputed area. Consequently, Minister Steinitz accused Lebanon of “changing its position regarding the maritime borders demarcation seven times,” and stated that “Lebanon’s position during the fourth round of negotiations not only contradicts its previous positions, but also contradicts Lebanon’s position regarding the maritime borders with Syria.” He further described Lebanon’s position as a “provocation.” On the other hand, Lebanon blamed the suspension of talks on israel’s repeated rebuff of Lebanese propositions. Accordingly, the talks were hence postponed indefinitely. Laury Haytayan, a Lebanese expert on energy, dubbed this new chapter of the negotiations the “war of maps.”
Moving Forward:
The first round was welcomed by US and UN officials alike. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that the talks “have the potential to yield greater stability, security and prosperity for Lebanese and israeli citizens alike.” Similarly, the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon and the US Government jointly claimed that the first session proved to be “productive.” Despite the sudden halt, both parties have reiterated their commitment to reaching a settlement. Following the first round, Lebanese Brigadier-General stated that this represented a “first step in the thousand-mile march towards the demarcation.” He assured that, “Based on the higher interests of our country, we are looking to achieve a pace of negotiations that would allow us to conclude this dossier within reasonable time.” President Aoun suggested that the hurdles hit during the last session could be overcome by other “alternatives,” but did not elaborate on the matter. Despite the freezing of the process, Lebanese officials have declared that the US would pursue their shuttle diplomacy until the resumption of debate.
Lebanese Domestic Reaction:
The talks faced stark political backlash in Lebanon, and were almost delayed before they even begun after a statement by both Amal and Hezbollah released mere hours before the start of the meeting asked for a reform of the Lebanese delegation that would only include military officials. The political parties said, “This harms Lebanon's position and interests.” In parallel, Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab claimed that the President’s appointment of the delegation without consulting him was unconstitutional. President Aoun’s Office retorted that the Prime Minister’s statement would prove detrimental to their negotiating position.
The Question of Normalization:
With the talks happening mere weeks after the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and the Sudan decided to establish relations with israel, many speculations on a link between the border negotiations and an eventual Lebanese-israeli normalization were raised. This matter was further highlighted by the inclusion of civilians on the Lebanese delegation, which goes against Hezbollah and Amal’s wishes of only appointing military officials, with Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, stating that this was “a surrender to the israeli logic that wants any form of normalization.” However, both sides quickly denied such claims, affirming that the discussions would be of a strictly technical nature. Nevertheless, the question of whether or not engaging in such talks could be done without inadvertently launching a normalization process remains. Lebanese journalist Rami Naim claimed that, “The war [with israel] has transformed from an existential war to a war over borders. […] You cannot tell me that you want to negotiate with israel over the border demarcation, and then say that you do not recognize israel. If you do not recognize israel, you cannot negotiate with it.” In parallel, Claudine Aoun, the daughter of the Lebanese President Michel Aoun, told Al-Jadeed that she would not be opposed to further talks, echoing Naim’s words, “Are we supposed to stay in a state of war? I don't have doctrinal differences with anyone, I have political differences.”
Conclusion:
The resolution process for the Lebanese-israeli Southern Maritime Border Dispute has, for the time being, hit a major obstacle that precludes both parties from resuming negotiations. Nevertheless, the US’ continued mediation and several major economic and political incentives ought to eventually lead both parties back to the bargaining table. Such historic agreement could not only usher in much needed financial relief to Lebanon’s failing economy, but also provide a wealth of advantageous opportunities to both entities by finally allowing proper exploration of the disputed Block 9. It could even include clauses rendering offshore platforms untouchable during times of war, and potentially allow Lebanon to set a foot in the energy sector. Nevertheless, the matter of normalization remains a divisive question for experts. However, the advent of the Biden administration, which would presumably change the Middle Eastern political landscape and the US’ regional involvement, and the possible return of the nuclear deal, may lead to a potential breakthrough in the resolution of the dispute.
Further Reading:
For a more in-depth analysis of the legal framework of the Lebanese-israeli Southern Maritime Border Dispute, you might be interested in reading my previous publication on the subject. You can find the article on The Phoenix Daily here.