With the European Union reportedly due to meet on 4 June to discuss adding Shi’a militant group Hezbollah to its list of proscribed groups, peacebuilding NGO Conciliation Resources questions the effectiveness of using such a blunt policy tool.

On Tuesday 4 June the EU working group on terrorist designations – CP931 – is expected to meet to discuss whether to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. This move towards proscription has been linked to the announcement, after a six-month investigation, that Hezbollah operatives were probably responsible for the 2012 bus bombing in Burgas, Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists.
 
However, the decision of the UK, France and Germany to push this issue now is most likely linked to Hezbollah’s increasingly active support for Syrian President Bashar Assad.
 
With violence raging across the border in Syria, against this regional backdrop a decision to add Hezbollah to a terrorist list may appear to make sense, but it would have grave repercussions for Lebanon’s own already fragile attempts to build peace.

Proscription closes space for dialogue. What we have seen in our own work with armed groups and in documenting peace processes is that peaceful forms of engagement tend to strengthen moderate, pro-dialogue elements within a group, while their absence tends to strengthen hardliners by removing viable alternatives to violence.

Zahbia Yousuf, Peacebuilding Editor and Analyst, Conciliation Resources

In practice, the EU proscription would comprise a travel ban and asset freeze. Although this does not legally prohibit direct engagement with proscribed actors it can distort and restrict the space for dialogue.
 
Proscription may hinder the ability of representatives of groups to travel and take part in talks. There are increased risks for third parties – including organisations like peacebuilding NGO Conciliation Resources – reaching out to certain groups, or of working in specific contexts at all because of uncertainty over the legal repercussions. 
 
Rather than reduce violence, proscription can have the opposite effect of encouraging extremism and belligerence. 
 
EU listing of Hamas, in spite of its efforts to curb violence from within Palestinian territories, served to convince the group there was little reward for dialogue with the West. Since then Hamas has increasingly aligned itself to powerful regional actors such as Iran and Syria. The EU should be wary of a similar pattern playing out in Lebanon.

EU policy to keep channels open in Lebanon has allowed it to play a pro-active role in promoting political reform, social development and reconciliation in the country . Dialogue should be encouraged rather than restrained, particularly at a time when Lebanon seems to be drawn ever more into the situation in Syria.

Alexander Ramsbotham, Accord Series Editor, Conciliation Resources

/ENDS
 
 
Notes to editors
 
Conciliation Resources is an independent UK-based peacebuilding organisation working with people in conflict to prevent violence and build peace. Since 1996 we’ve been assisting conflict-affected communities by providing advice, support and practical resources. In addition, we take what we learn to government decision-makers and others working to end conflict, to improve policy and practice worldwide. 
 
We focus our efforts on seven main conflict contexts: Colombia, East and Central Africa, Fiji, Kashmir, the Philippines, South Caucasus, and West Africa. We also share learning through the peacebuilding analysis series Accord: an international review of peace initiatives
 
***
Clare Richards, Media & Communications Officer
crichards@c-r.org // 07436 102 514 // 020 7288 8397
 
Zahbia Yousuf, Peacebuilding Editor & Analyst
zyousuf@c-r.org // 020 7288 8374