Europe’s Hizballah problems

All three counterterror experts at the Washington Institute’s discussion of Europe’s Hizballah problem last week agreed that Bulgaria’s fingering of the organization for the Burgas attack may represent a turning point in the stalled debate surrounding Europe’s designation of Hizballah as a terrorist organization. Designation would go a long way towards curbing the increased out-of-area Hizbollah activity and the efficacy of Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism.

Daniel Benjamin, the State Department’s ambassador-at-large and coordinator for terrorism argued that Hizballah terrorism aims to demonstrate to the West the dangers involved with continued Western pressure on Iran over the nuclear issue. He also argued that increased activity is Iran’s and Hizballah’s way  of avenging the deaths of Imad Mugniyah and of slain Iranian nuclear scientists.

An EU designation of Hizballah has long been a US goal. Such a move would limit the organization’s ability to fundraise, would damage the organization’s image and delegitimize the organization as a political actor. According to Matthew Levitt, director of the Institute’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence,

Hizballah raises money hand over fist in Europe like the red cross.

However, many EU countries are incapable or unwilling to open counter-terrorism investigations against Hizballah without designating them as a terrorist organization.

The apprehension of a Hizballah operative targeting Israeli tourists in Cyprus, the foiling of a similar plot in Thailand, and the attack in Burgas all support Levitt’s point that Hizballah is very much a European problem. It trafficks narcotics and launders the proceeds from South America to Europe through Africa. Other fundraising methods include counterfeiting, which generates revenue specifically destined for Hizballah terrorist activities. The organization is involved full-throttle in the international terrorist scene.

Karen Betts, political counselor and representative for the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee at the British embassy in Washington, agreed that European designation is the right response, but with one important caveat: maintaining the distinction between Hizballah’s “military” and “political” wings.  This is a distinction, Levitt insisted, even Hizballah doesn’t make.

Hizballah’s popular mandate and role in the Lebanese body politic discourages Europe from designating Hizballah a terrorist organization. Europeans fear a designation would reduce their influence in Lebanon.  The Europeans have the safety of the UNIFIL forces and Western targets in Lebanon to be concerned about.  They also fear Hizballah’s possible upset of Lebanon’s stability in reaction to a European designation, though this seems unlikely given Hizballah’s interest in maintaining its image as the champion of Lebanese interests.

After a diligent, year-long investigation of the attack, Bulgaria’s accusation against Hizballah may move Europe towards the partial criminalization of the organization. In Benjamin’s words, the spilling of European blood on European soil is something European officials might find it difficult to ignore.