In the wake of the 2006 war, to whom do the people of Southern Lebanon look for security? What are their views on arms control, including the regulation of non-state armed groups? This chapter presents the results of a 2008 household survey that explored such questions. The findings challenge assumptions about the popularity of non-state armed groups, including Hizbollah (and the UN peacekeeping force). Regardless of their political affiliations, the people of Southern Lebanon appear to have greater confidence in state security institutions than was previously believed. More international support for the Lebanese security institutions seems warranted.
As a result of the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbollah, 1,000 people were killed and 5,800 injured in Southern Lebanon, and approximately 69,000 homes were damaged or destroyed. The area’s infrastructure was decimated, and an estimated one million people were displaced. Following the 2006 war, the Security Council increased the troop strength of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNFIL) to 15,000. UNFIL was mandated to support the Lebanese army in the south and to help ensure humanitarian access and the return of displaced persons.
The Southern Lebanon Armed Violence Assessment examining people’s security perceptions was conducted in March-May 2008. It found that the people of the south, whatever their political affiliations, express strong support for state security institutions, with the Lebanese army and police consistently cited as preferred security providers. This support came at the expense of non-government militias, including Hizbollah’s military wing, and the UN peacekeeping force.
- Less than a quarter of the population believes that expanding the presence of UNIFIL on the border with Israel would enhance community safety.
- The extent of civilian firearm ownership in Southern Lebanon is unknown but is probably much higher than that captured in survey responses. There is also evidence that arms flows to non-state groups such as Hizbollah continue despite a 2006 UN Security Council arms embargo.
- There is significant support among the people of Southern Lebanon for government control of civilian weapons ownership, as well as the outlawing of armed militias. However, those who back opposition parties, such as Hizbollah, are much less likely to favour such initiatives.
Shortly after the Southern Lebanon Armed Violence Assessment had been completed, a second study (for the International Peace Institute) assessed attitudes in the whole country. Given the strong Shi’ite representation in the South, results showed remarkable similarities. Almost two-thirds of respondents to the IPI study thought that the Lebanese government could provide security in their neighbourhood, and only 34 percent thought that Hizbollah could. Further, 76 percent believed that only the Lebanese army, not any of the non-governmental groups, should bear arms. On one point, however, there is a marked different between the two sets of results: the IPI study showed 80 percent support for the UN peacekeeping force.
The Southern Lebanon Assessment reveals that the opinions and experiences of the people of the region are more diverse than previously assumed. The support enjoyed by non-state armed groups, most importantly Hizbollah, is probably overestimated. While the extent of the party’s influence over the social, economic, and political life of Southern Lebanon is significant, it cannot be assumed that its actions reflect the will of most southerners. Further:
- Contrasting views on weapons regulation reflect the fact that Lebanon remains prey to political instability.
- Until the root causes of political violence are addressed, many in Southern Lebanon appear reluctant to submit their weapons to governmental control.
- The international community’s faith in peacekeeping in Southern Lebanon may be misplaced.
NB: A two-page summary of the chapter is available online from the Small Arms Survey. The link below is to details of the book in which the full chapter appears.
