The recent warning by Hezbollah leader to Cyprus against military cooperation with Israel is a reminder of the legal and historical precedents that justify a state’s right to defend itself against perceived acts of aggression.
The Cradle
.jfif)
Nasrallah’s warning could be perceived as escalatory, suggesting Hezbollah is dragging a third country into conflict. However, from an operational perspective, it is Israel that is involving Nicosia via military cooperation. Nasrallah’s words gain significance in light of reports suggesting Israel’s potential use of Cypriot military bases in a future conflict with Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s warning became increasingly necessary after reports emerged suggesting Tel Aviv’s plans for any future war with Lebanon include the use of military bases in Cyprus.
Parallels with the Cuban Missile Crisis
The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is a historical parallel highlighting the severity of such geopolitical tensions. The US nearly entered a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union after discovering Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, a short distance off the coast of Florida.
In a televised address, President John F Kennedy declared that the US would not tolerate these missile sites, calling them a covert and reckless “threat to world peace.” He convened his advisers to consider military options, including airstrikes and an invasion of Cuba. However, fearing nuclear escalation, the US opted for a naval blockade to prevent further Soviet shipments, marking a firm stand against Soviet “aggression.”
Nasrallah’s warning can be viewed in a similar context. Cyprus’s military cooperation with Israel, which has included maneuvers simulating an invasion of Lebanon, poses a direct threat to Lebanese security. There have even been reports of Israeli intention to use airbases in Cyprus and Greece to strike Lebanon, with Tel Aviv expecting Hezbollah to strike airports in occupied Palestine in any future war.
Legitimacy of Nasrallah’s warning
Closer attention must be paid to Nasrallah’s words, specifically when he stated:
Opening Cypriot airports and bases to the Israeli enemy to target Lebanon would mean that the Cypriot government is part of the war, and the resistance will deal with it as part of the war.
Furthermore, Nasrallah’s remarks align with international law, particularly the UN Charter, which allows self-defense in response to an armed attack. Article 51 of the Charter states:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The Charter permits the use of armed force under strict conditions. The most important of these is that self-defense be in response to an armed attack by a state or states. An attack by resistance groups is not considered sufficient justification for legitimate defense.
The response should also be proportionate to the attack and limited to what is necessary to repel it, avoiding the use of armed force as much as possible.
Nasrallah’s warning, therefore, falls within the conditions set by the UN. First, it is directed at a state in the event of its participation in attacks against Lebanon. Second, it indicates that the resistance is ready to respond proportionately by targeting the geography used to launch these attacks.
The Hezbollah leader even confirmed that the resistance is trying to avoid reaching a stage where it could have to strike targets in Cyprus, as his warning aims at preventing Nicosia from allowing its territory to become a launch site for hostilities toward Lebanon.
A proportional response to an act of aggression
The traditional meaning of the right to self-defense stems from the Caroline affair, which dates back to 1837, when British forces crossed into American soil, captured the Caroline – a vessel carrying US aid to rebels against the British in Canada – and set it on fire, and pushed it over Niagara Falls, killing US citizen Amos Dorvey.
Based on this case, the criteria of necessity and proportionality were established in international law as the main conditions for self-defense. This means that the use of force must be necessary to prevent harm to a state and proportionate to the magnitude of the threat.
For example, if Israel uses Cypriot territory to strike Lebanon, an attack on the bases from which Israeli aircraft operate would be necessary to neutralize this capability. By targeting aircraft staging points, the response is proportionate to the threat.
In addition, if Israel uses military bases in Cyprus to attack Lebanon, it is likely to be seen as an act of aggression under Article 3(f) of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). This article specifies that allowing a state party to use its territory to act aggressively against a third state shall be considered an act of aggression. Thus, legally, Cyprus would be complicit in Israel’s aggression if it allowed its territory to be used for attacks against Lebanon.
British bases in Cyprus
In 1959, as part of Cyprus’s independence from British colonial rule (1960), Turkey, Greece, and the United Kingdom signed a treaty under which Britain was given the so-called British Sovereign Bases, which are subject to the United Kingdom's direct control.
Under the agreement, the British Army retained two small areas – one at Akrotiri, near Limassol in the southwest, and the other at Dhekelia, near Larnaca in the southeast. The two territories – covering just under three percent of the island’s territory, or about 253 kilometers squared – have their own police, administration, and customs and are administered as if part of Britain.
These bases have historically been used in the logistical support of NATO operations in the Mediterranean and West Asia.
In late May, the investigative website Declassified UK reported that the British Army, via the Royal Air Force in Akrotiri in Cyprus, had transferred 60 aircraft to Israel since October. The same report indicated that the base is secretly used by the US Air Force to move weapons to Israel.
Therefore, although these bases are considered British territories, Sayyed Nasrallah’s warnings also apply to all actors in the region, not just Cyprus. This means that any direct intervention from any actor in the region in supporting Israeli military operations against Lebanon will be targeted by Hezbollah and likely by the Axis of Resistance.
Lebanese diplomatic response
Given increasing Israeli–Cypriot military cooperation, Nasrallah’s warning to Cyprus is undoubtedly rational and necessary. However, it was ideally the Lebanese government that should have sent a stern message to Nicosia.
It’s important to remember that the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in February 2022 issued a statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, calling on Moscow to stop military operations and withdraw its forces immediately.
Despite Lebanon’s lack of involvement in that conflict and its interest in strengthening relations with Russia, a historically friendly nation, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry aligned with Washington’s demands, which often go against Beirut’s interests.
Examining Cypriot reactions to Nasrallah’s warning reveals that a courageous and sovereign stance from Lebanon could have reminded Cyprus of the dangers of its cooperation with Israel. Official statements and Cypriot press articles have emphasized Cyprus’s commitment to peace and desire to avoid becoming involved in regional conflicts. However, Greek Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis stated, “It is absolutely unacceptable to make threats against the sovereign state of the European Union.”
Some articles even considered Nasrallah’s warning to be something that should be taken seriously. Historical precedents, like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and international laws and norms legitimate any action Hezbollah could take if Israel uses Cypriot territory to strike Lebanon.
Crucially, the Lebanese resistance movement’s warnings highlight the necessity for Lebanon to assert its sovereignty and diplomatically address the risks posed by Israeli–Cypriot military cooperation.
No comments:
Post a Comment