11 January 2007
A long Lebanese movie,
or just a dud?
Michel
Aoun has described the
second phase in the opposition's
effort to topple the government of Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora as a "long Lebanese
movie." I don't mean to be unkind,
but judging from most of our country's
celluloid creations, that means it
will be tedious,
disjointed, and that the audience will bolt before
the final credits.
Over a month into the opposition's anti-government campaign, it is plain that
the endeavor has failed. Indeed, that failure was
implicitly recognized less than a week
after the demonstrations started, by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. His speech, broadcast to his partisans from the crypt where
he now resides,
was the first
sign that the Hizbullah leader had miscalculated. Nasrallah's
accusations of treason directed
against the majority were designed
to cover for an acknowledgment
that his party's mobilization had hit up against a Sunni wall. From
the moment the
confrontation in Lebanon was
squarely framed as a sectarian one, Nasrallah had no choice but to accept the standoff
this produced.
More
intriguing was Nasrallah's threat at the
time to create a transitional
government, headed by a "patriotic Sunni," if his conditions were not met. Aoun
echoed the same thought a few days later. Both
men have been discredited
by their inability to carry
through on the promise. The only tool
left to Hizbullah and Aoun is to wreak havoc in the streets around
public facilities and ports.
But this will lead nowhere since
it will turn
the public against the opposition and precipitate a conflict with the Lebanese
Army. Reports are surfacing
of splits within the opposition's ranks over strategy,
and even some opposition leaders are admitting
that they are in a quandary. Hizbullah can pursue its
battle, but every day that goes
by is another in which it must justify
its ineffectiveness.
Nasrallah is a charismatic war leader, but his party, indeed Lebanon,
is still paying the price
of his decision last summer to abduct Israeli soldiers, which provoked the disastrous summer conflict. Since then Hizbullah
has sought to over-compensate
for that mistake - a mistake that has surely embarrassed Nasrallah in his dealings with his
Iranian patrons. Iran has paid
much money to save Hizbullah and continues to arm and support the party, but its leaders cannot be happy that Nasrallah
has lost them their deterrent capacity along the Israeli border, that Hizbullah is now isolated
in Lebanon, and that the party's
actions have united Sunnis against both Hizbullah
and Iran. Nor can they be
happy that Nasrallah is struggling in a political system that is proving too
much for him, despite his weaponry,
while the international community rallies to the side of the Siniora
government.
The catastrophic turnaround
in Hizbullah's fortunes is mainly
due to Syrian intransigence
on the Hariri tribunal. In refusing
to negotiate a quid pro quo on the
tribunal, in therefore denying
its Lebanese allies any leeway to maneuver
on the tribunal's endorsement, Syria has created an impossible situation for Hizbullah
and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. This makes it more likely that the tribunal will be approved,
because there is no middle ground toward which
Syria can guide the tribunal process to protect its regime.
It's now make or break, and given the
international community's and
the Arab world's annoyance with the Syrian-Iranian
alliance, there is a growing prospect that Syria will lose
everything. The tribunal is coming, probably
with its bylaws intact unless Syria can offer
serious concessions to Lebanon,
to the Arab states, and to the Americans
in order to save its leadership.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
What that means is that Hizbullah
must not only manage Nasrallah's missteps,
it must also manage those of Bashar Assad. The thing
is, Nasrallah would be able to resolve his domestic
troubles if he agreed to fully integrate Hizbullah into the Lebanese political
game and start a process of disarmament - one that could be made to last years if that reassures
the Shiites. However, the Hizbullah leader is not willing to convert his party
into a wholly Lebanese enterprise, for that would be
tantamount to admitting that its revolutionary
momentum is dead, it would
mean the party substantially breaks free from Iran, and it would leave
Nasrallah as leader of an alleyway
and sectarian group, to use
his own words,
rather than as the Che Guevara of the Middle East.
Making matters worse, Hizbullah finds itself in the unenviable
position today of appearing
to oppose Siniora's efforts - efforts that look to be successful - to bring Lebanon billions of dollars
in much-needed foreign aid and grants.
This is a clash the party cannot possibly
win, not after having provoked a war that cost
Lebanon over $10 billion, according to some UN estimates. If the only way that
Hizbullah can break out of its multiple dilemmas is by imposing a bruising economic deadlock, then it could be
blamed alone for any further deterioration
in the nation's finances. With its own
Shiite community still suffering the impact of the war, but also
facing delays in
reconstruction and reimbursement,
Hizbullah may also feel the
sharp end of Shiite discontent before long.
Meanwhile, the majority seems confident enough to open a
new dossier, that of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and its
possible involvement in assassinations
and bomb attacks since the
Syrian pullout last year. The matter
is a delicate one and may lead
nowhere in the near term. However,
it shows the opposition
groups, particularly Amal and Hizbullah, the price of isolating
themselves from government decision-making.
In
the past six weeks the government
has moved ahead on the Hariri tribunal, has approved
a new economic program for
Paris III, and is looking into eliminating
pro-Syrian networks in Lebanon.
In that context, can the opposition afford to pursue an agenda accelerating its gradual meltdown as an effective
force? In playing all-or-nothing
politics, Hizbullah and Aoun have surrendered much of what once made them credible. Unless they reverse the fall quickly,
their leverage to salvage something in the political system will fade.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY
STAR.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=78415#