Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2009

With usual pomp and circumstance, November 22  featured parades, parties, and grandiose rhetoric to mark Lebanon’s Independence Day. Against this backdrop, and just in time for the winter holiday season, Lebanese leaders - at each other’s throats merely six months ago – have discovered dialogue.

What gives?

In short, Lebanese politicians continue to adjust to Syria’s return from the wilderness. While Syria was able to impact politics in Lebanon over the past few years, the Asad regime had to rely on assassinations and overt political obstruction to salvage its interests, having lost a structural advantage to the Cedar Revolution of 2005.

As recently as June 2009, Syria had seemingly failed to reclaim political spance. Then, the pro-Western coalition’s victory in parliamentary elections, combined with the strong position of Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement within the opposition itself, had dealt a blow to Syria’s traditional allies in Lebanon. 

However, Syria soon found some breathing room. Since the elections, the Lebanese political class has scrambled to adjust to changes in American, French, and Saudi foreign policy.

Regional Changes

Despite the Obama administration’s best efforts to reassure Lebanese politicians of a lasting American commitment to Lebanon, U.S. pursuit of engagement with Syria – and negotiations with Iran – have had the effect of discouraging a bellicose anti-Syrian posture. The understandable goal of mending ties with the broader Arab and Muslim world has upset the calculations of politicians in Lebanon, which until now has been a relatively successful area of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

In a similar vein, jealously guarding its political relevance in the Levant, France has continued to court Syria. Entry into a relatively untapped Syrian market, home to some 22 million people starved of enterprise, infrastructure, technology, and services, is also important in French calculations. Finally, to a lesser degree, French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s vision of a Mediterranean Union as a platform for French power would doubtlessly benefit from broader inclusion of the Levant.

Saudi Arabia – wary of Iran, concerned with Iraq, troubled by Yemen, and anticipating a shift in Western policy – has moved to mend ties with Syria. Instead of engaging in proxy confrontations in Lebanon, the Saudis and Syrians seem keen on restoring the division of labor that existed before the assassination of former Premier Rafic Hariri. 

Local Adjustments

First, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt left the March 14 coalition. Though Jumblatt’s attempt to balance conflicting threats to communal and self-preservation has been awkward at best – the chieftain fears Hizbullah, cannot lose support of Lebanese Sunnis, relies on Saudi financial support, and needs access to Syria if he is to remain relevant now - progress on the Saudi-Syrian front continues to ease his burden.

Meanwhile, Zghorta chieftain Suleiman Franjieh, a stalwart of the pro-Syrian camp in Lebanon, has become more assertive within the opposition. Further, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri remains a reliable ally of Damascus, and President Michel Sleiman’s role as an internal “swing” actor will depend on accommodating Syria and the pro-Syrian camp.

Thus, an effective (albeit small) pro-Syrian bloc has emerged in Lebanon. This will allow Damascus to return to a subtle, and highly more effective, approach to influencing events, especially given the fluid Lebanese context that prevails today.

The Division of Labor

Under the arrangement that existed in Lebanon from 1992 until the earlier part of this decade, the Saudi-backed camp and politicians close to the late Prime Minister controlled fiscal and economic policy while the Syrian-backed camp and the Lebanese-Syrian security apparatus held sway over the security sector.

At first glance, desertions from March 14 coalition and disruptions within the opposition have created an environment for such a division of labor by making individual parties, with narrower support bases and more particular political visions, prone to their respective patrons’ influence. 

The sudden formation of a Lebanese government after five months of gridlock seemingly illustrates the Saudi-Syrian ability to jointly shape politics in Lebanon by exerting pressure on their respective proxies. Yet, things are not so simple. 

Complicating Factors

Much has changed since the pre-2005 period, when harmonious Saudi-Syrian relations were enough to keep Lebanon under wraps.

First, current U.S. policy in the region – including policy towards Syria and Lebanon - differs markedly from that of the 1990s.

Second, international investigations of the Hariri assassinations will have an unforeseen effect on Lebanese politics and Saudi-Syrian relations.

Third, the political landscape in Lebanon is more complex now than it was before 2005: Hizbullah is more assertive and increasingly tows the Iranian line; Christian infighting has replaced Christian impotence as a factor to consider; and the July 2006 War has kick-started a more aggressive Israeli posture towards its neighbors. 

And so, it appears Lebanon’s Sister has returned home - with a brother, a cousin, a neighbor, an acquaintance, and a stranger. Whether they play nice remains to be seen.

Read Full Post »

All is not sweet in the land of milk and honey… Having dithered on government formation for five months, thereby squandering a chance to garner international support in the wake of successful democratic elections, Lebanese politicians continue to bicker over the wording of the cabinet’s “Ministerial Statement.”

In Lebanon’s eclectic system, ministerial statements amount to declarations of policy that shape the contours of a particular cabinet’s mandate. Section 24 of the previous cabinet’s ministerial statement recognized “… [the] right of Lebanon’s people, army and Resistance to liberate or recover the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shouba Hills and the Lebanese part of Ghajar, and defend Lebanon and its territorial waters in the face of any enemy and by all available and legitimate means.”

Two things stand out. First, the statement explicitly grants the “Resistance” – that is, Hizbullah – the authority to liberate or recover Israeli-occupied territories. Second, and more significantly, the statement embraces Hizbullah’s shifting narrative: the right to bear arms is not subject to Israel’s occupation of parts of Lebanon, but extends further. By allowing Hizbullah to assume the role of defending Lebanon, the ministerial statement effectively consecrates a non-state actor’s performance of a function best reserved for the state.

Of course, the Lebanese Armed Forces remains ill-equipped to ward off Israel or even Syria; in fact, the military is more of an internal police force at this point. With a weak national force, Hizbullah claims it must defend Lebanon against external aggression. Setting aside the thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars in damage that Hizbullah failed to shield Lebanon from in 2006, the fact is that the Lebanese state can only disarm or integrate Hizbullah once it has adopted and begun to implement a viable defense policy in tandem with comprehensive security sector reform.

Ultimately the Lebanese political elite  must decide when – or whether – this process will start. On the one hand, confronting Hizbullah now may undermine efforts to place the disarmament back on the “National Dialogue” table. Further, challenging the party may again paralyze politics, sapping revenue and stalling reform in a country that has momentarily emerged from half-a-decade of war, institutional paralysis, and internal strife.

On the other hand, the National Dialogue process may be for naught. First, the Dialogue is an extra-constitutional and non-institutional means of resolving problems that could very well be resolved within the state framework. Second, the Dialogue has allowed Hizbullah to draw its opponents down an empty path, like the Pied Piper leading rats down to the Weser River.

With that in mind, it is worth noting that a Lebanese government with two Hizbullah ministers and a policy that legitimizes Hizbullah’s arms will provide the mother of all legal pretexts for a devastating Israeli response should Hizbullah embark on another adventure (the same holds true should Israel construct a cause for war).

By standing firm on the cabinet statement, the March 14 coalition (or what remains of it) could take the first step towards integrating Hizbullah’s arms. However, if the hapless coalition – knowing, as it knew in May 2008, the consequences of its actions – intends to bend over, then it would do better to relax and make it easy on all those involved.

Read Full Post »

MARCH 14 COALITION

Future Movement

                        Saadedine Hariri: Prime Minister 

                        Rayya al-Haffar: Finance

                        Hassan Mneimneh: Education

                        Mohammed Rahhal: Environment

                        Jean Ogassapian: Of State

Progressive Socialist Party 

                        Ghazi al-Aridi: Public Works

                        Akram Chouhayib: Displaced

                        Wael Abou Faour: Of State

Lebanese Forces

                        Ibrahim Najjar: Justice

                        Salim Wardeh: Culture

Phalange

                        Salim Sayegh: Social Affairs

Independents

                        Boutros Harb: Labor

                        Mohammed Safadi: Economy

                        Tarek Mitri: Information

                        Michel Pharaon: Of State

 

OPPOSITION COALITION (March 8 and the Change and Reform Bloc)

Change and Reform Bloc (A grouping of the Free Patriotic Movement, Marada Movement, and others)

                        Charbel Nahhas (Free Patriotic Movement): Telecommunications

                        Gebran Bassil (Free Patriotic Movement): Energy

                        Fadi Abboud (Free Patriotic Movement): Tourism

                        Ibrahim Dadayan (Free Patriotic Movement): Industry

                        Youssef Saade (Marada Movement): Of State

March 8 (AMAL and Hizbullah)

                        Ali Shami (AMAL): Foreign Affairs

                        Mohammed Khalifeh (AMAL): Health

                        Ali Hussein Abdallah (AMAL): Youth & Sports

                        Hussein Hajj Hassan (Hizbullah): Agriculture

                        Mohammed Fneish (Hizbullah): Administrative Development

 

PRESIDENTIAL SHARE (ostensibly loyal to President Michel Sleiman)

                        Ziad Baroud: Interior

                        Elias Murr: Defense and Vice Premier

                        Mona Afeish: Of State

                        Adnan al-Sayyed Hussein: Of State

                        Adnan Qassar: Of State

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 132 other followers

%d bloggers like this: