UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was perceived as an opportunity for progress in the immediate and mid-term future. It opened the way for the Seniora government to demonstrate its capacity to take the steps needed to regain sovereignty over South Lebanon, consolidate national security and achieve economic recovery and repair of all the damages caused by the war. The government quickly implemented the security provisions of Resolution 1701 south of the Litani River and along the Syrian border, opening the way for an expanded deployment of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, in the South. When Hezbollah conceded the area for this deployment, many observers believed that Lebanon’s domestic problems were on the way to being resolved. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s declaration of a “divine victory was the first indication of the collapse of the consensus among the Lebanese parties to accept Resolution 1701 and the deployment of the army in the South. That speech offered clear signs that containing Hezbollah would not be an easy task. Gradually it emerged that the party was shifting the focus of its agenda from the military to the political dimension by trying to discredit the government and accusing Prime Minister Fouad Seniora of plotting with the United States and France to disarm the “resistance. This shift clearly serves the Iranian-Syrian agenda in Lebanon. The national dialogue conferences held before the July-August war achieved significant progress on issues relating to the Shebaa farms, relations with Syria and the establishment of an international court regarding the assassination of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. But it failed to deal with Hezbollah’s arms and the election of a new president. After the war, Hezbollah, allied with General Michel Aoun, moved from that agenda to a new one calling for the establishment of a “national unity government in which both would have veto power over decisions. Hezbollah’s new agenda is driving the country toward a severe political crisis, especially with its threat to bring its supporters to the streets to bring down the government. This has led many observers to believe there is a hidden agenda in which Iran and Syria are the key forces. The sudden resignation of five Shiite ministers from the government, and a minister loyal to President Emile Lahoud, was clearly caused by Seniora’s call for the Cabinet to approve the special protocol for the establishment of a mixed Lebanese-international court to try suspects in the Hariri assassination. It is believed that Hezbollah’s move was prompted by Syria, which opposes creation of the mixed court. Nor is Iran, having supported Hezbollah for many years with weapons and money, going to stay pat in the game. The Iranian leadership hastened after the war to provide Hezbollah with substantial financial aid to compensate for damages. Hezbollah remains one of Iran’s strategic assets in Lebanon – in the words of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, “the main battleground to defeat America and the Zionist state. Nasrallah explained in a recent speech on Nov. 19 his intention to bring down the Seniora government unless the majority agreed to the “national unity government formula. He stated, “We will call for early elections and we will take all necessary steps to force the government to resign and form a temporary or interim government to supervise the elections. This plan is now underway, and there is no indication of any possibility of renewing the dialogue. The government has so far resisted, arguing that Hezbollah is trying to conduct a coup d’etat and asserting that it is ready to counter Hezbollah’s moves on the street. The assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel on Nov. 21 added fuel to the fire. It was a political crime meant to derail the government and accentuate the divisions among the Christian factions while increasing tensions between the Shiite and the Sunni communities. Now uncertainties are greater than ever before. The tragic crime could engender political turmoil that in turn could lead to civil strife. Is there a way out of the present crisis? Both the government and the opposition must reassess the situation on a more realistic basis. There is now a great need for both to review their agendas, concentrating solely on reaching a common ground regarding power-sharing and rebuilding lost confidence. Both parties also need to reach a more solid consensus than the one reflected in Resolution 1701 – covering interpretation of resolution’s core demands and their implementation, including how to deal with Hezbollah’s weapons in the future. As for Hezbollah, it must decide whether it actually wishes to integrate into the Lebanese state, free of Iranian and Syrian influence. The key international players must follow through on their pledges not only to beef up Unifil forces and provide military and financial assistance to the Lebanese government, but also to use carrots and sticks to convince Iran and Syria to stop those actions that are destabilizing Lebanon and derailing its evolving democracy. Also, it should be made clear to Israel that it must cease its continuing violations of Lebanese airspace and its delay of a resolution to the Shebaa farms imbroglio. Resolution 1701 stresses “the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Accordingly, the US government should make all necessary efforts to re-launch Arab-Israel peace talks. Such a move would not only untie the knot of regional conflicts but also alleviate the growing tension and the risk of state breakdown in Lebanon.
Nizar Abdel-Kader is a researcher and a political analyst and columnist at Al-Diyar newspaper in Beirut. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.
