Lebanon: An End to the Era of the Consensus President?
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 07/05/08//
Lebanon entered yesterday a new phase. In its marathon meeting, the Council of Ministers raised the two explosive intertwined bones of contention, namely the responsibility of security over the Lebanese territories and Hezbollah's infrastructure that encroaches on this responsibility. In other words, Fouad Siniora's government, though supposed to run the affairs of the state until a president is elected, has made a strategic decision for the first time since the presidential post became vacant.
Consequently, amidst the deep-seated conviction that it has become impossible to elect a consensus president, the government has moved from running state affairs to standing up to fundamental issues confronting the state. Among these issues is Hezbollah's expanding infrastructure all over Lebanon, which virtually ends the phase of coexistence between the state and the party, as has been the case since the Taef Accord. When the government decides to refer to justice all individuals and entities involved in Hezbollah's telecommunications network, this does not imply the forcible execution of this decision, especially since force is not an option anyway. Rather, it consecrates and preserves the exclusive right of the Lebanese state to exercise sovereignty over Lebanese territories, a right that Hezbollah no longer recognizes, as the militant group openly links its expansion within Lebanese regions - whether inhabited by Shiite residents or supporters of its allies - to the security of the resistance against Israel. This security practically covers all Lebanese territories, since the resistance currently relies on multi-range missiles.
On the other hand, given the impossibility of political dialogue under current conditions, the government has raised in haste the question of the state's responsibility for implementing Security Council Resolution 1559, especially the issue of militia and illegal arms. The opponents of Hezbollah, its weapons, and the extensions of its weapons used to say that this issue was subject to an internal Lebanese understanding within the framework of the state strategy. This option is no longer available, partly because it is difficult now to hold dialogue, and partly because Hezbollah has tied his military arsenal to the regional conflict. Consequently, and from a point of strength, Hezbollah declares its objection in advance to discussing any strategy in which it is not the sole decision maker with respect to the question of arms. In other words, it denies the authority of the state and its responsibility over security in the country.
In their first remarks on the government's decision, Hezbollah figures went as far as saying that targeting Hezbollah's telecommunications network would be perceived as serving Israel and facilitating the exposure of the resistance to Israeli intelligence. Hence, any attempt by the state to retrieve its authority will be said to serve Israel. Those figures also threatened that they would deal with anyone who targets the network accordingly.
Consequently, the question is no longer about inappropriate statements made for publicity, mobilization and provocation. It is rather about a holistic approach to the Lebanese state and its function. This approach stands in stark contrast with what Hezbollah was hoping to gain from the Lebanese state. This does not only make dialogue more difficult if not impossible, but it also drives another wedge into the concept of coexistence. This is what seemed to be the case through the dismissal of the officer in charge of airport security. Regardless of whether this officer was fairly or unduly held accountable, Hezbollah and Amal Movement described this step as a form of targeting a Shiite security office in Lebanon, not a Lebanese security office.
The Lebanese situation has evolved from a phase of attempting to fill the presidential void, along with all the demands for participation, power sharing, mediations and initiatives that preceded this phase, to a situation of direct confrontation between the state and Hezbollah's infrastructure. With this confrontation, the initially slim chances of reaching a consensus president have diminished further. This is attributed to the fact that the government's decision will become the foundation upon which will rest the search for the president who will have to deal with this decision, whether positively or negatively. Whatever his position may be, the next president will become a party to this conflict anyway.
|
