Al-Ahram Weekly, Egypt
Sept 9 2004
The limits of loyalty
Amending Lebanon’s constitution by Syrian dictate has thrown the
country into political turmoil, writes Mohalhel Fakih
Lebanon’s government is in crisis after four ministers tendered their
resignation in protest over a vote in parliament that amended the
constitution to extend President Emile Lahoud’s mandate for another
three years. The legislative move changed Lebanon’s political
landscape and intensified domestic and international pressure on
Syria, putting both Beirut and Damascus on a collision course with
the United Nations Security Council, the United States and Europe.
But Syria’s allies, especially President Lahoud, made clear they will
only deepen ties with Damascus and warned that the Lebanese face the
choice of either supporting Syria at this “dangerous” period or
backing US plans in the Middle East.
“I tendered my resignation,” Environment Minister Fares Boueiz told
reporters after a Monday meeting with Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. He
had voted on Friday against a bill in parliament to amend the
constitution and extend the former Lebanese Army commander’s mandate,
a poll that the US charged was a result of a campaign of “threats”
and intimidation by Syria and “its agents”, drawing immediate denials
from Syria’s Information Minister Ahmed Al-Hassan. He told a news
conference in Damascus that “the most important thing of all is that
brotherly Syrian and Lebanese relations take the path of more
cooperation, coordination and congruity.”
Hariri, a long time rival of Lahoud, had sent clear signals that he
would not stay in office if the president remained. But after a
meeting with senior Syrian officials, Hariri himself proposed an
amendment of the constitution to annul elections, citing Middle East
tensions. Now, the fate of Hariri’s government looks uncertain.
“We are quitting the government,” Economy and Trade Minister Marwan
Hamadeh told a gathering. Hamadeh and two of his colleagues,
representing Druze leader MP Walid Jumblatt, had voiced vocal
dissatisfaction with the parliamentary vote. Jumblatt, an ally of
Syria, had rejected the decision to extend Lahoud’s term, claiming
the country was moving closer to military rule.
Hariri, an ally of Jumblatt, who conceived and implemented plans to
reconstruct Lebanon following the 1975-1990 Civil War, confirmed on
Monday that consultations will soon be held “on the fate of Boueiz’s
resignation and other resignations that could occur, as well as the
general situation of the government after returning from a series of
visits that will end on the 17th of this month.” Hariri is scheduled
to visit Cairo, Madrid and Brussels, but has reportedly cancelled a
trip to New York.
His bloc in parliament voted in favour of amending the constitution,
despite earlier condemnations. One of the deputies, Ghattas Khoury,
cast a ballot against electing Lahoud. His colleague MP Nabil de
Freij supported the amendment but said Khoury did not want to give in
to threats that he had been allegedly receiving. De Freij described
the parliamentary session as a “sad masquerade” but justified his
vote as a sign that he would not “give up on [Hariri]”.
Fresh from a resounding victory, Lahoud promised to launch new
development programmes across the country and give an added push to
the agriculture sector, clearly sending a signal as to who is in
charge. Beirut is rife with reports that Lahoud is planning to form a
mixed government of technocrats and politicians. The post-war
constitution, which distributed power on confessional basis, gave the
prime minister executive authority, but Hariri has on several
occasions complained that Lahoud was blocking his policies including
internationally backed privatisation plans.
The president should expect tough opposition not only from a
fragmented Christian community that opposes Syria’s military presence
in Lebanon, but also from some Muslim politicians and Druze leader
Jumblatt, whose 16 allies in parliament, along with the Christian
opposition Qornet Shehwan gathering, voted against amending the
constitution. Nevertheless, Lahoud told hundreds of visitors at the
Baabda Palace, congratulating him on staying in office, that: “this
sort of arrangement [ties with Syria] will continue with the aim of
achieving just and complete and lasting peace, which spreads the
stability which Lebanon and Syria enjoy over other countries in the
region.”
The head of state received unequivocal support from Hizbullah.
Casting ballots for Lahoud in the 96-20 vote, with three not
attending the parliamentary session, were a large array of deputies
and legislators belonging to Hizbullah. The Shia group warned the
Lebanese that the next 30 days set out by a UN Security Council’s
resolution, which was passed hours before parliament voted to keep
the president, were fraught with “danger”. Hizbullah Secretary-
General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, a top ally of Syria, said Syrian
troops, who entered Lebanon at the onset of the Civil War, should
remain, crediting Damascus for stability and unity in the country.
Nasrallah was a target of the US-French backed resolution calling for
the withdrawal of “foreign troops”, in reference to Syria, disarming
“militias” and sending Lebanese Army soldiers to the south. He
rejected the Security Council decision, as did Lebanon and Syria, and
accused the UN body of “lying” about wanting to protect Lebanon’s
sovereignty and independence, citing Israel’s almost daily breaches
of Lebanese airspace and its previous military invasions. Nasrallah
told a rally in Beirut’s southern suburbs that army garrisons were
sent to the south following Israel’s May 2000 pullout, but the aim of
the resolution was to protect US and Israeli interests, and to
permanently settle Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
Hizbullah remains the only armed group following the end of the
Lebanon war on grounds that it continues to fight Israel’s occupation
of the Shebaa Farms region, a region the UN ruled was Syrian, but
Beirut and Damascus insist is Lebanese. Hizbullah has been branded a
terrorist group by Washington, which blames Syria for the influence
it holds. The organisation is hailed throughout the Arab world as a
resistance force to Israeli aggression.
This regional angle of Hizbullah and a Syrian struggle with the US
and France, and eventually the United Nations, turned the extension
of the former Army General’s mandate into a regional power tussle,
with Syria declaring victory. Syrian officials have said the fact
that Washington and Paris had to water down the Security Council
resolution that they drafted, not mentioning Syria by name, and a
nine-vote minimum possible approval at the world body, showed that
the US “failed”. But the resolution warning against intervention in
Lebanon’s presidential election also gave UN chief Kofi Annan 30 days
to ensure implementation and warns of “additional measures”.
Hizbullah’s leader urged the Lebanese to rally behind Lahoud.
Meanwhile, Syria’s strong ally and Maronite political heavyweight,
Health Minister Sleiman Franjieh, said Lebanon was now “either with
Syria or against Syria”. Franjieh had initially opposed extending
Lahoud’s mandate but told a news conference he agreed with the
official justification that regional tensions and Israeli “threats”
were behind amending the constitution, a decision that the US dubbed
“crude mockery” by Syria.
Hizbullah Deputy Mohamed Raad, who leads the nine-member bloc of
Hizbullah in parliament, said they voted to amend the constitution
“to support Lahoud and to reject the policies of the American
administration in the region”.
There were many who disagreed with Raad and Franjieh, including the
Maronite Church, to which the health minister and the president
belong. And the head of the Progressive Socialist Party, MP Jumblatt,
backed the Church’s condemnation of the amendment although he was
cautious not to publicly attack Syria.
“Syria gives orders, appoints leaders, organises parliamentary and
other elections, brings in whoever it wants and drops whoever it
wants and interferes in all aspects of life: in the administration,
the judiciary, the economy and particularly politics, through its
representatives here and its aides,” Maronite bishops, led by
Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, said. They added that Damascus
“compromises Lebanese interests in international forums and protects
the corrupt and the corrupters, while some of its nationals and some
Lebanese share the spoils and trade in power.”
The amendment provoked several campaigns to oppose an extension of
Lahoud’s mandate and Syria’s role in Lebanon, including from a
multi-confessional gathering of some 200 leading intellectuals and
opposition groups participating in what they called the “Petition to
Defend the Republic and the Constitution”. They lashed out at
Damascus for “imposing” its will on Lebanon and “endangering” both
countries.
At the same time, representatives of some 25 political factions and
parties, including Hizbullah, the Baath Party, Armenian Tashnak
Party, and House Speaker Nabih Berri’s Amal Movement, converged on
the United Nations headquarters and protested against an alleged
French-US effort “to separate the Syrian- Lebanese attachment” which
they said “is impossible”. They warned that international pressure
only “endangers civil peace”.
The current divisions were described as menacing by the highest
authority of Shia Muslims in Lebanon Sheikh Abdul-Amir Qabalan and
were blamed by top Sunni religious leaders, headed by the Mufti of
the Republic Sheikh Mohamed Rashid Qabbani, on the US, while
attributing stability in Lebanon to Damascus. Both clerics had
reportedly earlier rejected an amendment of the constitution though
their statements were withdrawn. They have now said in one statement
that they support the amendment, “to stand up against Israeli threats
and the American diktat”.
US moves had put those opposing Syria in a corner. They insist that
they do not support foreign intervention in Lebanon but that Lahoud
should have gone. Sunni Muslim MP Mosbah Ahdab declared allegiance to
strong strategic ties with Syria but said he opposed an extension of
the president’s mandate, which would in his words “extend the crisis
for another three years”. Furthermore, he raised charges of threats
made against him to modify his position.
Ahdab appeared to be referring to a power struggle between Lahoud and
Hariri that virtually paralysed the state due to their economic
policy differences. Hariri refused to form a government when Lahoud
first came to office in 1998, and stayed in the opposition ranks
until he and his allies scored an unprecedented parliamentary victory
in 2000.
“There is no winner and no loser,” Lahoud declared. He said the
differences of opinion that emerged following the constitution’s
amendment were at the core of Lebanon’s democracy. He called for
opening a new page. Yet although Lebanon is accustomed to rancorous
politics, and despite calling US and French condemnations of amending
the constitution “interference in internal affairs”, Lahoud and the
Lebanese have to face up to the fact that Washington appears to have
its eyes focussed on the country.
“We are gravely concerned that the will of the people has been
circumvented by Syrian actions that led to this vote,” Tom Casey,
State Department spokesman told reporters.