Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows in Lebanon when she differentiated between a military branch and a political one in Hezbollah. Clinton’s statement on the Charlie Rose Show came only 24-hours after Saad al-Harriri had created a cabinet of national unity, which includes two members of Hezbollah.
Clinton seemingly extended a thin blanket for Harriri to cover himself with—a life jacket—implying that the while the political branch of Hezbollah, represented in the cabinet, was fine, the “military wing” that engages in war, is frowned upon by the US.
Never since the US placed Hezbollah on its “terrorist list” in 1999 had such a groundbreaking statement ever been made by a senior US official.
The US has obviously realized that no breakthrough was possible in Lebanon, unless Hezbollah is well represented in the Lebanese cabinet. Some call it pragmatism; others say that it was a difficult reality that Washington could not but acknowledge and digest.
Colliding with Hezbollah was no use—clearly from the mini-war that broke out in Beirut in May 2008—and trying to disarm it through UN resolutions was obviously, not going to work.
The Obama Administration has decided to deal with Lebanon on a macro-level, evaluating results rather than immersing itself with details. Simply, it has far more pressing issues to deal with, like the explosive situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine. Saad Harriri has therefore, been given a carte blanche to deal with Hezbollah in what he sees is in Lebanon’s best interest.
As a result, Hezbollah demands were fully incorporated into the Lebanese cabinet: they got to name the Shiite minister in President Michel Suleiman’s bloc, were given control of 11 rather than 10 portfolios, and the Ministry of Telecommunications was granted to their ally Charbel Nahhas of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM).
This week, the new Prime Minister is due to deliver a policy statement for his new government, which Hezbollah expects, based on Harriri promises, will contain a clear statement, promising to honor and protect, the arms of Hezbollah.
March 14 has invented a new term in the ever-changing political dictionary of Lebanon, being Harrirism: continuity of a path paved for Lebanon by Rafiq al-Harriri. This basically applies to attracting foreign investment, building the economy, transforming Lebanon into a tourism hub, incorporating everybody into the political process, and continuing to invest in what was previously known as West Beirut.
Hezbollah is reminding the Harriri team that Harrirism also means an excellent relationship between Hezbollah and the Premiership. That was done in the past, they say, by including a clause in every government policy statement since 1992, pledging to protect the arms of Hezbollah, recognizing their role as the legitimate resistance in Lebanon.
Hezbollah is reminding of a conversation between Hasan Nasrallah and Rafiq al-Harriri, one week before the latter’s assassination in February 2005. According to Nasrallah, Harriri said, “I believe in this resistance. And I am telling you that if I become prime minister again I will not implement the (disarmament) article of (UN) Resolution 1559. I swear to you that the resistance and its weapons will remain until the day a comprehensive regional settlement is reached, not just until (the Israeli) withdrawal from the Sheba Farms."
This conversation is ringing in everybody’s mind as the Lebanese political class finds itself sharply divided—again—over the arms of Hezbollah. That topic had surfaced after the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon in April 2005, only to be briefly muted, then re-emerged right the Israeli war on Lebanon in August 2006.
Today, two ministers of the Harriri cabinet, Boutros Harb and Salim Sayyegh (Lebanese Phalange) are insisting that the word “resistance” is crossed off from the policy statement of the new government, sending shockwaves throughout the upper echelons of Hezbollah.
The two ministers are objecting to Section 5 of the proposed Government Agenda, which protects Hezbollah weapons, arguing that decisions of war and peace should be monopolized solely by the state. If Hezbollah gets its way this time, the Lebanese Phalange is threatening to walk out on Harriri. Sejaan Qazzi, a senior member of the Phalange, stressed that his party’s MPs should be considered, “an independent parliamentary bloc,” which does not abide by the decisions of the parliamentary majority.
Nothing indicates that the new crisis about to be solved. The Phalange insists that it will not endorse a cabinet that protects the arms of Hezbollah, claiming that it was used and abused by Harriri, then dropped at the expense of Hezbollah and the FPM.
For its part Hezbollah is saying that its arms are not up for negotiations, reminding that it agreed to join Harriri’s government believing that it would adapt the same policy statement of his predecessor Foud Siniora, which clearly included the Hezbollah clause.
Other problems have already surfaced: Samir Geagea is unhappy with Harriri cuddling up to the Syrians and Hezbollah, Amal and Hezbollah are furious with the Phalange, and Interior Minister Ziad Baroud is sulking and threatening to step down, due to a crisis with General Ashraf Rifi, head of Internal Security Forces (ISF).
Saad Harriri is now faced with the first real challenge of his new term as Prime Minister: who should he accommodate: the Phalange, who had helped bring Israel into Beirut in 1982, then helped bring him to power in 2009, or Hezbollah, whose support is essential for the Premier’s success?
Hillary Clinton came to the rescue, however, throwing him the life jacket that he needed, implying that a content Hezbollah well-represented in government, was better than an angry one on the offensive, burning tires, leading anti-Harriri demonstrations, and waging war on Israel.
Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria.
Operation Breakfast Redux