• Geopolicy
• National Security
• Issues of Armeniancy
• Economy

29.01.2007

Developments in Lebanon

   

Lilit Harutyunyan

On the eve of Lebanon’s Independence Day on November 21, 2006, was murdered one more politician of anti-Syrian orientation - Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel¹. It is not by chance that by the murder of the minister were aggravated the contradictions between the parties in opposition and their regional and international sponsors. Let’s try to underline the developments in Lebanon and in its neighborhood at the end of 2006, as well as their reasons and possible consequences.

Pierre Gemayel’s funeral (on November 23) grew into a demonstration of mourning with the participation of anti-Syrian powers of “Murch 14”, united into the anti-Syrian alliance headed by Lebanon’s ex-minister Rafic Hariri’s son Saad Hariri². They denounced Damascus in Jemayel’s murder.

The tension in the country caused by the murder was increased, as the event just coincided with the discussion and approval by the Lebanon government with Fouad Siniora at the head of the decision made on November 21 in the UN Security Council. According to it, an international tribunal was to be set up to try suspects in the killing of the former Prime Minister³. Although the Lebanon’s cabinet has already approved the decision of setting up the international tribunal, however the president Emil Lahud, who suggested his support to Shia parties of Hezbollah and Amal, as well as to the Free Patriotic Movement headed by General Michel Aoun and was in close cooperating with the latter ones, announced that the decision made was non-constitutional as it was approved after the resignation of 6 ministers⁴. The president and the opposition leaders called for the government’s resignation and formation of a national unity government.

According to survey carried out in Lebanon in December of 2006, 95% of Shias and 50% of Lebanese Christians were for the resignation of Siniora’s cabinet. While 87% of sunnis, 50% of Christians and most of the Druses suggested their support to the government. These realities reveal how divided the Lebanese society is.

The Security Councils members of UN were also concerned by the approval of the above mentioned decision by the Lebanese government. On these occasion doubts were cast particularly by Qatar and the Russian Federation. However, disagreement in the Security Counsel was possible to resolve and the Lebanese government was provided a chance to solve its internal political issues.

Let’s mention that the decision of UN Security Council to set up an international tribune to try suspects in the political murders must be approved by the Lebanese parliament and the president. However, the session to be held on this issue has been delayed up till now by different reasons. The chairman of the parliament and the leader of Shian Amal movement Nabih Beri refuses to hold a session on this issue.

For the anti-Syrian leading alliance headed by Saad Hariri, setting up of the tribunal is the matter of principle. But for the oppositional pro-Syrian and pro-Iranian Shian Amal and Hezbollah parties, cooperating with the alliance, as well as for Free Patriotic Movement, this issue is unacceptable. It is reasoned by the fact that the above mentioned powers try to possibly delay any discussion on the issue of setting up the tribunal in the parliament (where the anti-Syrian alliance holds majority). Hariri’s murder case investigation issue has become one of the main reasons aggravating internal political crisis (which is likely to grow into armed confrontation) since 2006.

Political crises in Lebanon was more aggravated when, in answer to Fouad Siniora’s refusal of the cabinet’s resignation, Hezbollah organized multi thousand demonstrations and other actions of political disobedience in the main square of the country’s capital.

“Anti-revolution of cedars”

The last Lebanese-Israeli war in June and August of 2006 was the main factor to predestine contradictions among Lebanese authorities. After the relative “victory” over the Israeli army in 2006, the leader of Hezbollah movement Hasan Nasrallah applied himself to the work of fortifying his position in the country’s internal political life, which was quite shaky after the “Revolution of cedars”. He demanded 1/3 of the governmental seats of ministers, thus the right to veto the decisions of the executive body, which, however, was denied. Under that circumstances Hezbollah turned to the version implemented to change different administrations (including Lebanon) – peaceful revolution, which is called “revolution of cedars”.

Who it is advantageous for to destabilize situation in Lebanon

The aggravation of situation in Lebanon as usual was conditioned by the struggle among the power states and their regional partners for the right of domination there and in the Middle East in general. It is noteworthy that recently in the US it has much been spoken about establishing direct cooperation with Syria and Iran to stabilize situation in the Middle East. The main advocates of that idea are Democrats, who won the last elections of the US Congress. If there are no distinct perspectives of communicating on better terms between Washington and Teheran, Damascus is sure to have made certain steps towards that purpose⁵.

The possible rapprochement of the US-Syria relations may weaken Iran’s position. The later one may be deprived of its main ally in the region. From this standpoint, is advantageous for Iran to watch the situation getting more strained in Lebanon. In case the possible war brakes out in Lebanon, any possible relationship on better terms between Washington and Damascus may become impossible.

International Community: steps directed to regulate crisis in Lebanon

On December 2, the foreign ministers of Great Britain and Germany arrived in Lebanon to regulate the crisis. It is noteworthy that in cooperation with European diplomats, Saudi Arabia also made steps to overcome the crisis which furthered to stop the demonstrations of oppositional powers and carry the political contradictions from the street to the table of negotiations. On the 3rd of December the secretary general of Arab League Amr Musa also joined the process of crisis regulation.

Western and Eastern efforts were last joined in 1990, in the process of anti-Sadam alliance formation. Perhaps the main motive of cooperation was the threat of Shia radicalism to become more active in comparatively moderate and liberal Lebanon.

After quite a long brake, on mid-December 2006, Russia also got a real opportunity of carrying out mediatory mission in Lebanon and in the Middle East in general. On December 14 the Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora paid a visit to Moscow. The visit of the Lebanese prime minister of pro-western orientation to Moscow was quite interesting. To resolve the political crisis, the Lebanese authorities also tried to make use of the long lasting partner relations between Moscow and Damascus, especially in case when Siniora’s visit preceded Syria’s president Bashar Asad’s visit of three days to Moscow on December 19.

Beirut is sure that waves of protest are stirred up and directed by both Iran and Syria. It is not by chance that the considerable part of demonstrators, gathered in the main square of the capital, are the groupings formed by the support of Syrian special services.

During his visit to Moscow Fouad Siniora suggested the following version of mutual concessions: anti-Syrian government of Lebanon was to refuse to voice an accusation against Syria and Syria was to refuse to stir up attempts of dissolving Siniora’s cabinet⁶.

The last mediatory mission carried out by Moscow directed to peaceful regulation in the Middle East, didn’t meet with serious success. The present reality for Russia in the Middle East was an important occasion for it to stress up its own importance in the international arena. Only time will show the extent of success it may attain.

The Lebanese Armenians in the opposite political camp

The Armenians have all in all 6 deputy seats in Lebanon’s parliament , 4 of which (3 of them apostolic and1-catholic) are elected from Beirut’s constituency, and the other two are elected from the constituencies of mountainous Lebanon and Bekaa Valley.

All the four Armenian deputies (Hakob Qasarjayan (Ramkavar Liberal Party), Yeghia Cherechyan (Social Democratic Hnchakian Party), non-party deputy Jan Oghasapyan and Armenian catholic Serj Tursargsyan) from Beirut’s constituency which won seats in parliament are included in the alliance headed by Saad Hariri⁷.

The two other Armenian deputies from Lebanon’s and Bakaa’s Valley represent ARF (Armenain Revolutionary Federation) and are in close cooperation with the powers united in the opposition front, especially the one of Free Patriotic Movement headed by Michel Aoun. It is not by chance that Hakob Bagratuni, elected from mountainous Lebanon, was included in Michel Aoun’s constituency. The last Armenian deputy, Jorge Kassardjian, is a non-party deputy, but he is in close cooperation with ARF.

Although the Lebanese politicians and parties of Armenian origin cooperate with different powers and groupings, including quite oppositional ones, according to their orientation, however, the Armenian community tries to remain faithful to the policy of “positive neutrality” adopted still during the civil war brought out in 1975.

Conclusions

1. Internal political crisis brought out in Lebanon at the end of 2006 is the outcome of strained relations among the regional and not regional powers.
2. Political crisis has also internal reasons: a) mutually excluding positions of the country’s opposite political camps in connection with setting up an international tribune to try the suspects of Rafic Hariri’s murder, b) after attaining “some success” in Lebanese-Israeli war on July-August 2006, Hezbollah movement tries to make use of its popularity among certain circles of population and enlarge its political influence and involvement in the country’s governing bodies.
3. In cooperation with the international community it was possible to reach temporary regulation of situation in 2006. However, the reasons which caused the crises and the issues as an outcome of it still remain unsolved. The oppositional powers of the country still threaten to restore the second stage of the temporarily sustained political disorder, which would include overall strikes. All these can’t but cause irreparable harm to the country’s economy, which has already undergone considerable extent of damages.

Return