Foreign Policy Blogs

If not reconciliation, then what?

reconciliation-sculpture-2.jpg

Walid Jumblatt was the first of the March 14 group to give one more chance to Nabih Berri's call for yet another round table discussion. They did not stop talking, mind you, just that they failed to agree on a solution. Walid Jumblatt did well for accepting Berri's call, which most likely is a bluff. Jumblatt wants to show, for like a hundredth time, the despicable game March 8 is playing in Lebanon. They are masters of the double speak rhetoric. In spite of Berri's supposedly good intentions, he cannot take any decision alone. He tried and failed. For many reasons he is at the hand of Syria. Sure, he can always decide to fulfill his duties as Speaker of the Parliament, and go ahead with the Presidential elections.

How about respecting the law and the people of Lebanon? I bet this is a peculiar piece of thought for Berri. Did you see or know of an altruistic politician? In Middle East or elsewhere, for that matter? One that truly puts the interest of the country above his own? Yeah, I thought so.

Saad Hariri who just returned from Saudi Arabia, said that March 14, as a group is ready for dialog. They have one request. “If this dialogue is to take place, a president should be elected regardless of the outcome,” Hariri stressed.

Berri is playing in Lebanon, the game, Bashar Assad is playing with the international community when it comes to Israel. Every once in a while, Syria publicly announces its interest for the peace process with Israel. Assad's regime is interested in the process all right, not in the peace per se.

March 8 wants guarantees in order to go ahead to elect a President. What type of guarantees are they looking for? I have few ideas, but keep in mind that March 8 has developed a tendency to mendacity. They always add something new to the list.

Do you remember the several UN resolutions (1559, 1680, 1701) asking Hizballah's disarming and the UN 1757 that asks for an international tribunal in Rafiq Hariri's case? Did the Iranians build and invest in Hizballah since mid 70s to have them just give up the weapons? Lose the leverage they have in the country? Can Damascus and Tehran afford to lose one crucial proxy? For Tehran, Hizballah is the strongest front it has in the Arab world. Therefore, that is not going to happen. Not soon, anyway, unless by divine grace (read: military intervention).

From a socio-political perspective, the Shias want to be sure they’ll continue to be partners, and not second class citizens, as they were till Musa Sadr, and later on, Amal and Hizballah came into picture.

MP Samir Franjieh said that reconciliation is in, “Hizbullah's interests because what is being proposed on the altars of (regional) negotiations is how to sacrifice Hizbullah.”

Thus far both sides agreed on the name of the President, in the person of General Michel Suleiman. For the record, that goes against both the Constitution spirit and letter.

In a recent interview, Elias Skaff, leader of the Popular Bloc and partner of March 8 block sent a warning message.

“Michel Sleiman is no longer a consensual candidate; he's making lots of mistakes. I find what he's doing to be inadequate and wrong; it might hurt him.”