The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is a devastating blow for Lebanon. The specter of terrorism has come back to the streets of Beirut. Like a haunting replay of the worst days of the country’s bloody civil war, it provides a chilling reminder of what has been — and what could be again — unless there is absolute determination from every quarter, inside and outside the country, to maintain stability.
That Lebanon has political problems is no secret. There is a crisis brewing over demands for a Syrian military pullout, demands which Hariri himself recently endorsed. Moreover, most of the underlying political, sectarian and economic divisions that fueled the 1975-1990 civil war still remain unresolved. The war did not end because the warring parties settled their difference or because one side won. It ended because the Lebanese were exhausted by the fighting. Time has moved on. Everyone — the Lebanese themselves, the wider Arab world, indeed the whole world — was confident that the era of violence and bloodshed was well and truly in the past. For all its political problems, Lebanon has been enjoying growing prosperity and investment — for which Hariri himself was largely responsible. Nobody would have dreamed that the multibillionaire businessman, who was more a technocrat leader than a traditional, divisive communal politician, would be assassinated in such an orgy of blood and violence.
At this juncture, it is impossible to know whether the motives for the crime were in fact political. Hariri was active in so many walks of life. It would be naive to imagine that he was without business enemies. Few men of his influence, his wealth and the way he made it are. There is a wide range of possibilities. The claim of responsibility made by a so-far unknown Islamist group may be true; or may not be, because, of late, there have been many instances of self-styled “Islamist” groups claiming responsibility for actions, which on investigation, proved to be false.
Fingers will be pointed at many directions now, some with reason and some because even such tragedies are occasions for major international players and minor local players to push their agendas. They have already been pointed at Syria. In this case, however, despite Damascus’ firm protests of innocence, they are unlikely to go away. The demand for it to pull its troops out of Lebanon has been growing in strength. Ever since the Israeli pullout from the south of the country in 2000, the Lebanese opposition has demanded it; the UN Security Council passed a resolution last October calling for it; Hariri’s recent conversion to the cause helped transform it from a narrow party political issue into a national one.
The imperative now is to ensure that Lebanon does not re-explode. An event like this could easily trigger violence which then spirals out of control. This is a time for all — Lebanon, Syria, the Middle East nations and the international community — to come together to ensure that it does not happen.
