The Lebanon peace deal signed yesterday in Qatar is indeed, as Lebanese Premier Fouad Siniora said, “an exceptional agreement for an exceptional time.” His country had come once again to the brink of civil war which, as the previous 15 years of bloody conflict demonstrated, benefited no one except the gravediggers and the Israelis. But now the high hopes expressed in Doha need to be turned into reality. The deal creates a new government of national unity in which the Hezbollah-led former opposition has 11 seats against the 16 seats of the ruling majority led by Siniora. A further three Cabinet positions will go to nominees of the new president — when he is elected by Parliament. This will hopefully be on Sunday when army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman will be chosen. Lebanon has been without a president since last November.
The key concession has been made to Hezbollah, who, despite their minority position in the government, will have a right of veto. The agreement also provides for electoral changes that may well benefit Hezbollah and its allies in next year’s elections. At the same time Hezbollah has now agreed that the use of weapons in internal conflicts will be banned. This is a long way from the disarming of the militants which the outgoing government had demanded but recognizes the fact that Hezbollah, rather than the Lebanese Army, defeated the July 2006 Israeli invasion.
On the face of it, as the commentators are saying, this is a sweeping political victory for Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah’s Hezbollah and its allies. In temporarily taking over large areas of western Beirut and part of the mountainous Druze region earlier this month, Hezbollah demonstrated that they are currently the most significant armed force in the country. However, Nasrallah must know that if he had maintained his aggressive military posture, it would only have been a question of time before his opponents would have themselves re-armed and challenged him.
Therefore though this peace deal may have come out of the barrel of a gun, it remains a political deal. Hezbollah is rejoining Lebanon’s government and, in so doing, is signaling its commitment to advance its political platform by peaceful means. Given the proven futility of civil conflict in Lebanon, this is only common sense. It remains to be seen how Nasrallah will use his political power base. He may with justice demand greater economic benefits for his largely Shiites supporters who constitute the poorest and most disadvantaged of Lebanese. The country still has major reconstruction needs, not just from 15 years of civil war but also from the gratuitous destruction of important infrastructure during Israel’s failed 2006 invasion. Nasrallah will demand that priority be given to this work in his southern power-base. But Hezbollah’s preferred foreign policy will be the challenge. It is now part of a Lebanese unity government but Washington avers Nasrallah is a cat’s-paw for Syria and Iran. The Hezbollah leader now has the chance to demonstrate that his loyalty is first and foremost to his country and not to someone else’s.
