JUST weeks before Emile Lahoud is scheduled to start his newly extended three-year term as president of Lebanon, the country has been plunged into a political crisis with the decision by Prime Minister Rafik Hariri to give up his post, dissolve his government and, so it seems, not to head a new Cabinet.
Is this one of those episodes in Lebanese politics, which, at times, develop into something of a soap opera? One theory is that Hariri is seeking to propel himself into a stronger position before he is urged by Lahoud and the Parliament to form a new government. Another theory is that Hariri is trying to dissociate himself from the controversial decision to amend Lebanon’s Constitution in order to allow Lahoud’s term to be extended by three years.
While political calculations may well form part of the background to Hariri’s move, it is important to note some of the realities on the ground. Changes in the geo-strategic situation in the region during the past three years have altered some of the basic assumptions on which the fragile balance of power in Lebanon had been shaped after the civil war of the 1970s. The UN Security Council appears determined that Syria should withdraw its troops from Lebanon, a demand that has been supported by several Arab states. The very evocation of such a Syrian withdrawal affects the policies not only of other regional powers, and beyond them the major powers interested in the Middle East, but would also reposition Lebanon’s fractious ethnic and religious communities.
Such a repositioning is, in fact, already under way. The small but influential Druze community has set aside its traditional hostility toward the Maronite Christians in the name of unity against the Syrian presence. Hariri’s latest maneuver could put a question mark in front of the Sunni Muslim community’s position on the controversial Syrian role. There are even more serious signs of growing danger. The rhetoric used by Lebanese politicians from all communities is becoming increasingly bellicose. Some are even using language that recalls the dark days of the civil war.
Syria and its principal regional ally, Iran, regard the Security Council’s current interest in Lebanon as nothing but another move by the Bush administration to create a new status quo in the Middle East. The fact that France, an active opponent of the war in Iraq, has joined forces with the US to exert pressure on Syria is seen in both Damascus and Tehran as another sign that the Western powers, even when they are in apparent disagreement on one issue, always end up on the same side when it comes to their broader strategic interests.
Hariri’s departure at this time is certainly bad news for all concerned. Over the past few years the businessman-turned politician has succeeded in establishing himself as an acceptable interface for most of Lebanon’s rival communities. He had also developed working relations with Damascus while maintaining close ties with both Washington and Paris. Equally important has been Hariri’s success in preventing Lebanon from becoming yet another cause of conflict within the Arab world.
In Lebanon today the stage is being set for both an internal and a regional showdown. Hariri’s decision is, perhaps, a desperate appeal to all those concerned to think twice before they cross the Rubicon.
