Political stalemate continues in Lebanon. Four months after the election won by Saad Hariri’s March 14 alliance, the country is still without a new government, its formation blocked by the pro-Syrian opposition Hezbollah, Amal and the Free Patriotic Movement led by Michel Aoun. Lebanese eyes are now on King Abdullah who will meet Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus. They hope that he can resolve the issue and enable Lebanon to get back to normal. The power vacuum is doing it no good whatsoever. Investors are afraid; the tourism industry has been seriously damaged and there are real fears that the stalemate could push the country into renewed sectarian war.
It is a sad reflection on the unstable state of affairs in Lebanon that it is outsiders who are called in to try and fix the situation. But that is a recognition of the influence outsiders still wield within the country.
Hariri’s supporters allege that Syria is behind the stalemate and that it wants a political vacuum in Lebanon in order to reinforce its influence and as a bargaining tool to ensure its voice is heard in international circles. Damascus denies this, although Syrian Vice President Farouk Al-Sharaa’s claim 10 months ago that Syria’s influence in the country is stronger than ever suggests otherwise. Many in Lebanon see in it an admission of interference.
Saudi Arabia’s position on Lebanon is very different. It is very much in the spirit of the 1989 Taif Accord which brought the civil war to an end and was based on the need for peace, stability and reconciliation in the country and a recognition that an unstable Lebanon was bad for the region.
Saudi Arabia supports Hariri not because he is a Sunni Muslim or because his family has had links with the country but because his alliance won the elections fairly and squarely. He is the man the majority of Lebanese want to be prime minister.
Events are coming to a head. This week Hariri finally met Aoun who has taken the lead in blocking a settlement with excessive demands, principally that his son-in-law remain in the security-sensitive post of telecommunications minister. Hariri is determined to have his own man in the job. He takes the entirely reasonable view that, as prime minister and being ultimately responsible for the performance of the government, he has to chose who works with him and who gets what job; he is not prepared to be a mere secretary who follows the orders of the parties in the coalition.
But, much as he might want to, Hariri cannot ignore Aoun. He is a major figure in the opposition and Hariri knows that if he does not stick to the agreed Cabinet formula of 15 ministers from his own alliance, 10 from the opposition and five appointed by the president, then there is a real chance of civil war breaking out again.
Aoun now says that a Cabinet will soon be formed. Will it include his son-in law as telecommunications minister? If it does, Hariri has lost and so has Lebanon. The opposition will have demonstrated that and that its masters are the real power in Lebanon. If Aoun’s son-in-law is not minister, then Hariri has won. But will the opposition accept that?
