Supporters of the pro-Western governing coalition at a rally in Achrafieh in East Beirut on Wednesday
New York Times, Robert Worth, Beirut, June 5 - On the surface, the choice does seem stark: on one corner of Lebanon's most competitive parliamentary race in decades stands the Shiite militant group Hezbollah and its allies; in the other corner, a pro-American political alliance led by a man often described as a playboy.
"It's your choice between peace and war," said Sami Gemayel, a Christian candidate who opposes Hezbollah, during a recent television appearance. "The choice is between Gaza and a developed, civilized Lebanese state."
But the political realities of this small, chronically divided Mediterranean country are far less drastic, and far more complex. Hezbollah, which the United States considers a terrorist group, is already part of the Parliament and cabinet. It is almost certain to win the same number of Parliament seats — 11 out of 128 — as it now holds. If Hezbollah and its allies win a majority for the first time — and the race is likely to be very close — there will be concern in Washington and Tel Aviv. But the Lebanese government will not fall into the hands of armed Islamists.
Instead, the election turns on the votes of Lebanon's Christians, who are divided between the two main political camps. The real beneficiary of an opposition victory would not be Hezbollah but its main electoral partner, the Free Patriotic Movement, led by the retired Christian general Michel Aoun. His parliamentary bloc is already more than twice as large as Hezbollah's, and a clear electoral victory could propel him into a dominant position.
To his critics, Mr. Aoun is a political opportunist and traitor whose alliance with Hezbollah, reached in 2006, threatens to draw Lebanon into the sphere of Syria and Iran, and to bring more ruinous wars with Israel. Historically, Lebanon's Christians have identified more with the West.
To his supporters, Mr. Aoun is a reformer who has the will to change Lebanon's entrenched culture of corruption, patronage and sectarian division. They say allying with Hezbollah is the only way to ultimately disarm it, and to move past the bitter history of Christian-Muslim tensions that has nurtured so much deadly conflict here. A policy of confrontation, such as the one the United States seemed to be advocating, is a recipe for renewed civil war, the Aounists say.
"We are born in American hospitals, we wear American clothes, we go to American schools, but don't ask us to commit suicide," said Ziyad Abs, 38, a member of the Aounist movement's political bureau.
In a sense, it is a debate over the wisdom of pressuring Hezbollah openly or trying to tame it through political inclusion. As always with Lebanon, the debate has been profoundly influenced by the changing political winds across the region.
Lebanon's last elections, in 2005, took place in the aftermath of the assassination of the former prime minister, Rafiq Hariri. That killing — widely believed to have been carried out by Syria — shocked the world and led to Syria's withdrawal after three decades of military presence here. An anti-Syrian coalition led by Mr. Hariri's son and political heir, Saad Hariri, swept to power, and with the backing of the United States, hoped to push Hezbollah to give up its formidable arsenal.
But that ambition has crumbled under the weight of regional political realities. A brutal 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah enhanced the Shiite group's domestic political standing, and made disarming it more difficult. Several anti-Syrian political figures were assassinated, forcing their colleagues — including Mr. Hariri — to take shelter behind closed doors and bulletproof windows.
A political showdown between the opposition and the governing majority provoked an 18-month political crisis that ended only when Hezbollah briefly took control of west Beirut in May 2008. A political settlement reached shortly afterward granted the opposition the veto powers it had been seeking.
Now, with the Obama administration reaching out to Syria and Iran, it seems clearer than ever that the pro-American majority in Lebanon cannot expect Western military support in its goal of disarming Hezbollah. That recognition has energized the Aounist movement, whose leaders say their close, trusting relationship with Hezbollah is the best foundation for a move toward greater civil peace.
The consequences of a victory by Mr. Aoun and Hezbollah are the subject of much anxious speculation here and abroad. Vice President Joseph R. Biden, who briefly visited Lebanon in late May, echoed earlier hints by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that future American military support to Lebanon might suffer if the opposition were to win. The European Union and Russia have taken a more neutral approach, saying they will work with whoever wins.
The financial consequences could be even more important. Saudi Arabia, which supports the current government majority, has provided tremendous support to Lebanon, including at least $2 billion to Lebanon's central bank since 2006. It is not likely to withdraw money in any damaging way, but Mr. Hariri and others in the current parliamentary majority have warned that an opposition victory could scare off investors. Even Hezbollah officials seem concerned, and say they want to make sure Lebanon's financial prospects are not harmed.
But the election may not yield a victory for either side, at least not right away. In all likelihood, any result would be followed by a resumption of the current "national unity" government, in which the loser is granted veto powers so as to preserve civil peace.
A three-way electoral split is also possible, with a small group of independents emerging as mediators between the two camps, election observers say. The current political camps could also change shape after the vote. In recent weeks, Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader who is known as the weather vane of Lebanese politics, has begun criticizing his colleagues in the current pro-Western majority. Some political analysts say he smells an electoral defeat for his team, and is preparing the ground for a post-election rapprochement with Hezbollah and its Syrian allies.
In the meantime, the election campaign churns on here as though political principle were all that mattered. It has been Lebanon's freest and most competitive election in decades, with a record number of candidates taking part. Like all Lebanese elections, it is also a profoundly international affair, with foreign governments paying for their preferred candidates, and political parties flying expatriate voters in from across the globe.
"All of us for the nation!" proclaims a huge campaign sign in downtown Beirut, in words taken from the Lebanese national anthem. Not long ago, a new sign emerged with a provocative variation: "All of us for which nation?"
Source - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/world/middleeast/06lebanon.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
No comments:
Post a Comment