Neither victor nor vanquished

In an interview with Graham Usher Salim Al-Hoss discusses the conflict in Lebanon, its potential dangers and what he believes is its "only" solution

---

Salim Al-Hoss has been Lebanon's prime minister five times, with his last tenure being 1998-2000. He is currently being touted as a possible "national unity" prime minister to help extract Lebanon from its current crisis, a challenge he says he would accept on one condition: "If there were a consensus on my candidature from both the [anti-Syrian] opposition and [pro-Syrian] loyalists."

Is the current crisis the birth of a new Lebanon or a return to the old one?

I hope it is a new beginning. But if the struggle continues as now -- with demonstrations and counter-demonstrations instead of dialogue -- there won't be a solution. A country without a government is vulnerable to crises: political, economic, social and security. So far security has prevailed. But how long will this last? There have already been incidents here and there. And in Lebanon one incident can start a fire.

The basic problem is sectarianism, which is more entrenched than ever. Do not be fooled by appearances -- that both the opposition and loyalists hold the Lebanese flag. It conceals an old status quo. The main parties in either camp are sectarian. The Phalangists [part of the opposition] are Christian Maronites. Amal and Hizbullah [the main loyalist parties] are entirely Shia.

But both sides appear to be united on Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon?

I think the accusations against Syria are an attempt to absolve ourselves of responsibility for the crisis. The Lebanese have a lot of complaints against Syria, particularly the intelligence forces and their alliance with the Lebanese ones. But we cannot make an enemy of Syria. Syria is the closest country to us. We have to have relations with it.

The problem is that the two sides are escalating the conflict. The opposition demands Syria withdraw. Well, [UN Special Envoy] Terje Larsen has said he has a timetable for a complete Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. So why are there demonstrations in Martyrs Square?

My fear is that we are entering the old Lebanese gamble of winner takes all. The opposition says we have the US, France and UN Security Council Resolution 1559 [which calls for a Syrian withdrawal and disarmament of Hizbullah] on our side, so let's use them to smash the loyalists. The loyalists say we have Hizbullah, its enormous power to mobilise the people and Syria on our side, so let's use them to smash the opposition.

Gambling is dangerous in Lebanon. In 1958 we had the Baghdad Pact supported by the US and the Arab nationalists supported by [Egypt's president] Gamal Abdel-Nasser. We believed we could gamble on foreign forces then. It cost us a six- month civil war. In 1975 we had another civil war. It lasted 15 years, during which each side used everything -- car bombs, forced migrations, massacres -- to eliminate the other.

Neither side succeeded, and for one reason. In Lebanon there can never be a victor and a vanquished, because, if there were, there would be no Lebanon. This is the lesson we must re-learn today.

So what is the solution?

We need an exit strategy and a government. There are two proposals. The loyalists want a national unity government. The opposition wants a neutral government. I prefer a national unity government. I think a neutral government will continue the polarisation. But a neutral government is better than no government.

Whatever the government, its main task, aside from investigating [former prime minister Rafiq] Al-Hariri's death, must be to pass the elections law and hold immediate elections. Elections will defuse the crisis, replacing the demonstrations in the streets with debates in parliament. I doubt whether this would solve the conflict but it would neutralise it.

How would you describe the US role in the crisis?

The US is utterly unfair whether it is dealing with Lebanon or the Arabs. It preaches democracy in the region, wages war in its name in Iraq and Afghanistan and threatens the same on Syria. I told [US Special Envoy] David Satterfield that Lebanon is divided over UN Resolution 1559. He agreed with me. So by what democratic logic does the US enter this internal debate on one side rather than the other?

Then there is Hizbullah and its disarmament. Lebanon is constantly subjected to Israeli violations of its airspace and territorial waters. We are acutely aware that Israel could attack us everyday and the US would not lift a finger in protest. Our only reaction is Hizbullah. Hizbullah is the only Lebanese force that can disturb Israel. So for the US to demand its disarmament in these circumstances is actually to say, yes, there can be Israeli aggression but, no, there can't be Lebanese resistance.

Lebanese opposition posters carry an anti-Syrian banner during a demonstration in Beirut's Martyrs' Square on Monday (photo: AP)