Stalemate

A new failure by the National Dialogue to decide on Lebanon's political future brings to the fore negotiations taking place on the sidelines, writes Serene Assir

---

The Lebanese National Dialogue, kick started in March by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in a much-lauded bid to forge a semblance of unity among divided factions, has yet again come up against obstacles regarding the most complex questions in the country's political spectrum today. Fourteen factional leaders convening in Beirut Tuesday failed to agree on the key question of whether or not to force pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud to step down. Anti-Syrian factions, led by Saad Al-Hariri's parliamentary majority, have been demanding that Lahoud step down ever since Lebanon was thrown into political crisis following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri in February 2005, which, pending concrete evidence, Damascus has been widely blamed for ordering.

Factional leaders had previously decided to either resolve the question surrounding Lahoud's presidency or move on to other issues contested in the National Dialogue within days of the resumption of talks 28 April. It now appears that, bar continued heckling, Lahoud will stay put until his term ends in 2007. So heated, however, was the controversy over his presidency, and so questioned his role in Lebanese politics, that the National Dialogue's failure to bring about agreement seems to have implicitly alienated the president by default.

Other issues on the table, including the disarmament of Hizbullah, are now shifting closer to the centre of debate, both within and beyond the boundaries of the National Dialogue. Always brought to question both by anti-Syrian factions and by the United States is Hizbullah's alleged loyalty to Damascus, the fruit of years of support. Based on the potentially flawed assumption that Hariri was killed either under order from or with the knowledge of the Damascus regime, the stigma of Hizbullah's link has been translated over recent months into a demand to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which seeks the unconditional disarmament of the Shia faction.

For much of the anti-Syrian camp, the end of the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon in 2000 meant that there is no longer strong justification for Hizbullah to remain armed. For its part, Hizbullah argues that the existence of a continued threat from Israel -- which is often manifested in violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli fighter jets -- justifies its continued armament. Hizbullah leaders say that its weapons constitute a deterrent against further violence from the south. In addition, Hizbullah is in agreement with both pro and some anti-Damascus factions on the status of the occupied Shebaa Farms as Lebanese. For increasingly outspoken Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, however, Hizbullah is merely using the Shebaa Farms dispute as an excuse to tip the balance in Lebanon in its favour. In all, forthcoming debates on Hizbullah's arms promise to be charged, especially given that Hizbullah and its supporters feel that Lebanon's military would not be able to withstand potential renewed Israeli pressure alone.

A new draft resolution over Syria and Lebanon has also been the subject of heated debate. Syria and the pro- Damascus camp in Lebanon have increasingly felt over recent months that UN intervention in Lebanon is tantamount to US meddling, and that, by contrast, the UN has done nothing to sanction Israel for continued violations. Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh has criticised the draft resolution in its present form, saying that it should also condemn Israel for its continued violations, its occupation of the Shebaa Farms, its lack of cooperation in handing over maps indicating the location of Israeli-placed landmines in Lebanese territory during the violent occupation, and its detention of 2,000 Lebanese prisoners.

Meanwhile, under the supervision of both Lebanese and Syrian officials, Syria began to dismantle sand walls inside Lebanese territory Monday, which had initially been erected in an apparent bid to thwart illegal crossings of both countries' borders. Lebanese farmers had said, however, that the walls cut into their land. The move, which was accompanied with symbolic distributions of fruit by Syrian soldiers among Lebanese residents, appeared part of a seeming attempt by both the Lebanese and Syrian regimes to mend broken ties.

Despite, however, a build up over recent weeks of calls by officials in Lebanon and Syria for better relations, the arrest of dissident Syrian writer Michael Kilo for what appears to be his decision to sign a petition for better Beirut-Damascus relations also constituted a strong symbolic setback. If indeed he was arrested for his action, then surely the road to good relations between the neighbours remains longer than one might have wished or expected. If his arrest was unrelated, the fact that his arrest has been highlighted so dramatically in the international media as being related signals that the mood is not yet ripe for Lebanon to find calm.

As always, what gets suppressed in Syria more often than not finds expression in Lebanon. And there is much tension in Syria, if not outright disagreement, over what to do next in the face of relentless steps against it by Washington.

s