Blame game

With the Security Council expected to ratify the international tribunal to investigate the murder of Rafik Al-Hariri and the Nahr Al-Bared stand-off continuing, Lebanon is braced for worse times ahead, writes Omayma Abdel-Latif from Beirut

---

America's jihad Making matters worse Safeguard the innocents

Three days after fighting broke out between the Lebanese army and the Fatah Al-Islam group, the daily Lebanese As-Safir appeared with a front page, four- column wide banner asking "Who are Fatah Al-Islam?"

As the military and political crisis centred on the Nahr Al-Bared refugee camp enters its third week with no breakthrough in sight, that question, along with others regarding the military weight of the group, the timing of the operation and the motives behind it, continue to haunt the Lebanese as they brace themselves for yet harder days ahead.

The Security Council was yesterday expected to ratify the international tribunal into the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. The results are expected to underline once again that international intervention in what many Lebanese forces consider an issue of national sovereignty exacerbates political tensions rather than helping to diffuse them.

On the eve of the Security Council session, Beirut -- a popular tourist destination this time of the year -- looked like a ghost town. "This is how it looked two weeks after the war ended," said one long-term resident.

Meanwhile, the 14 March group comprising Western- backed pro-government forces, and 8 March group led by Hizbullah and the mainstream Christian Free Patriotic Movement, continue to play the blame game. Both parties have been seeking to score political gains on the back of one of Lebanon's worst crises since the end of the civil war. The Lebanese army has been caught in the middle, left to fend for itself as it faces the challenge of disarming Fatah Al-Islam and arresting those with blood on their hands without alienating Palestinian refugees resident in Lebanon.

By Tuesday it was clear military action against Nahr Al-Bared Camp had been ruled out. Threats to finish off Fatah Al-Islam by 14 March leaders earlier in the week had been toned down, with emphasis placed on the need to find a political and legal solution to the crisis.

While the already overstretched army has been authorised to take whatever measures it deems fit any military action against the camp in north Lebanon would have involved calling units from the south, the border with Syria and from Beirut, leaving a security vacuum in much of the country.

Mediation efforts by a delegation of Palestinian factions did emerge with a four-point plan, including a ceasefire, setting up a Palestinian committee to oversee internal security in the camp, handing over arms to the Lebanese authorities as well as group members involved in attacks against the army. While Fatah Al-Islam agreed to the plan, it has nonetheless refused to hand over any of its members. What will happen next, agree most Lebanese observers, is that the army will tighten the net around the camp to prevent anyone leaving, leading to a situation akin to that in Ain Al-Helwa Camp in Sidon, where two Islamist groups, Jund Aham and Osbaat Al-Ansar, are besieged by army units.

A more worrying issue, says Hossam Etani, a senior commentator with As-Safir, is the extent to which Salafi movements in Lebanon are gaining ground, particularly among poor Sunnis in the north who feel alienated by the pro-Western stands of Saad Al-Hariri, head of Tayar Al-Mustaqbal (The Future Movement). In north Lebanon, where poverty is high, the political and social vacuum left by the state has been filled by the only political force with influence and money. The rise, and possible fall, of Fatah Al-Islam should be read within this context, says Etani.

The deadlock over Nahr Al-Bared is a reminder of the lack of even the minimum degree of national consensus over crucial issues that could make or break Lebanon. The crisis triggered by Fatah Al-Islam, like those that preceded it, exposes the failure of Fouad Al-Siniora's government to address key issues central to resolving the conflict. On top of these is the opposition demand for a national unity government that includes all of Lebanon's political forces. It is a demand that Siniora, backed by 14 March forces, has so far refused to meet.

On 25 May, in a televised speech, Hassan Nasrallah summed up the confusion succinctly when he asked the government where it was that they were taking Lebanon.

Nasrallah went on to pose serious questions concerning the timing of the operation and questioned US motives in so quickly supplying the Lebanese army with weapons. He also warned that any military action against the camp would have serious implications and that Hizbullah would not offer any political cover for such a move. It was a message the army leadership took on board.

Nasrallah's call for a national salvation government to be formed to end the country long-standing deadlock elicited a response from Siniora, who said it was "a good idea but general policies would have first to be agreed".

President Emile Lahoud also spoke about the need for a national unity -- or a national salvation -- government composed of six ministers representing each of Lebanon's main sects. Both parliament speaker Nabih Berry and Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Sfeir supported the proposal only to be blocked by Hariri.

While news reports hint the 14 March group plans to launch its own initiative to break the deadlock once the international tribunal is ratified, the Lebanese are left, for the time at least, in a state of growing tension.