BEIRUT IS QUITE?

What happened in Lebanon in recent days can be regarded as a real miracle. The country, which was on the verge of a civil war and turned into some sort of Middle Eastern powder keg that contained all the explosive elements which prevented the peaceful life of regional residents and was some kind of a testing ground where interested foreign forces tested military, economic and political-technological methods of expanding their geostrategic influence, took a great step towards domestic civil peace. Even though this possibility is still fragile, the most important thing is that it stopped the bloodshed that had victimized hundreds of Lebanese in recent years, and gave not just Lebanon, but also the whole of the Middle East a chance to solve conflicts that seemed insurmountable at first sight.

Lebanese split

Until recently, Lebanon was engulfed in the most serious political crisis of the last two decades. The country split into two rival camps. One of them is represented by the government and parliamentary majority that relies on US and European support, and the other by the opposition led by the radical Shi'a organization Hezbollah which was founded in 1982 as a movement of resistance against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and is now seen by the West and Israel as a terrorist organization supported by Syria and Iran. Two years ago it was exactly Hezbollah which managed to repel Israeli army attacks for 34 days after Israel invaded Lebanon to suppress the radical movement. Since then, its weight in the country's domestic political life has been growing day by day and hour by hour.

The confrontation between the political forces of Lebanon deteriorated in early 2005 when Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri was assassinated. The last three years have seen several other political assassinations, and in a situation when some forces accused others of treasury and of implementing foreign plans, Lebanon was slowly but surely sliding into an abyss of civil war. The inability of the parliament to elect the country's new president beginning from November last year was reflective of the domestic political crisis. The supreme legislative body has been in fact inactive because of the boycott declared by the opposition which does not recognize the cabinet of the pro-Western politician Fu'ad As-Sanyurah. The dispute between the opposition and the parliamentary majority is based on conditions of co-existence, and what is more important, on a "fairer" redistribution of power, i.e. in essence, the political future of Lebanon.

As-Sanyurah's fatal step

The political action moved from the corridors of power on to the streets of Beirut after the government on 5 May outlawed the Hezbollah networks of communications and broadcasting, which were independent from the government agencies, and sacked the head of the security service of Beirut international airport who supported radical Shi'as. Hezbollah described this as an act of war, and the next day, clashes between the government's supporters and opponents began in Lebanon.

The decisions of the As-Sanyurah cabinet had no appropriate "political support" from the beginning. They would have been legally justified, if the authorities were trying to monopolize the telecommunications networks, if this government was fully legitimate in society and was sure that it would be able to oppose any resistance inside the country. But further events showed that the As-Sanyurah government counted only on foreign assistance, but failed to calculate its extent, which was not appropriate to the growing power and popularity of Hezbollah. As a result, in the space of a few hours, Beirut was taken over by radicals, Hezbollah activists and their allies from the Amal movement and the Christian opposition which also refuses to recognize the As-Sanyurah cabinet. They blocked the road to the international airport, and the prime minister had no choice but to ask the West for support officially. But this did not stop the bloodshed either - in two weeks of clashes, more than 80 people were killed and about 200 were wounded.

At this critical moment for the Lebanese government, the USA expressed its readiness to render "practical aid". The Americans did not miss their chance to level their angry criticism at Syria and Iran again, accusing these countries of supporting Hezbollah. However, the situation was salvaged by the intervention of the Lebanese army which has always been seen by the country's people as the only neutral arbiter. The armed forces first did not intervene in the events in the belief that if they used their weapons against one of the conflicting sides, Lebanon might split into confessions (most of the Sunni Muslims support the ruling coalition, while the Shi'as form the basis of the opposition). Everyone still remembers that it was a split inside the army that provoked in 1975 the civil war which lasted 15 years. But in May 2008, the Lebanese military managed to maintain their unity, and the command expressed its intention to use force to foil violence. The Cabinet of Ministers granted the military command the right to solve the domestic political crisis, and suspended the implementation of government decisions that led to clashes in the streets of Beirut. Immediately after that, militants started leaving the capital, making way to the regular army.

The Qatar agreement

The League of Arab States (LAS) played a great role in solving the domestic crisis in Lebanon. At its emergency session held in Cairo on 11 May, this organization decided to send to Beirut a representative delegation led by LAS Secretary-General Amr Musa and the first deputy prime minister of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad ben Jasem be Jaber Al-Tani. This delegation managed to persuade the Lebanese leadership to cancel its fateful decisions and reach agreement with Hezbollah to end the armed confrontation. After that, a reconciliatory dialogue between the leaders of the ruling coalition and the radical opposition began in the Qatari capital Doha.

After fives days of talks, the sides reached agreement on the division of power, putting an end to the serious government crisis. They agreed to call an emergency session of the Lebanese parliament and elect the commander-in-chief of the Lebanese army, Michel Suleiman, an authoritative person that suits both camps, to the post of president. A decision was also made to form a government of national unity, which would include 30 ministers: 16 representatives of the ruling coalition, 11 opposition figures, giving them the right of veto, and three ministers appointed by the president personally. Moreover, the general election of 2009, at the demand of the opposition, will be held on the basis of a 1960 law which envisages the division of electoral constituencies in order to secure "better representation in parliament for various groups of the population".

The head of the parliamentary majority, Saad Hariri, called the agreement "a new page for Lebanon", and according to one of the Hezbollah leaders, Mohammad Raad, neither side "got what it wanted, but a balance was secured".

It is notable that the agreement was supported by all foreign forces that were this way or another involved in the Lebanese conflict. The USA, the EU, Russia, Syria and even Iran welcomed the reconciliation between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah. This was even highly rated by the UN Security Council which approved of the continuation of the Lebanese "dialogue to seek ways of strengthening state power in order to guarantee the sovereignty and security of the state and people of Lebanon". In its statement, the Security Council also welcomed the Doha agreement banning violence as a method of solving disputes.

The outlines of fragile hope

The Lebanese reconciliation gives this country a historical chance to put an end to the protracted civil confrontation, which will certainly have a positive effect on the whole Middle East peace process. At the same time, the recent events showed that it is inexpedient for a considerable part of the international community to ignore Hezbollah because this organization, whether they like it or not, is a political force supported by a significant part of Lebanese society. Both rivals of Hezbollah inside Lebanon and its foreign opponents, first of all the USA and Israel, as well as France and Saudi Arabia, which played a great role in the total rejection of this radical movement by Europe and some Arab countries, must draw the right conclusion from this. In any case, Western countries are saying more convincingly that a political dialogue is inevitable with a force against which Beirut is helpless, even if this force is reputed for being Islamic and anti-Western.

It is also extremely important to remember that the domestic political crisis in Lebanon results from the Arab-Israeli conflict which helps radicalize public opinion in Arab countries involved directly in the confrontation with the Jewish state and feeds the ground on which the popularity of organizations like Hezbollah is based.

Another aspect that results mostly from the previous one is that the split in Lebanese society, the depth of which is not denied by the Qatar agreements yet, is reflective of the split in the whole Arab world. First of all, the issue of the attitude to the United States is the catalyst of the split: part of the Arab world, and specifically, Lebanese society, tends to establish allied relations with this superpower, while others are convinced that Washington's aim is to enslave the Muslim East, using Israel as a tool. The issue of the future attitude towards the Jewish state is the second important factor that provokes a split among the Arabs, including the Lebanese. Some believe that the fight against Israel must continue to the very end, while others, for example, the pro-Western forces in Lebanon, though they regard Israel as an enemy of the Arab world, tend to believe that it is time to make peace with the State of Israel as a fait accompli in the interests of peace in the Muslim East.

Despite these contradictions, the incipient peaceful dialogue in Lebanon may significantly increase chances of solving them. The country that has become a kind of mirror for the Middle East conflict may provide the first valuable experience of peace in this region of geopolitical importance. However, the hope for that is fragile, because the Lebanese government of national unity still has to stand a serious test of durability. But this hope exists and has almost clear outlines. And this is a great step forward for the Middle East, which has suffered from many years of military conflicts, and for its little pearl - Lebanon.