Arab initiative, R.I.P

 

The Arab foreign ministers issued a statement this past Sunday announcing the death of the Arab initiative. This is not how they phrased it, naturally; their statement emphasizes “the unanimous Arab commitment to the letter and spirit of the Arab initiative.”

 

Reading between the lines quickly reveals the truth, however. The initiative, as before, calls for the immediate election of Army Commander General Michel Sleiman, to be quickly followed by the formation of a national-unity government and the adoption of a new electoral law. What is missing is any sort of deadline for an agreement or further Arab action and discussion.

 

Those following along at home may remember that this situation – agreement on Sleiman, disagreement on the makeup of the government and no particular timetable on either – is precisely the situation that greeted Moussa when he first arrived in Beirut touting his new initiative. Three weeks of negotiations and shuttle diplomacy by Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa have thus led Lebanon back to square one. The country is left wondering what happened, and what could possibly pull them out of the crisis now.

In the immediate aftermath of the announcement of the Arab initiative, a brief ripple of cautious optimism spread through the country. March 14 leaders embraced the initiative as representing essentially the position they had staked out over the preceding weeks. The opposition reacted more warily, unsure of how to respond to a proposition that was apparently officially sanctioned by their patron Syria, yet denied them their essential demand of a blocking-third in a new government.

 

Opposition apprehension was quickly cured, however, when it became obvious that Syria had no intention of supporting the Arab initiative, despite its public statements. Moussa made clear early on that the 10-10-10 power-sharing arrangement, proposed by the opposition as an alternative to its blocking-third demand, was not his interpretation of the Arab initiative; the opposition, however, continued to press the case. According to Moussa’s report, Assad also pushed the 10-10-10 scenario and dismissed the idea that Syria would apply any pressure to its Lebanese allies to come to an agreement. In a January 16 news conference, Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal declared, “Dealing with Syria as if it is still in Lebanon, or as if its allies are mere tools, is insulting to the majority of Lebanese people.”

 

Syria followed up this lip-service acceptance of the plan with an attempt at sabotage, privately proposing an alternative candidate to Sleiman for president on January 19. Though every other party rejected this gambit, it was shortly thereafter followed by actual acts of sabotage. Opposition-led strikes and demonstrations sprang up throughout the country the following week. And, on Friday, the ISF officer heading up the investigation into the Hariri assassination and Fatah al-Islam’s activities, Captain Wissam Eid, was killed in a massive car bomb attack.

 

In an interview with NOW Lebanon, Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, said, “One pattern that seems to be emerging is that, since Michel Sleiman became a serious candidate for the presidency, somebody”s been out to get the army and security forces.”

 

He added, “This is not the first time. The killing of Hajj was partly to say, even if you become president, don”t think you”re going to do anything. They want to make it clear that Emile Lahoud is the model, not Napoleon.”

In the face of this Syrian intransigence and duplicity, the Arab world has done little. Saudi Arabia reportedly brought Syria to heel on the original Arab initiative agreement by threatening to spike the Arab Summit in Damascus, scheduled for this March. Zghorta MP Jawad Boulos, a member of the government delegation sent to the Arab Foreign Ministers’ Meeting this past weekend, told NOW Lebanon, “There were some very serious disagreements at the table inside… And it was very clear that the Arabs were holding the Syrians responsible for the deterioration of the deadlock in Lebanon.”

 

Though the Arab states, minus Syria and a moderately sympathetic Libya, were reportedly united in rejecting Syria’s 10-10-10 scenario last weekend, they give no indication that they are willing to do anything to enforce that decision. Besides threatening the Damascus summit, there appear to be few consequences for Syrian duplicity. Salem said, “Syria has been the black sheep of the family and has played that role at least since the late 1970s. [It was] allied with Iran against Iraq when the whole world supported Iraq. The Saudis are pissed off at the Syrians; Egypt’s pissed off at the Syrians. That”s the way it”s been. But as long as Syria has Lebanon, is allied with Iran, has influence with the Palestinians, that”s fine. It keeps Egypt and Saudi Arabia at bay.”

 

Ultimately, with an Israeli-Syrian peace deal still a pipe dream, little short of the threat of the international tribunal is likely to pry Syria’s fingers from Lebanon. Yet many Arab leaders are also likely to view the international tribunal as an unsettling precedent they might be better off without. Unenthusiastic about punishing Syria and unwilling to openly abandon Lebanon, the Arab states have settled for simply appearing to do something. The Arab states are not necessarily wedded to the idea of a Lebanon free of foreign interference. While there may be little love for Syria, especially within the Western-allied bloc, there is less love for instability and sectarian violence that could conceivably be exported to the rest of the region. If Syria is that determined to hold on to its toy, the thinking goes, then for the sake of comity, let them have it.

If the Arab League has struck out, then where does this all end for Lebanon? UN troops are unlikely to march opposition MPs into parliament at gun-point, so an “international” solution is unlikely. Civil war is always an option, though neither side wants it to go that far. Boulos called on the Aounist MPs to “gather their courage” and help elect Sleiman in order to push past the impasse. The two major Shia parties, however, would hardly sit still while a united Sunni, Druze and Christian front went ahead with electing a president and forming a new government without them.

 

Salem pointed to the tribunal, saying, “You recall that Sarkozy and the Syrians were negotiating, and when it fell through Sarkozy basically said, ‘I”m going to go ahead with the tribunal. I”m going to give $150 million, or whatever. I”m pissed off at Syria; I”m going ahead with the tribunal.’” The tribunal may be the only tool left in the bag. If the Arab states are unwilling to press the point, Lebanon must find someone who will.