Quantcast
Channel: Respect: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM – سلام القدس عليكم
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 27504

Hezbollah: No dialogue with “former” President Michel Suleiman

$
0
0

Lebanese President Michel Suleiman (M) With Hariri meeting Saudi King
Published Tuesday, April 1, 2014
For the first time ever, the Resistance will be absent from the national dialogue table, which was invented solely to discuss Lebanon’s defense and resistance strategy. Its absence, however, is not meant to evade important discussions, but is rather temporary, pending the election of a new president.
President Michel Suleiman regretted the absence of some of the “main pillars” of the dialogue committee, hoping that they would join subsequent meetings. However, Suleiman will not necessarily chair “subsequent meetings,” as Hezbollah has now turned the page on his term forever.
More than ten days ago, Hezbollah ministers, MPs, and leaders were advised not to comment on President Michel Suleiman’s invitation to the national dialogue session on Monday. Everyone was waiting for Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech in Ainata on Saturday, March 30. But Nasrallah did not issue a final decision and only hinted that his party would not attend the dialogue session. Nasrallah closed the door but left MP Mohammed Raad to “lock it” in a statement he made on Sunday.
Nasrallah did not want to embarrass his allies. He knew that MP Michel Aoun has certain calculations related to the presidency, and that Nabih Berri, the man who is the "patented inventor” of the national dialogue sessions, cannot be absent from the session in his capacity as the speaker of parliament.
Nasrallah is not known for seeking or reigniting controversies, especially in internal Lebanese affairs. He is not known to be thin-skinned either. He himself had in his previous speech called on the Lebanese to “calm down and take a breath.” Yet Nasrallah, a month later, chose to criticize again Suleiman’s attack on the Resistance. So is there a contradiction in his positions?


Not at all; “veering toward calm and overcoming obstacles has always been Hezbollah’s concern,” sources close to Hezbollah say. To make their case, they point out Hezbollah’s designation of MP Tammam Salam as prime minister, its compromise on the 9-9-6 formula of distributing ministerial posts between Lebanon’s rival political parties, and its flexibility in relation to the wording of the cabinet’s policy statement.
But this time, the president went too far. His characterization of the “the people, the army, and the resistance” formula for national defense as a “wooden” – i.e. outdated – notion was not criticism as much as it was a deliberate insult that deeply offended the Resistance. Nasrallah expressed this clearly when he said, “Every stab at the Resistance or an abusive characterization of it, is offensive and insulting to everything and everyone that is the Resistance. There will be reactions to this insult that will emerge in the coming days.” And so they did.
After Nasrallah’s speech on March 1, in which he took a swipe at the president over his remarks, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri engaged in strenuous efforts to mend the growing rift. However, President Suleiman made matters worse when he made further controversial remarks, saying, “Intervention in Syria has undermined the Resistance’s place in the tripartite formula.”
During the negotiations to agree on the wording of the cabinet policy statement, all sides were looking for a de-escalation of tensions as the president championed the so-called Baabda Declaration, calling for Lebanon’s neutrality in the Syrian conflict. But Suleiman sent out the invitations to the dialogue session without preparing an appropriate climate first.
All this has aggravated the row between the president, who seemed like he was paying back debts to foreign entities, and Hezbollah, from its leadership all the way down to its popular base. It is no longer worthwhile for Suleiman, as had been his habit, to say something in public and then try to explain it in secret. So in light of all of the above, his call for dialogue appeared like an attempt to drag Hezbollah against its will to the table.
The national dialogue session would have certainly benefited the president. First, it would have been a good chance to mend the rift with Hezbollah. Second, it could have carried a glimmer of hope for the president to extend his term, although Suleiman understands that this is very difficult if not impossible.
Why, then, did the president come across as though telling Hezbollah: “Come but don’t bother showing up?” How can any dialogue discuss a national defense strategy in the absence of the main party concerned? And who has still not understood that Hezbollah is now a regional actor that no president can rule, let alone extend his term, while engaged in a dispute with simultaneously? Is there something we don’t know?
Perhaps the answer lies in the president’s quest for extending his own term. This is the heart of the problem between Baabda and Haret Hreik, home to Hezbollah’s headquarters. The man in the Baabda Palace has lost his reserve ever since he lost all hope of extending his term after Hezbollah’s secretary general stressed the need to hold the presidential election on time, a few months ago.
Hezbollah has not changed its position, and insists on nominating MP Michel Aoun for the presidency. Hezbollah will not give the president, in the last days of his tenure, any hope of a term extension.
On Saturday, Nasrallah called for presidential elections “as soon as possible,” so that Lebanon can begin a new stage. After that, he said, Hezbollah would continue the dialogue over the national defensive strategy, as well as joint efforts and cooperation to address the country’s crises. What this translates to is that Hezbollah has now closed the book on six bleak years of “former” President Michel Suleiman in office.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Related Articles


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 27504

Trending Articles