The end of Lebanon's Cedar Revolution

Nicholas Noe, in the Guardian, here

"Almost exactly four years after Syrian troops were forced to leave this country following massive street protests sparked by the assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's "Cedar Revolution" seems to be nearing the end of the road. .......western election observers, diplomats and even ardent supporters of the current March 14 majority (named after the date of the Cedar Revolution) now publicly acknowledge, it is likely that the opposition led by the militant Shia party Hezbollah and the Christian Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) will take control of the next four-year parliament when elections are held on 7 June.

... the US and Europe will face an immediate dilemma as to how best to approach the new cabinet and prime minister, ..... Apparently seeking to get out ahead of events, the UK, France, Denmark and other EU countries are already staking out a different course, vigorously pursuing an open policy of engagement with the opposition – and especially with Hezbollah.

As an important part of this effort, France has made it clear that March 14 "do or die" sloganeering around the upcoming polls is not shared by the Elysee: Lebanon will not suddenly transform into an Islamic republic on the Mediterranean following an opposition win, nor will Syria regain the position it held over what amounted to a 30-year occupation of its neighbour.

There is still time, much of Europe seems to be saying, to seek alternative strategies to the Bush administration's singular (and failed) emphasis on applying constant pressure and force in a two-pronged effort to smash Hezbollah and accelerate regime change next door in Damascus.

Team Obama, however, has yet to enter the field in any meaningful way – that is beyond the possible donation of a handful of refurbished tanksand still more promises over a possible Israeli withdrawal from one tiny village in south Lebanon.

Top US officials are apparently content with focusing on the bigger picture of engaging Iran and Syria and leaving Lebanon to the rhetorical purview of staunch March 14 supporters like Jeffrey Feltman, the former ambassador to Lebanon, now assistant secretary of near east policy, who presided over March 14's spectacular rise and fall.

In recent comments to a congressional oversight committee, Feltman gave a hint as to how the administration would react to an opposition win, saying he anticipated that US assistance to Lebanon would "be evaluated in the context of Lebanon's parliamentary election results and the policies formed by the new cabinet" – a point underlined last week in Beirut by one unnamed aide travelling with the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

For Lebanon watchers both here and in Washington, the statements have contributed to a long-running belief that an opposition win – even one in which Hezbollah held only a handful of non-security-related cabinet positions – would trigger a broad US pullback from the country, especially as far as funding the Lebanese army is concerned.

....Were this to come to fruition, the results for Lebanon and quite possibly for wider US and European interests could be disastrous, ......At best, such a pullback would represent yet another opportunity for peace-building squandered by western, and especially American, policymakers who continue to hold a preponderance of power in Lebanon but who remain short-sighted and path-dependent when it comes to crafting new strategies for old opponents.

An alternative approach would instead start by recognising that a majority in which Hezbollah would finally be forced to take some governing responsibility and serve as a perpetual mediator between its fractious allies – especially the other main Shia party Amal and the FPM– actually creates a more favourable political context for the Party of God to finally disarm........ a Lebanese "Grand Bargain" where the Shias give up their private army in return for a fair stake in the legitimate (and more robust) state.....

Should the opposition win, however, the US and its allies would find a far more formidable – and for Hezbollah, trusted – set of partners to finally set in motion a process for Hezbollah's disarmament, but this time without violence and from within..

Finally and most crucially, Team Obama would have to convince the Israelis that a strong Lebanese army under the control of a democratically elected government is far better than Hezbollah armed to the teeth, ......"