From Beirut to the Beltway

Hizbullah and Aoun continue to undermine and derail the political process with their destructive politics.

Read what Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad, said yesterday:

From now on everybody must understand that we will not accept for the international investigator to become a political analyst. Nobody is better than Lebanese people in analysing facts. We want a judicial report based on facts and evidence that won't take the country to where the forces of arrogance (Istikbar) want. We will not allow that.

Our priorities should be in safeguarding and protecting Lebanon from foreign plots (istihdaf khareji) and from attempts to confiscate [Lebanese] political decision making and take away its identity.

Carrying weapons is the right of our community (Ahlana) and people, ... and rights cannot be taken away or confiscated, it's something to be martyred for..."

In other words, Hizbullah will only accept the Mehlis report if it does not contain evidence that could incriminate Syria. For it to be accepted (or "allowed") by them, the report needs to be a toothless document with obscure and preferrably pro-cause/anti-US facts, perhaps resembling Kanaan's investigation report, and then we can assign the Hizbullah leadership the task of putting it all into context for us.

Then maybe Farouk Sharaa can chime in and point the finger at the evil Lebanese media for killing Hariri (didn't you know? Lebanese media are targeting Syria's Arab nationalist stance and weakening its sincere struggle against the Israeli and American enemies).

Or you know what, let's ask Fayez al-Sayegh from the avant-garde Syrian daily al-Thawra to provide a luminary analysis of the facts. Maybe then he can validate his dazzling theory that Saad Hariri has allied himself with Israel to kill his own father. (Read his editorial here).

What a load of crap.

And then comes egotistical Aoun who is so obsessed with becoming president, he is prepared to strike deals with the likes of Hizbullah and Franjieh and let himself unwittingly become a mouthpiece for Lahoud. Check out his latest attack on Saad Hariri and the parliament majority:

Those who stole the majority [in parliament] and stole positions and the government won't be allowed to steal the presidency. ..Those people will then be in the process of to instigate a particular problem to reach certain objectives other than stability... those who want the president to resign or want him removed seek to blackmail the president to pass deals regarding appointments and forming a government... If they lack confidence, then they should hand over ruling the country... Maybe Paris will give them freedom to concoct conspiracies away from the public eye.

Aoun has made it clear that the only thing that motivates him and dictates his moves and fiery political temper is his obsession with becoming president. He will undermine and question the political authority of anybody who stands in his way or does not support his presidential aspirations.

While Saad Hariri still has not articulated his position on Aoun's presidency, it looks like he and his allies oppose it mostly because when Aoun says he want to be president, he is thinking in near-autocratic terms, with all the executive power in his hands. (He still has not recognized the Taef agreement, has he?).

And like Hizbullah, Aoun has his own loud political views that seemingly drive his obstructionism. Butros Harb's interview with the Kuwaiti paper al-Rai al-Aam reveal a line of thinking that's at odds with Aoun's. Aoun thinks that the choice of president is nobody's business but the Christians, and since he represents the majority, he should automatically become president (I think his defense of Lahoud is insincere, given his own aspirations). Harb told the paper he was opposed to the principle that every sect chooses a leader and then impose it on the other sects because that is tantamount to a "federation of sects." He added the he personally was against someone with a military mentality becoming president.

I included Aoun and Hizbullah in the same post because I believe that they are playing extremely negative roles in Lebanon right now, given their positions of influence and potential to be more constructive and forward-looking national partners. Alas, they are not living up to that potential.

We still have a long way to go, and in the absence of a real national consensus, maybe even a new national pact that could settle these very destructive differences and reconcile the diverging world views, we won't go far in rebuilding the country. The Syrians have left a vacuum that cannot be filled without that consensus, and certainly not by Mehlis’s report. Whatever benefits and positive values the report will generate could easily be destroyed by that lack of consensus.