Inter-Lebanese dialogue in Doha: a "neutral ground"?
Beirut (AsiaNews) - Starting today, the leading political representatives of Lebanon are meeting in Doha, the capital of Qatar, to discuss the future of their democracy.
Is it an unusual meeting? Why in Qatar? The point is that with a diplomatic masterstroke, the Arab League has in the end found a "neutral ground" where this future can be discussed, far from the prying eyes of Syrian, Iranian, or Saudi observers, or of the regional and world powers that divide among themselves this beautiful country, no larger than a Greek island.
The conference in Doha is taking place following aggressive military action by Hezbollah against its rival parties - above all of the Future Movement of Saad Hariri and the Progressive Socialist Party of Walid Jumblatt - that killed 65 and wounded 200.
One of the purposes of this operation was to disarm these parties - which are lightly armed anyway - and to affirm the hegemony of the Party of God in the majority Sunni neighborhoods of the capital.
With the benefit of Christian political support provided by General Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement, Hezbollah - which does not recognise the legitimacy of the government of Fouad Sinora - has proven its potential for disruption in part by blocking the port and airport of Beirut, thanks to a movement considered (falsely) as "civil disobedience".
The most serious threat to the negotiations opening in Doha is that the different political factions might not place all of their cards on the table, and continue to conceal their true objectives.
What happened in Beirut does not diminish the fears of the democratic forces: they suspect that the Islamist party - linked to a totalitarian regime, Iran - is preparing a state coup in order to overthrow the regime [in Lebanon].
The head of the Lebanese armed forces demands that the conference in Doha clearly address the nature of the relationships that should exist between the Hezbollah resistance at the Lebanese state.
The fact that this party, armed to the teeth - which has missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv and the Israeli nuclear site in Dimona - has launched a genuine operations of urban warfare in Beirut suggests that it will not hesitate to do so again when its interests demand it.
It is feared that the resistance could one day turn into a force like that of the "revolutionary guard", and end up pointing its weapons against "the enemy within", making the transition from resistance to Islamic revolution, with an end of its own, seeking to perpetuate its existence through the force of arms, used "to protect arms".
Of course, Hezbollah has signed an "agreement of understanding" with General Aoun, which excludes this hypothesis. But confidence is not emerging, and the existence of a political-religious connection between Hezbollah and be Islamic Republic of Iran, defined as "wilayat al fakih" ("guardian of the Islamic law") obliges the Islamist party to follow the directives that come from Tehran. This means that the other Lebanese parties can never relax. Added to this is the fact that the United States considers Hezbollah a "terrorist organization", and thinks that the axis of evil passes through two countries, Iran and Syria, which Washington considers "rogue states".
In order to understand what is happening, it must be recalled that the current crisis is closely connected to the deterioration of relations between Lebanon and Syria, after the attack that claimed the life of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. After being accused, the Syrian regime has always insisted it had nothing to do with it. But in spite of this, suspicions against Syria are rife, in part because this nearby country not only to defends its right to take an interest in Lebanese politics, but also its right to have its own say.
The Lebanese crisis is thus the fruit a combination of many factors. Lebanon cannot escape from them, except by a doctrine of "positive neutrality" that would shelter it from the shocks of history.
Can peace emerge from Qatar? It depends on maturity of all the political participants, including international and regional ones. Will it be understood that it is in the interest of the world to leave in peace this "laboratory of coexistence", considered by John Paul II as a "message" to the entire world? And will the Lebanese be able to assert their will to live together above any other consideration, as harshly tested as they have been by the recent fighting? Will they be able to give priority over everything to their peace and prosperity, meaning to their very existence? Will they, in short, be able to advance "Lebanon, above all"? Before Iran, Syria, even Palestine, no matter how cruel this drama that strikes the conscience of all Arabs?
Odysseus had himself tied to the mast of his ship in order to resist the song of the Sirens: Lebanon must also tie itself to the mast of its historical vocation, so that it may stop giving in to the calls that come to it from the four corners of the earth - threatening to break it apart - and shelter itself away from all false hope.
.png)
