While acknowledging that the Doha deal is a setback for US control over Lebanon, it has fallen well short of solving the underlying causes of instability in the country.
Nothing shows this more than the return of Fuad Siniora (pictured above) and the March 14 cabal.
The problem with Doha is that as part of the compromise the opposition has accepted the gerrymandered electoral constituencies. This move confirms the rule of a small clique of families who owe their power to the sectarian division of the country.
Missing from the negotiations is any discussion of the harsh neo-liberal policies imposed on Lebanon by western powers—known as the Paris I, II and III.
As it joins the new government, the opposition is in danger of becoming closely associated with these unpopular economic policies, and losing the widespread sympathy among ordinary people.
The truth is that Hizbollah and its allies have made peace with the sectarian system, in doing so it has undermined its credibility. Sursock always stands by the principle of the right of nations to self determination, and will back all genuine anti-imperialist movements.
But what we have here is Hizbollah falling into the same trap made by every other Arab national liberation movement... leading a struggle, then making peace with a dangerous enemy — in this case the sectarian system and neo-liberalism.
Wednesday 28 May 2008
He's back
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hizbollah and Amal have always been part of the sectarian system. Their propaganda was maybe telling otherwise, but only the uninformed could believe that. The only reason Hizbollah was not being actively condemned by the other parties was simply because Lebanese are all too aware of the risks of such public declarations (as Pierre Gemayel, François Hajj, Rafik Hariri and many others have shown). It takes some strength of will to tell the truth about a heavily armed gang when you know that neither the Army nor the Police will protect you. And the only reason they were liked by some of the people was the combination of their social services and their activities against Israel. Activities which actually provoked more Israeli inflicted suffering on the people that they pretend to defend...
The truth is that Nasrallah and Berri are just two warlords amongst other warlords. They are just bigger bullies...
Although I agree that Amal (and Berri) are sectarian, the same cannot be said of Hizbollah. It is a resistance organisation that has made its peace with the system (known as "compromise") ... and is in danger of becoming part of the system.
The difference is important.
Amal (and the rest) fought to defend the sectarian system (and fight for a bigger Shia say in it) from the Left and the secular National Movement.
Hizbollah emerged as as force fighting against US and Israeli occupation.
As for blaming the victims... you might disagree with Hizbollah, but to say that they, and not Israel, are responsible for the country's suffering is very dishonest.
As for Gemayel, Hariri et al, I don't think they are more important than the 250,000 odd people that were killed in the civil war — they got no inquiry, no UN resolution... nothing.
Post a Comment