Dear Bloggers,
for a class at university I am these days preparing a fictional Memorandum of Understanding between Hizbollah and Mustaqbal as the two most powerful actors of the opposing camps in order to overcome the current crisis in Lebanon. I´d be grateful for critics and remarks wether the approach is realistic, about the inaccuracies, main misconceptions etc.
Before stating the fictional Memorandum I am going to list the main interests of the respective movement and the main accusations towards the other.
Thank you for contributing!!!
Christoph
The Conflict of March 14 vs. March 8 concentrating on Hizbollah and Mustaqbal as the dominant actors within the alliances<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
Goal: The restoration of political stability and security in LB
Major Obstacles concentrating on the domestic scene:
- Armed non-governmental Faction(s) (Hizbollah but also other militias)
- Injustice within the Political System (Shiites are underrepresented)
- General Weakness of the Political System (no solid foundation for a strong state, widespread Clientelism and Corruption, the concept of confessionalism)
Major Obstacles concentrating on the international scene:
- No full National Sovereignty, Unresolved Conflict about the Shebaa-Farms, Syrian informal Intervention in Lebanese Affairs, Israeli violation of Lebanese Airspace
- <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Lebanon as a Playing Field for external interests within the conflict between Western Powers (and March 14 Movement) and the “Axis of Refusal”(Syria, Iran, Hizbollah): e.g. Hariri-Tribunal
Main Actors of Interest:
The (Schiite) Hizbollah Movement as the dominant force within the Opposition
The (Sunni) Mustaqbal Movement as the dominant force within the Government
Main Interests of the Actors:
Hizbollah:
- to be formally recognized by the Lebanese Government as the defenders of Lebanon´s integrity
- to reform the political system in favour of the Shiite confession
- to resist the “imperial aspirations” of the Western Powers USA, Israel and its allies like in the case of the Hariri-Tribunal
- to avoid sectarian tensions within Lebanon because of Hizbollah´s self-portrayal as a national (Islamic) movement
Mustaqbal:
- to fight impunity regarding the series of political assassinations
- the disarmament of Hizbollah as the sole militia openly carrying arms
- total national independence and sovereignty with regards to Syrian and Iranian intervention
- maintaining political power
- to create a stable political atmosphere in order to attract international investors for the sake of the economic recovery of the country
Hizbollah’s accusations towards Mustaqbal
· the Sunni-led government not being able to defend the country at the expense of the mostly Shiite population in the Southà Summer War 2006
· the Government has no real political agenda
· jeopardizing the country´s unity by acting as a marionette of external actors (Mustaqbal and support from US and France, Saudi Arabia)
· threatening the country´s stability by breaking the concept of consensual decision-making
· clinging to their political powers achieved through clientelist structures and corruption
· neglect of rebuilding non-Sunni areas in the periphery of the country
Mustaqbal´s accusations towards Hizbollah
· threatening the country´s stability by provoking conflict with Israel and not accepting the Lebanese Army as the sole protector of the country
· threatening the country´s unity by acting as a client of external actors (Hizbollah being supported by Iran and Syria, Hizbollah claiming to defend the whole region)
· threatening the country´s stability by not accepting the political rules of the game (street politics, resigning from cabinet)
· Hizbollah’s rhetoric intimidating all other religious confessions in Lebanon (Hizbollah’s Charta)
