Hizbullah will not decommission under any circumstances, Nawaf Al-Musawi told Al-Ahram Weekly in Beirut Hizbullah chiefs make no secret about the fact that hard times are awaiting the resistance movement when the elections end. One of the main issues which the newly elected parliament will have to address is the disarming of the resistance movement in accordance with Resolution 1559, which made a reference to Hizbullah's armament by calling on the Lebanese state to disarm all militias. During the current elections haggling, the resistance movement emerged as a key ally in a quartet which brought the Shia alliance of Hizbullah and the Amal movement together with Saad Al-Hariri's Tayar Al-Mustaqbal, the Socialist Progressive Party headed by Walid Junblatt, and most surprisingly the Lebanese Forces, a Christian radical group headed by Samir Geagea. Such an electoral alliance, according to most party pundits, is also a political one which will reveal itself in the post-elections period. Party chiefs acknowledge, however, that the end game of such alliances is to secure a national consensus on its right to maintain its arms and resistance operations. Nawaf Al-Musawi, who heads the foreign relations unit of the party, is one of the most outspoken among Hizbullah's officials. In his mid-40s, Al- Musawi is also known as Al-Sayid for his descent from the Prophet Mohamed's lineage. Al-Ahram Weekly met Al-Musawi at his office in Haret Hrik, Hizbullah's heartland in Beirut. Is Hizbullah's alliance with the Al-Hariri-Junblatt bloc electoral or political? We think that the post-elections period will witness a surge in the international pressure to disarm the resistance. It is, therefore, natural that the main reason upon which we struck our electoral alliances was to defend the right to resist. This is because Lebanon cannot be defended without the resistance, which proved its ability to stand up to Israeli aggression, whether it be in the form of attacks or occupation of land. It is important to note that our alliances are meant to be political, and since we are holding elections, these alliances are translated into coordination in these elections. Some suggest that the very forces that you are allyed with might, under heavy international pressure, provide a Lebanese cover to disarm the resistance? There will not be any force that can or will disarm the resistance. The Lebanese people don't look at this issue from the same perspective as the Israelis and the Americans do. The Lebanese people will be committed to the Al-Taif Accord which clearly states that Lebanon continues to be subject to Israeli aggression, and that we have national responsibilities and rights to face up to such aggression. We, as Lebanese, will work hard to find the most proper formula amongst ourselves in order to marshal political capital into resistance capabilities, structures and experiences in facing such aggression. But have you secured any guarantees from your allies that they will under no circumstances ask the resistance to disarm? Al-Sayid Hassan Nasrallah referred in a recent speech to the commitment made by former prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri to defend Hizbullah's right to resist, and his son Saad Al-Hariri has reiterated the same commitment. The same commitment was made by Walid Junblatt, head of the Socialist Progressive Party. These are two big political blocs in the country and their discourse is supporting the resistance and will provide it with the political backing it needs. Lebanon is composed of a multiplicity of socio-political and religious groups and any attempt that targets one group will no doubt reflect badly on the others. This is precisely why it is in the interest of all Lebanese to have an agenda which reflects Lebanese national interests. The Lebanese should not allow themselves be captive to an Israeli-American agenda. As for guarantees, we are not only counting on the pro-resistance discourse but on realities on the ground that cannot be ignored. For example, the resistance is strong and it draws its strength from its popular base. Secondly, the relationship between the party and the popular base of the blocs of both Al-Hariri and Junblatt is also very strong. I believe that by striking these alliances we have managed to close the door to disputes of a sectarian nature. The Americans have been working hard to manipulate such sectarian disputes in order to target Hizbullah. Under no circumstances will we allow any force to use sectarian differences as a way to fuel tension in the country or find a loophole that would provide an advantage over the resistance. Some argue that the party has failed to sell to larger sections of the Lebanese people the argument that an armed Hizbullah is merely part and parcel of the overall national security strategy of Lebanon, and to dispel the fears that the arms belong to one sect in Lebanon and might be directed against other Lebanese? I don't believe failure is the proper word to describe what happened. On the contrary, I believe we have made some significant successes in showing how the resistance arms are part of the national defence mechanism. We are still in the process of ensuring that this armament is not sectarian in nature. How? We will continue dialogue with the political forces that remain sceptical about this issue. These sceptics are a minority because according to recent polls conducted in Lebanon by the Beirut Centre for Research and Information about the right of Hizbullah to keep its arms, the majority of the Lebanese agree that the resistance should not disarm. The results also show that more than two-thirds of both the Sunni and Shia sects want to keep the resistance; the Christian percentage was almost 50 per cent. Overall, the majority of Lebanon is with the resistance which could be considered a success for us. But do you think this Lebanese consensus could provide you with the necessary political backing in the face of international pressure? First, international pressure did not emerge purely because of Lebanese interests; rather, pressure originally served an Israeli agenda. So even if there is a Lebanese consensus, this will not change the fact that Israel's number one priority is to target the resistance. But we have some experience in handling international campaigns against the resistance. We are not, under any circumstance, ready or prepared to give up what we consider a necessity for Lebanon's stability and security against Israel's continuous aggression. For us, it does not make sense to give up our arms at a time when Israel is amassing arms on the other side of the border. How do you deal with the concerns of the Lebanese Christians? Historically, this has never been used as a weapon against any Lebanese. When Israel withdrew on 25 May 2000, we dealt honourably with the traitors who used to work for the Israelis. There could have been massacres but we chose to hand them to the Lebanese courts. We have a basis for confidence building measures and upon this we will have a dialogue. If it is demanded that we have to enlarge the ranks of the resistance to include Lebanese from other sects, we will definitely discuss this option. We will be pleased when the day comes when all Lebanese can be part of this resistance. Any formula that secures and guarantees that the resistance remains is an acceptable formula for us. Our first priority is ensuring the resistance's defensive power, which is imperative for the stability of Lebanon. There has been talk about American ideas to modernise and train the Lebanese army. How do you read this sudden American interest in the Lebanese army and is this a prelude to having the army do the dirty work of disarming the resistance? I will not comment on this. But what I want to say is that an army whose military doctrine defines its enemy as the Zionist enemy cannot be used by anyone as a tool which provides the enemy with security. The Americans have to understand that they have miscalculated what they think they can do and what can actually happen on the ground. Have there been any discussions with your allies which explore ideas about the kind of formula that accommodates an armed Hizbullah in the current political setting? We have not reached that stage yet because it is not on the agenda of Lebanese priorities. The Lebanese people still believe that parts of their land are under occupation and it is premature to open this subject before the end of the occupation of Shebaa Farms. Is your ceiling the end of the occupation of the Shebaa Farms? As I said before, the chief mission of the resistance is to stand up to the Israeli aggression whether it is in the form of attacks or occupation. Even if the occupation ends, the attacks and aggression are still there. I believe that Lebanon remains subject to this aggression. Some argue that the resistance has a regional agenda which might not be in the Lebanese interest? An Israeli general has recently stated that Israel should capitalise on the international pressure by forcing Hizbullah to choose between its local or regional agenda. If it chooses the local agenda it must be done locally and if it chooses the regional agenda it must give up its arms. In terms of the aggression against a brotherly country such as Syria, our point of reference here will be the Taif Accord. In the Taif Accord, item Number 4 states that there are brotherly relations between the two countries and that the security of Syria is part and parcel of the Lebanese security. So according to Taif, we reserve our right to take the proper measures in the case of an attack on Syria. Back to the elections issue, some candidates, particularly from Al-Hariri's bloc, have accused Shia voters of crossing their names out in favour of other independent candidates. Does this reflect some discontent among your voters regarding the electoral alliances you have struck? If so, will this make you reconsider those alliances? We acknowledge that something went wrong and the highest echelons within the party have taken care of this issue. But when those of us in the party strike a political alliance with any political bloc, we expect these commitments to be honoured by our rank and file and our voters. As I said, something went wrong and we are working within the party to fix it so that it will not be repeated in the remaining rounds. It has to do with the procedures and does not reflect any political or ideological dispute. Some international forces have tried to use this mistake as a way to fuel tension between Lebanon's Sunni and Shia sects. Hizbullah's secretary-general intervened himself in order to settle the situation. What do you think will be the most important issues for the new assembly to address? If we will be working according to a Lebanese agenda it should be the socio-economic issue which entails political and administrative reform. This issue is of great concern for most Lebanese. But will they be left to handle it themselves, or will international forces impose their own agenda, which is centred around one issue: the disarming of Hizbullah? Interview by Omayma Abdel-Latif
