Lebanon's vote against the Arab League's suspension of neighbouring Syria at the weekend provoked the anger of the opposition and even of some members of the cabinet, reports Lucy Fielder from Beirut Lebanese divisions over the Syrian uprising burst into the open again this week, when the country was one of only three -- along with Yemen and Syria itself -- to vote against the Arab League's decision to suspend Damascus's membership of the organisation. Cracks spread into the cabinet itself, with ministers from Walid Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party voicing their anger that the decision has been taken without consultation. But with the Syrian-backed Shia parties Hizbullah and Amal and the Christian leader Michel Aoun, which command 18 of 30 cabinet seats between them, solidly in favour of the decision, the day-to-day workings of the government seem unlikely to be affected. Unlike the anti-Syrian opposition in the country, which is increasingly strident in its support of the Syrian protesters, critics of the decision within the cabinet are not suggesting that Lebanon should have voted against Damascus. "Jumblatt's main criticism is that the decision was not taken by the government, and he also believes Lebanon should have abstained," Nicolas Nassif, author and columnist for the pro-government newspaper Al-Akhbar, told Al-Ahram Weekly. "He's not saying it should have voted against Syria." Minister of Social Affairs Wael Abu Faour from Jumblatt's bloc told the Future News network that a "large number" of ministers learned of the vote against the Arab League suspension from the media. "Lebanon is split: half of it is with the Syrian regime, and the other half is with the Syrian uprising," he said. "It was in Lebanon's interest not to involve itself in this matter. It would have been better if it had taken a neutral stance." Ministers were due to meet to discuss the decision as the Weekly went to press. The Arab League has also said it will call on member states to impose sanctions and withdraw their diplomats from Damascus, which could further put Lebanon at loggerheads with other Arab countries. Hilal Khashan, a political science professor at the American University of Beirut, said that Syria's influence in Lebanon, where it stationed troops from the civil war that broke out in 1975 until 2005, meant that voting against Syria would have been impossible. "Lebanon is to a large extent a satellite country. It would have been very surprising had it voted against Syria," he said. Syria pulled its troops out from Lebanon in 2005 under international and Lebanese pressure, after many blamed it for the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri in 2005. Current Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati and president Michel Suleiman defended Lebanon's vote, drawing accusations from al-Hariri's son Saad that they were putting the country on the side of "murder and dictatorship." Former premier al-Hariri, who has been outside the country since Hizbullah's alliance brought down his government in January, has in the past few weeks sought to maintain a presence in Lebanon through the social networking site Twitter. He tweeted of the vote that "it is shameful, and I hope the Syrian people know that this government doesn't represent the Lebanese will. It was not the Lebanese will that voted; it was the Hizbullah government headed by Mikati." Fears are widespread that president Bashar Al-Assad's regime in Syria could act to ignite violence in Lebanon in retaliation for any international intervention or meddling in the crisis that has engulfed it since the uprising broke out in mid-March. Lebanon's security is fragile, and Syria's alliances are believed to extend not only to the large and well-organised Hizbullah group, but also to smaller, more volatile Palestinian and Islamist groups. Like its foe Israel, and for that matter other Arab countries, Syria is also presumed to maintain shadowy intelligence networks in Lebanon. Sharp splits over Syria's role in Lebanon have persisted since al-Hariri's death in 2005, but these are now morphing into differences over the current events in Syria, combined with political opportunism. "The 8 March Movement believes that if Al-Assad stays in power, it will maintain its strong backing, while the March 14 Movement believes that if the regime falls, it will return to power," Nassif said. "Both sides are thinking primarily of the internal power balance in Lebanon. This is just a continuation of the division that occurred in 2005." Hizbullah is believed to receive many of its arms from Iran by land across Syria and also to value the "strategic depth" afforded it by Damascus's backing. Other Lebanese are critical of the uprising in Syria out of fears that it could descend into a civil war across the border and could exacerbate sectarian tensions at home. Jumblatt's current "centrism" on the Syrian issue is a continuation of the policy he has pursued since the May 2008 events, when Hizbullah and its allies took over part of Beirut and the Druze leader's Chouf mountain stronghold. Jumblatt was at the time a hawkish component of the ruling anti-Syrian and pro-western March 14 Alliance and the government it dominated as it took the fateful decision to clamp down on Hizbullah's communications networks. Since the latter group's swift retaliation, Jumblatt has veered towards Hizbullah, then to a more central position, seeking to retain clout for his Druze minority without alienating any side. His switch to an alliance with Hizbullah and Aoun and Amal's March 8 Movement government transferred the parliamentary majority to the latter, away from 14 March. With heavily armed Hizbullah now in control of the reins of power, and having shown that it will act militarily within Lebanon, Jumblatt is unlikely to risk angering it or its Syrian allies, and instead will make just enough noise about the Syrian uprising to remain as acceptable as possible to the United States and its Lebanese friends.
