The arms of the Lebanese resistance remains in focus amid reports of a possible shift in the US approach to Hizbullah, Omayma Abdel-Latif writes from Beirut Lebanese political forces continue to haggle over the details of a ministerial statement that will define the mandate of the new coalition government for the next three and half years. Although there are several contentious issues, particularly those pertaining to the economic situation and the privatisation of some state-owned sectors, the most contentious issue remains Hizbullah's arms. There is consensus among key political actors, including the president and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, on relegating the issue to national dialogue sessions. Christian 14 March forces, armed and backed by Maronite Patriarch Sfeir, insist, however, that a distinction be made between Hizbullah's arms and the notion of resistance. According to one Lebanese observer, this will prove futile since the heavyweights in government are sticking to the formula mentioned in previous ministerial statements that "the Lebanese resistance is the honest and true expression of the Lebanese people's right to liberate their land and defend their dignity." Anything less will not be ratified by the Lebanese opposition. The utmost that ministers belonging to the Lebanese Forces and Al-Kataib (the Phalange Party) can achieve is to register their reservations. This debate comes amid two important developments relating to Hizbullah this week. The resistance movement held its general conference for the first time since 2004. The proceedings were not material for media coverage as they have been shrouded in secrecy. Conference resolutions, however, indicated that there is hardly any change within leadership level of the movement. All major positions remain held by current occupants. Hassan Nasrallah was re-elected secretary- general, a position he has held since 1992. Sheikh Naim Qasim was re-elected deputy secretary-general. Mohamed Raad, head of the Hizbullah parliamentary bloc re- joined the resistance's Shura council ( Majlis Shura Al-Qarar ). The most significant outcome of the conference, according to commentator Ibrahim Al-Amin, is that resistance will remain "the first and foremost priority on Hizbullah's agenda". "The ultimate priority will be to reinforce the resistance militarily and in terms of personnel and security. All party efforts will be directed to serve this goal," Al-Amin wrote in the daily Al-Akhbar. Interestingly, Hizbullah's general conference came at a time when several press reports pointed out what appears to be a shift in US policy towards the resistance movement. Citing recent statements by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this month on Hizbullah, many commentators jumped to the conclusion that the US was on the verge of breaking with a decade-long policy that deemed Hizbullah a "terrorist organisation". Clinton was talking on BBS with Charlie Rose when she referred to Hizbullah's "military wing". "The Iranians not only worry us because of their nuclear programme; they worry us because of their support for terrorism, their support for the military wing of Hizbullah, their support for Hamas, their interference in the internal affairs of their neighbours, trying to destabilise Gulf countries and other countries throughout the greater region." While this might sound like business as usual, the reference to "military wing" had some analysts wondering if the US administration was now willing to see Hizbullah also as a legitimate political party. Indeed, it was the first time ever that an American official employed such terminology in describing Hizbullah. But the Americans are not the first to do so. This distinction came to the attention of the media and policymakers last summer when the British government initiated a dialogue through its mission in Beirut with what it described as "the political wing of Hizbullah". Although State Department officials were quick to dismiss that Clinton's statement indicated any change of policy towards the Lebanese resistance movement, US commentators begged to differ suggesting that the paraphrasing was not just a mere slip of a tongue. Some Lebanese informed observers viewed what appeared as a softening of US policy towards Hizbullah as part of pursuing the track that could eventually lead to dialogue with Iran. Despite what might appear as a change of tone among some key figures in the administration regarding Hizbullah, a policy reversal is not likely anytime soon for a number of reasons. For dialogue to take place concessions would have to be made. It is unlikely that Hizbullah would compromise the principles it upholds to initiate a dialogue with the US. Addressing the issue in a speech on 13 March, Nasrallah was asked to comment on the conditions set by the US for dialogue with Hizbullah. He said: "Before the Americans set their conditions on us they have to ask whether or not Hizbullah wants to have dialogue with the Americans in the first place, and if yes what are the conditions Hizbullah will set to accept having the dialogue." Another reason is that the Obama administration has been critical of the British move. Obama's own views regarding the resistance movement can be understood from testimony he gave during a congressional hearing in September 2006, one month after UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was issued. Obama advocated political and economic reform in Lebanon, not as a means of mollifying Hizbullah but as a means of defeating it. Creating "a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances," that "assures them they are getting social services," he explained in a subsequent interview with New York Times columnist David Brooks, will encourage Lebanon's impoverished Shia underclass "to peel support away" from Hizbullah militants and "view them as an oppressive force". Obama had previously raised the issue of Lebanon's "disaffected" Shia in congressional subcommittee hearings, but it was the first time he explicitly said that addressing Lebanon's domestic problems was critical to facilitating Hizbullah's disarmament. Obama's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, John Brennan, reiterated the same views in a lecture last August at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. There are, he said, disenfranchised Shia within Lebanon that Hizbullah is trying to represent. "They're doing it in a corrupted and twisted manner. They're not going to help to realise those aspirations of the Shia people if they continue to embrace that violence," he said. Such views within the administration dash hopes for a real change of policy towards Hizbullah and Lebanon.
