Can Lebanese society pull together under the ever-looming war clouds, asks Raed Al-Rafei A second round of Lebanese talks failed Wednesday to advance the dialogue over a national defence strategy, which is expected to remain unresolved until progress is made in major regional issues, like the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme and peace talks between Syria and Israel, analysts and politicians said. Nonetheless, last week's new session, which brought together 14 of Lebanon's top politicians, was marked by MP Michel Aoun, Hizbullah's main Christian ally, presenting his party's blueprint for a defence strategy. The Western-backed parliamentary majority was prompt to criticise Aoun's proposal, with some politicians even calling it "catastrophic" for the country. "The function of the national dialogue is just to pass the time with minimum damage until the direction that the region will take is clear," said Sami Nader, professor of international relations at Saint-Joseph University in Beirut. He added that the issue of Hizbullah's weapons could not be solved now with the whole country living under an "uncertain" regional situation. The first session of the national dialogue took place on 16 September as a result of the agreement reached in Doha in May to end the political crisis that had pushed Lebanon to the brink of a civil war. Following Hizbullah's show of force in Beirut earlier in May, the country's majority demanded that the thorny issue of the Shia militant group's arms be on the table. But observers do not believe the time is ripe yet for a serious discussion over Hizbullah's weapons. The next round of talks was scheduled on 22 December by President Michel Suleiman who heads the dialogue sessions. Nader said that two major players in the region, Israel and the United States, have not yet drawn up their foreign policies for the Middle East. On one hand, there is no proactive government in Israel and on the other, the new US administration's stance on the region is still unclear, he said. The academic added that the way relations between Iran and the US evolve would have a considerable impact on Lebanon's security. Another important event that would determine the shape of Lebanese interrelations is the outcome of the international tribunal for trying those responsible for the assassination of former premier Rafik Al-Hariri. For MP Ibrahim Kanaan, a member of Aoun's Change and Reform parliamentary block, the national dialogue prepares Lebanon for any major political changes in the region. "The dialogue is consolidating a minimum level of security in the country," Kanaan said. "It creates a positive atmosphere that could reduce political tensions." As requested by President Suleiman, Aoun's parliamentary bloc made the "bold" step of laying down the big lines of a defence strategy, that need to be further detailed and discussed, Kanaan said. Kanaan explained that the proposal both defined the threats confronted by Lebanon and explored the concept of resistance at the level of the people and civil society, forging an environment for what Kanaan called "civil resistance". "We are not asking people to carry arms and fight against Israel," Kanaan said. "We are saying that in case of an attack, the society as a whole should be participating on different levels to face it." Regarding the elaboration of the dangers looming over Lebanon, he said that the blueprint discussed the importance of "coordination and centralisation" in the performance of all the different branches of internal security to protect the country from internal threats. It also stressed the need to form special force units trained in combating terror and address security voids in Palestinian refugee camps. As for external threats, Kanaan said the proposal stipulated expanding the capabilities of the Lebanese army, especially developing an air force. "Most importantly, the blueprint maintains that all decision-making in war situations should be centralised," he said. "All the sectors of the state, like hospitals and civil defence, have to be prepared in case of an emergency if the country is attacked," he added. Meanwhile, Aoun's suggestions were met with an uproar in the circles of his political foes. For MP Elias Attallah, member of the 14 March coalition, Aoun's blueprint is flawed because it failed to mention the most important guarantee for the country's security, namely United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. "The 1701 is one of the main achievements of Lebanon's government," Attallah said. "Consolidating this resolution will certainly help protect Lebanon against external threats." This international resolution brought to an end a fierce war between Hizbullah and Israel in the summer of 2006 and led to the stationing of UN peacekeeping troops along the Lebanese southern border. "Aoun was telling all the Lebanese to join the resistance. He wants the country to be in a constant state of popular resistance," Attallah said, adding that Lebanon is far from being unanimous about the concept of resistance. "Instead of tackling the issue of Hizbullah's weapons, he pushed for the whole state of Lebanon to be at the service of Hizbullah's own state," he added. The 14 March consider that Hizbullah and its allies need first to endorse the principle that any national defence strategy should be in the hand of the state only, according to Attallah. He added that the majority recognises "the realities on the ground" and that Hizbullah's armed role can only be gradually assimilated into the state. Attallah accused his political opponents of avoiding addressing the crucial issues during the national dialogue, either by trying to include smaller political groups or by adding social and economic topics on the agenda of talks. He said that the long intervals between sessions were also crippling the debate. Attallah also referred to a series of decisions made during the 2006 national dialogue sessions and which were never implemented; like removing Palestinian weapons outside the refugee camps and demarcating the border with Syria along the occupied Shebaa Farms. Lebanon's majority believes that proving to the UN that this small area belongs to Lebanon will push Israel by "diplomatic means" to withdraw from the last piece of Lebanese land and pave the way for Hizbullah to give up its arms. But Hizbullah repeatedly said that the militant group will not give up its weapons after the liberation of Shebaa. The national dialogue started for the first time in 2006 and was abruptly terminated by the July Israeli aggression. According to Nader, 14 March lost an important element of strength when they accepted, in the first place, to take part in dialogue sessions outside the framework of the constitutional institutions, mainly the parliament. "They are the parliamentary majority," Nader said. "The parliament is where discussions and compromises should be really made." He said that the 14 March has adopted weaker positions partly because they felt the regional tides were moving against their interests. They are afraid the Syrian regime might take advantage of the diminishing US support for Lebanon to take control of the country once again. It remains to be seen how the 14 March politicians will respond officially to Aoun's proposal during the next session and whether they will have a blueprint laying down their vision for a national defence strategy, as Druze leader, MP Walid Jumblatt, recently said.
