Lebanon has an 'Aoun' problem

Although many Lebanese perceive Hezbollah as a state within the state, the major reason for the country's current political paralysis is not the Party of God, but General Michel Aoun. The latter continues to believe that the presidency is his at any price, which does not bode well for either Lebanon or Hezbollah, because the end result might prove catastrophic.

To be sure, Hezbollah leaders refuse to acquiesce to Beirut's legitimate authority, sometimes violating the country's sovereignty by operating separate communications network or, allegedly, installing spy cameras at Beirut airport to monitor flight activities on runway 17.

The 2006 decision to launch a war against Israel was perhaps the best illustration of the nonchalant preference. Still, while these may be violations of internal state regulations, they are not as critical as many assume.

Simply stated, and without exaggeration, Hezbollah can do a lot but it cannot control the entire country. Besides, that is not its objectives, especially when one ignores rhetorical pronouncements that form part and parcel of Lebanese folklore.

On the contrary, it is in Hezbollah's long-term interests to play the state game effectively, if they are to ever share in its benefits. In other words, the day will surely come when Hezbollah will no longer be satisfied to just be a militia, but would transform itself into a legitimate political party that is respected across the board.

Hezbollah leaders thought that such an objective would be accomplished when they entered into a tactical alliance with General Michel Aoun. What they failed to assess correctly, was that the Free Patriotic Movement leader could not possibly impose himself on the majority, because his own legitimacy base was so shaky.

Aoun's recent errors confirmed this interpretation, including his bizarre isolation from mainstream decision-makers as well as a critical section of the religious leadership.

By making offensive pronouncements and supporting Syria, whose three decades-long occupation was sorely felt by a vast majority of Lebanese who were not privy to plush Parisian exile, opened unhealed wounds.

His insistence that Hezbollah's private phone network was not the only such system in place, left many bewildered, wondering whether the General moved from the realm of the fantastic to the ridiculous.

His gratuitous attacks on the Fouad Siniora Government, the only legitimate political institution left in the country, cheapen his mostly vulgar statements.

Given this plethora of embarrassments, even erstwhile allies such as Michel Murr have walked away, perhaps realising that no good will ever come from someone who is power hungry.

It is therefore a mystery why Hezbollah still clings on to Aoun, when so little unites the two groups, save perhaps a mutual infatuation with auto-destruction.

Mass movement

At this juncture, Aoun is betting on a mass movement to force Siniora to resign, which will not happen. The call for a peaceful rally alongside a strike scheduled by the General Labour Confederation, ostensibly to protest government policies, came to naught, since Beirut agreed to increase wages. Therefore, opposition leaders know additional demonstrations, riots, and clashes will add little value.

Even worse are Aoun's repeated declarations that electing General Michel Sulaiman president would not serve the interest of Lebanon's Christian community, although the opposite is true.

That he would want to delay the process to eliminate the commander of the Army, a man with impeccable credentials, speaks volumes.

Indeed, Aoun's latest ploy is that an agreement must first be reached on a new electoral law for the 2009 parliamentary elections, is itself a non-starter since such a law will be drafted in parliament, which is in abeyance.

It may not dawn on Aoun that there is a current majority, whose votes are needed, unless the opposition intends to physically eliminate as many parliamentarians as necessary to reach its goals. That Hezbollah would allow Aoun to contemplate such an option does not bode well for the Party of God whose leaders have demonstrated greater savvy in the past.

Moreover, if Aoun pays lip-service to his allies, defending their right to possess weapons, then he is unworthy of assuming higher office. Logic dictates that only the legitimate army - which Aoun led for several years - must be authorised to carry weapons.

Under the circumstances, Lebanon is best served if Aoun were to retire from public life, and for Hezbollah to realign itself by cutting off critical funding to this unreliable ally. Coincidentally, both Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir and former president Ameen Gemayel, solicited Qatari assistance to also curtail their financial support to Aoun a few days ago.

In Doha, Gemayel told the Qatari daily Al Raya that the opposition did not want to elect Sulaiman, although another Aoun ally, Walid Khoury, defected and announced that he was ready to vote for the Commander at the first chance he gets.

Gemayel and Sfeir met with the Qatari ruler and other officials, to drive the point home: cut-off Aoun's funding if you want stability in Lebanon. Today, an overwhelming majority of Lebanese parliamentarians, along with most of the citizens, trust Sulaiman.

A born leader, the Commander will not force anyone's hands, and actually desires to fulfil his mandate with the kind of dignity that Lebanon no longer enjoys. He would prefer to lead citizens, not hooligans, individuals with rights as well as obligations, who must also be persuaded to assume responsibilities. Not a tall order but a demanding one.

Dr. Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.