Does Rice's Visit Freeze Formation of a Lebanese Government?

The political arena in Lebanon is back to the pre-Doha Agreement stage, from struggles to complications, and the discussions about the formation of a government have stopped.

The government seemed on the path toward sorting out its disagreements early last week and news spread on the imminence of a government structure arrival after agreement finalization between the leader of the Freedom Party, Michel Sulleiyman, and President of the Free Patriotic Movement, Michel Aoun before noon Monday.

The United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Lebanon and met with Leader of Freedom Party before his later meeting with Aoun. She stated a collection of positions regarding Resolution 1701, with its stances on Hezbollah arms, the demarcation of borders with Syria, and the Shebaa Farms.

It has appeared, in the view of certain statements, that local political attention towards the formation of the government turned to Rice’s proposals, effectively freezing discussion on the remaining “Doha” items.

The “Lebanese Youth Movement for the Rejection of American Guardianship” announced a rejection and condemnation of Rice’s visit, terming it a “conspiracy against Lebanese Unity.”

MP Nabil Nicola, member of the Change and Reform Bloc, said in a statement that he is afraid of “the results from the visit by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Lebanon, in a time when President Fouad Signora is leading his March 14 Alliance team in strong, broad operations of procrastination towards the formation of a government and towards following the Doha Agreement.”

Mufti Jafri Sheikh Ahmad Qabalan commented on the visit saying, “whenever the Lebanese approach finding a solution among themselves, Ms. Rice and her management make it fail.”

OTHER OPINIONS

However, on the other side, former Prime Minister Omar Karami expressed, mockingly, “sadness for Rice and her visit.” He told Al-Jazeera Net, “Her visit was a farewell and it did not have any effect in delaying the formation of the government, because the complexities preceded the visit. She came to admonish and say good-bye.”

When asked on the raised issue of Shebaa Farms, he said “this is not a new American objective–it is meant to deny weapons to the resistance on any pretext as well as to keep the Shebaa Farms under United Nations trusteeship and therefore to keep the farms and water under Israeli control.”

Political Scientist Farid Salaman says, “Rice’s visit was not of importance or influence.” He stated to Al-Jazeera Net that, “the objective of procrastination is to see the failure of authority and to see the implementation of an emigration program of Lebanese Christians including strong Christian participants who are led by their selfishness towards a miserable fate.”

“It seems that the group currently in control desires failure to replace the authority, especially seeing as, at this moment, the group is in power, the group has parliamentary majority and the presidency is not supplied by any one group. They can do whatever they have in mind, particularly carry out the important actions I mentioned earlier,” he added.

The Future Movement Bloc member, Dr. Azzam Dandash, told Al-Jazeera Net that the “disruption began before Rice’s visit. But her visit is used as an excuse for procrastination in forming a government. From the outset a series of conditions emerged, like a magician who reaches into his hat–pulling out a rat, a rabbit and then pigeons. The conditions started with the Finance Ministry, moving to the sovereignty of Imad Aoun, and then the attempt to impose conditions on the president-elect. “

EMBARRASSING SINIORA

And commenting on the background of the issue he says, “First, the opposition did not accept the return of President Siniora to power so it seeks to embarrass him and disrupt his direction. Perhaps their plan is to embarrass, and eventually get rid of him, since he took a stand against the resistance weapons in his inaugural speech.”

He scoffed at the arguments and explanations given by each political movement, and said, “If Rice speaks about internal affairs, they say ‘Intervention.’ And if she speaks on the subject of international character, they say she wants to divert attention to another place.”

He concludes by saying, “Unfortunately, changing the facts started years ago, and it still continues.”