Nasrallah’s double deal Thursday, 08 December 2011 04:56

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah’s speech last week, after Prime Minister Najib Mikati announced the decision to transfer Lebanon’s share of the funding to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, was a big giveaway that the organisation is at its most desperate, given the uprising in Syria and the tightening of sanctions against Iran for its nuclear programme and increasing diplomatic row with the West after the recent attack on the British Embassy in Tehran.

In his speech, Nasrallah kept harping about the threat of sectarianism not only in  Lebanon but in Syria too. He said: “Some media outlets are trying to show that there is a sectarian conflict there.” He added: “Some are insisting that there are 3,000 fighters and that thousands of fighters from the Iraqi Mahdi army have entered Syria.” He declared that to be work of Hezbollah’s rivals and called on his followers for “self-restraint and avoiding sectarian rhetoric.”

This is radical change of tone for Nasrallah. We are not surprised, though, because we know that Nasrallah wants to show to his people that he is not, and will not be, a part of a possible sectarian conflict in Syria.

Nasrallah, however, didn’t forget to criticize former prime minister Saad Hariri accusing him and the March 14 parties for compromising on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon for “the sake of staying in power” only.

In all fairness, however, what Nasrallah termed “compromise” was actually a great personal sacrifice by Hariri for the sake of the Lebanese government’s stability. He put Lebanon’s national interest ahead of justice for his father’s killing.

Nasrallah also complained about Hariri’s lack of action during his time as prime minister which we really find funny. He complained that Hariri did not do anything during his short tenure while conveniently forgetting to mention that the Assads, who have been ruling Syria for over a decade, did precious little in terms of reforms or improvement like other dictators who were overthrown by the Arab Spring uprising. This only goes to show how biased his judgment is.

Also in his speech, Nasrallah questioned the legality of the payments made to the special tribunal, since Prime Minister Mikati used the budget of the Higher Relief Committee to fund the special tribunal. But I am wondering: could that be possible without the tacit approval of Hezbollah? It could have easily been done during Hariri’s government. And let’s not forget that the funding for the special tribunal could also be done through outside sources or donations. So why did this solution come only now?

Could it possibly be because Hezbollah tacitly agreed to it because of its current weak position since its allies, Syria and Iran, are facing problems of their own?

If this is the case, Nasrallah’s speech could only show him to be politically pragmatic.

If Mikati’s government had failed because of the dispute over the tribunal funding, Hezbollah and Syria would have been in a more difficult situation. And surely, neither Hezbollah nor Syria want the Mikati government to fail since it will be against their best interest.

Had it failed, Syria would be in a situation worse than it already is, since it would entail formation of a new Lebanese government and there is a big possibility that government might not be as friendly with Syria as the current one.

And with the sanctions recently passed by the Arab League, Syria faces bigger economic difficulties, and the situation would surely worsen if Mikati’s government falls, and Hariri or other rivals of Hezbollah come back to power and cut economic ties with Syria.

Hezbollah, by implicitly approving the tribunal funding, is trying to buy time and wait for the situation in Syria to improve and the Arab Spring uprising to die down, although in his speech, Nasrallah showed to the public that he was still against the funding of the tribunal.

I have little doubt this issue will be raised again next year. If the situation in Syria improves and the Arab Spring revolts cool down, Nasrallah would easily refuse funding the tribunal without seemingly changing his instance.

And finally, we should highlight that the only person benefitting from all this, is Prime Minister Najib Mikati. He comes out as the hero whatever the outcome of the tribunal funding has been.

First, if funding was not approved, he would have resigned as he had clearly announced, and would become the hero to the Sunni party for standing his ground.

Secondly, if the funding was approved, as it came to happen, he would still be a hero for being able to strike a deal that was once so difficult with Hezbollah on the special tribunal issue.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to survival. It is not surprising, therefore, if Hezbollah, Hamas, Brotherhood, Iran or whatever group it is, suddenly changes its tone when its survival is threatened. Ideologies are pushed aside when people are pushed into a corner and become pragmatic in order to survive.

The Peninsula