LEBANON has suffered what Iraq escaped: the assassination of a national figure, on the whole a force for stability, at a point when the country’s tortured politics appeared to be taking a turn for the better.
Rafik Hariri had led Lebanon, as its Prime Minister, for ten of the fragile years as the country clawed its way out of civil war. When he quit in October, in protest at Syria’s support for his old rival, the Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, he moved smoothly towards the opposition camp.
He joined other opposition leaders in calling for Syria to pull its 14,000 troops out of Lebanon, before the Lebanese parliamentary elections in May. But even so, in a country bitterly divided into pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian camps, he retained an adroit claim to the middle ground.
His murder may backfire on its perpetrators. It can only increase international pressure on Syria, and on the pro-Syrian camp in Lebanon, at a point when they were already under huge pressure to concede.
It is hard to overstate the shock of yesterday’s blast. True, Hariri was hardly deaf to the threats on his life. The United Nations special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen had warned Damascus last week not to harm him or other opposition members, according to al-Hayat newspaper.
Advertisement
But violence has been subdued since the end of the 1975-90 civil war. Only minutes before Hariri was killed, he was relaxed, standing outside parliament, gesturing energetically with a forefinger as he talked. At least 20 cars were still burning, including the twisted frames of his bullet-proof motorcade, when the black comedy of attributing blame began.
Israel said it held Syria responsible. So did Lebanon’s most prominent exile, the former army commander General Michel Aoun. But Syria rushed to pronounce the bomb “an act of terrorism”. For good measure, Iran said Israel did it.
Yesterday’s early claim of responsibility by a little-known Islamist group did not shed light on the identity of Hariri’s enemies. But it is fair to guess that Syrian sympathisers were responsible. It was, after all, Damascus that had most to lose from Hariri’s stance. It has been uncomfortable with the idea of Lebanese elections, already appalled at the downfall of its fellow Baathist regime in Iraq.
Hariri had backed the UN Security Council Resolution 1559, passed in September, which called on Syria to pull out its troops before May, and for Lebanon to disband militias.
His own years in power were hardly uncontroversial. He was criticised for saddling Lebanon with debt of more than $35 billion (£18.5 billion), which still cripples its finances. But he was credited for hauling the country to its feet, using his web of business and diplomatic contacts.
Advertisement
In past weeks, the US, France and the UN became more confident that they might be able to nudge Lebanon and Syria towards change, for at least three reasons.
The first is that the new, tough stand by the US and France, jointly sponsoring Resolution 1559, appeared to be making a real impact on Beirut and Damascus.
A second is the new warmth in Israeli-Palestinian relations. A third is Lebanon’s catastrophic financial position. Its politicians are truly alarmed at the thought of UN sanctions.
In the past two weeks a busy round of diplomacy appeared to bring results. The UN special envoy reported back to Paris that Syria agreed to begin withdrawal — although it said it would not completely pull out until Israel complied with UN resolutions.
Hariri’s murder will threaten some of this progress. Not least, Lebanon’s fragile hopes of an economic upturn have been based on tourism. The pictures of the famous St George hotel, its balconies lying shattered in the street, will not help.
Advertisement
But the murder will also hugely increase international pressure on Lebanon and Syria at a point when there is real reason to hope for change.
Step forward for women
ONE of the fragments of good news in the Iraqi election results is the strong performance of women, who look set to take nearly a third of the seats in the new National Assembly. Under complicated election rules, one candidate in four was a woman.
The country’s transitional law, heavily influenced by the US, required that women make up at least one quarter of the assembly.
However, it appears that female candidates did better than that and may take 86 of the 275 seats. This will help to safeguard women’s rights, one of the constitutional areas that has seemed most under threat since the end of the war.
Advertisement
Educated urban women, in particular, have been alarmed that they may lose rights in divorce or inheritance that they enjoyed under the secular regime of Saddam Hussein.
Islamic groups have already lobbied to make Islamic law the basis of such rulings.
It is certainly not true that all the female members of the new assembly will take a liberal point of view, but their strength may help to tilt the new constitution in that direction.