22 September 2012
BEIRUT: Political analysts called President Michel Sleiman’s proposal for a national defense strategy a “road map” for resolving the issue of Hezbollah’s arms, as well as reasserting the state’s role in defending Lebanon against any Israeli attack. “The president did not present a plan for a defense strategy. He presented a road map for tackling the problem of [Hezbollah’s] arms. It’s a road map for the role of the state and Hezbollah in defending Lebanon,” retired Lebanese Army Gen. Elias Hanna told The Daily Star Friday.
Simon Haddad, professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, said Sleiman’s proposal for a national defense strategy unveiled during Thursday’s National Dialogue session was the “beginning to discuss a defense strategy and resolve the problem of Hezbollah’s weapons.”
“The two sides [March 8 and 14 parties] cannot reject out of hand the president’s plan. They will make comments and reservations on it and demand amendments,” Haddad said.
“Sleiman’s proposal is an attempt to find a compromise formula to resolve the arms problem. It is an attempt to break the stalemate over the issue of arms and a defense strategy,” the professor said.
Professor Fadia Kiwan said “a new political climate” in Lebanon as a result of the repercussions of the Arab Spring uprisings had prompted Sleiman to come forward with his proposal for a national defense strategy.
“There is a new situation in Lebanon and an important change in the political climate. The developments in the region call on the state to gradually shoulder its responsibility to defend the border against any Israeli threat,” said Kiwan, head of the political sciences department at Beirut’s Saint Joseph University.
“The president’s plan calls for placing the decision of war and peace in the hands of the state.”
That rival parties in the opposition March 14 coalition and the Hezbollah-led March 8 bloc had accepted to discuss a defense strategy was an indication that the political climate was changing, Kiwan said.
“Sleiman’s proposal is clear. While it reassures the resistance and does not cast doubt about its value, the proposal seeks to gradually place the resistance’s arms under the command of the Lebanese Army,” Kiwan said. She added that the two sides had shown acceptance of the president’s plan.
During a National Dialogue Committee meeting at Baabda Palace Thursday, Sleiman unveiled to rival Lebanese leaders a national defense strategy that would allow Hezbollah to keep its arms but place them under the command of the Lebanese Army, which would have exclusive authority to use force.
Under the proposal, Hezbollah would not hand its arms over to the Army, as demanded by the opposition March 14 coalition, nor would there be coordination between the resistance and the Army, the defense strategy that Hezbollah has backed.
Instead, the arms of the resistance would be used by the state until the Army could take over all defense responsibilities. The plan stipulates that the resistance would operate only in the event of occupation.
“In line with Article 65 of the Constitution and the law of National Defense and until the Army is provided with the appropriate power needed to carry out its missions, an agreement [should be] reached on the appropriate frameworks and mechanisms to use the resistance’s arms, to specify control over them and to put them under the command of the Army – which has the exclusive right to use force,” the proposal says.
Sleiman’s plan calls for providing the Army with sufficient weapons, equipment and training to develop its human and military capacity to defend Lebanon’s land, airspace and sea.
In his proposal, Sleiman said Lebanon faces dangers from Israel, terrorist groups and the proliferation of arms among individuals, parties and Palestinian groups, which require a defense strategy that has at its heart an Army capable of defending the state.
National Dialogue members, who received copies of Sleiman’s proposal, are expected to make their remarks in the next session scheduled for Nov. 12.
Kiwan said discussions at National Dialogue would focus on how to bolster the state’s role in order to enable it to carry out its defense responsibilities on the border with Israel.
“The growing Israeli threat and the developments in the region, particularly in Syria, demand that the Lebanese state take over security missions on the border,” she said.
The decisions for war and peace should be in the hands of the Lebanese state, but Hezbollah will not have to surrender its arms given the state of war with Israel, that some parts of Lebanese territory remain under Israeli occupation and that resistance leaders are targeted by Israel.
“The general regional climate is conducive for the Lebanese state to restore its prestige and shoulder its security responsibility on the border with Israel,” Kiwan said.
Hanna, the retired army general, said Sleiman’s proposal did not amount to a full-fledged defense strategy. “The president presented broad outlines [for a defense strategy,” said Hanna, who teaches political science both at the AUB and Notre Dame University. He urged Sleiman to present a more specific defense strategy.
“The president must present a national security strategy from which a defense strategy could emanate in cooperation between the Army – backed with its military expertise and knowledge – and the resistance ... to hammer out a military doctrine,” Hanna said.
Hanna insisted that the decision of war or peace was neither in the hands of the Lebanese state nor Hezbollah. “The decision is linked to a regional equation. It lies in the hands of Iran and Israel,” he said.
Haddad, the AUB professor, said Sleiman’s proposal does not have any chance of being implemented.
“The president’s plan will not solve the arms problem. It is the beginning to talk about the issue,” he said.
“Unless Hezbollah’s members are incorporated into the Lebanese Army, there will be no solution for the arms problem,” he added.
Hezbollah will not accept that the Lebanese Army supervise the resistance’s activity, he said.
Kiwan, the USJ professor, said Sleiman’s proposal was not a maneuver. “It is a serious attempt to tackle the arms problem. It is a main mission that could be one of the president’s most important achievements,” she said.
Asked what chance Sleiman’s proposal stood, Kiwan said: “All the parties have signaled that they will accept the plan.”
Copyright The Daily Star 2012.
