OPINION

On arms, Hizbullah accepts nonnegotiable dialogue

By Amal Saad-Ghorayeb

Following the withdrawal of Syria's military and intelligence services from Lebanon, attention was riveted on the fate of Hizbullah's armed wing, the Islamic resistance. Bereft of the political cover its military activity received from the Assad regime, the party now finds itself in the position of having to persuade its compatriots of the advantages of what it calls the "unique formula of resistance and army" that Lebanon has at its disposal to combat Israel.

While Hizbullah can count on domestic support for its resistance in the short to medium term, it may not be able to do so it in the long term, once Israel evacuates the Shebaa Farms and a regional settlement is reached. In post-Syria Lebanon, where sectarianism has resurfaced with a vengeance, the question is no longer one of "Why do we need a resistance?" but "Why do the Shiites get to keep their arms?" International pressure from the United Nations, the European Union and the United States in particular could feed on such sensitivities, obliging the Lebanese government to work toward disarming the party.

Hizbullah may find itself cornered domestically, having to choose between backing down at the last minute and giving up its weapons or fighting a losing battle to retain its arms. If it chooses the first option, it will become an emasculated shadow of its former self, operating in a political space demarcated by the very forces which brought about its demise. If it goes for the second, it will find itself isolated domestically and delegitimized.

Hizbullah is attempting to avert the likelihood of such a dilemma by rationalizing its resistance role and underscoring the need for strategic defense. It has been both constrained and galvanized by the U.S.-led campaign to disband its armed resistance. It regards this and the wider U.S. regional goal to militarily constrain Iran, Syria and Palestinian Islamists as part of a "neoimperialist strategy." It also considers the "democratizing" thrust of the Bush administration a flimsy pretext to shape the Middle East to its own benefit, and that of Israel.

A Human Rights Agenda for the Parliamentary Elections in Lebanon

Source : Amnesty International USA

Introduction
On the eve of the Lebanese parliamentary elections scheduled for 29 May to 19 June 2005, Amnesty International is seeking to promote debate over how human rights in Lebanon may be more effectively promoted and protected. Elections provide an opportunity for consolidating democracy and justice in a post-conflict situation or a situation characterised by insufficient attention to human rights protection. Amnesty International believes that human rights should be at the heart of the proposed agenda of each candidate, and of the future government.

Lebanese laws and the constitution are generally conducive to protecting human rights, and Lebanon prides itself on the role its representative played in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, 1948. There continues to be a lively community of human rights organisations and defenders in the country, Lebanon has a reputation for being a regional media and cultural centre, and there is a Parliamentary Human Rights Committee. For years Amnesty International has had a good, open and frank dialogue with the Lebanese authorities who have permitted the organisation to carry out numerous human rights-related activities in the country. Amnesty International has also established its regional office for the Middle East and North Africa in Beirut. The organisation hopes that further cooperation continues after the elections and with the formation of the new parliament and government.

However, there continue to be human rights concerns in Lebanon, and the forthcoming elections provide an important opportunity for Lebanese citizens to raise their human rights concerns with candidates.

For over a decade Amnesty International has conducted numerous research visits to Lebanon, interviewed victims of human rights violations and their relatives, observed trials of political prisoners and held talks with government officials, members of the judiciary, lawyers and prosecutors. Although there is a noticeable awareness about human rights issues at both official and non-official levels, Amnesty International has documented gross human rights violations since the end of the civil war in 1990, committed by agents of the state or non-state actors. The organisation has communicated its findings and concerns in confidential correspondence with the authorities or published them in public reports and through the media. However, the bulk of the organisation's concerns and recommendations do not seem to have been properly addressed, or even taken seriously by the Lebanese authorities.

In 1997, and after a lapse of 14 years since the submission of its first report, Lebanon presented its second periodic report to the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the body of experts entrusted with monitoring implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Lebanon ratified in 1975. The HRC examined Lebanon's report and urged the Lebanese government to undertake a number of reforms and measures to bring its laws and practices in conformity with its obligations under the ICCPR. As with the case with recommendations submitted by Amnesty International, none of the HRC concluding observations appear to have been heeded by the Lebanese authorities.

In this document, Amnesty International is highlighting several key human rights areas: the need for reform of the justice sector; ending discrimination against women and marginalised communities; declaring a moratorium on executions as a step towards the abolition of the death penalty; ending impunity for past