Full text of the Statement by the Democratic Left Movement

Beirut, December 26, 2005

Introduction:

The Democratic Left Movement (DLM) views with concern the surge in aggression against the Lebanese state and its people.

The DLM believes that such activity aims at undermining the post-March 14 reality as well as curtailing all attempts made at unveiling the truth behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and similar criminal activity that resulted in the killing of leading Lebanese figures.

Along these lines came the suspension of the participation of the Hizbullah and the Amal Movement ministers in the cabinet after the latter had voted to request the holding of a joint domestic-international court to look into the Hariri murder as well as other assassinations.

The two groups have also demanded that the Lebanese give up their perspective on 1559 and become completely opposed to it. They intend to transform the cabinet into a paralyzed institution.

This was evident in the thorough presentation of Hizbullah's leader Mr. Hassan Nasrallah – who despite his calm tone – was escalating and clearly setting obstacles against the performance of the UN and the state including the cabinet and parliament.

By sabotaging state institutions and the role of the UN, Mr. Nasrallah clearly hopes to fundamentally change the Lebanese political scene in order to catch Lebanon off guard and take it back to square one for it to become, once again, a Syrian satellite.

The DLM believes that this political sabotage has been based on four major points namely (1) making a fuss out of the issue of internationalization, (2) ignoring national dialogue, (3) obstructing democracy and (4) trying to impose early elections.

(1) On Internationalization:

The DLM denounces Hizbullah's and Syria's double standard so far employed on this issue. In so far as the DLM is concerned, Hizbullah's support of UNSC 425 was in itself an act of internationalization. Hizbullah's approval of the April 1996 Understanding Committee along with Syria, France the US and Israel was another act of internationalization. For its part, Syria has repeatedly accepted international arrangements that have served its interests. Examples are abundant and include its invasion of Lebanon in 1976 after receiving an American green light for that and again its consolidation of power over the whole of Lebanon in 1990 when it received another go ahead from the US.

The DLM believes that where the interest of the Syrian regime is involved, internationalization is looked at with favor. Yet, the Syrian regime and its protιgιs are opposed to this same internationalization whenever UNSC resolutions serve Lebanon and are issued upon the request of a Lebanese majority and the Lebanese cabinet.

The DLM also believes that Lebanon is, and should always remain, an independent and free Arab state opposed to any kind of patronage, regardless of the identity of the patron.

The DLM believes that the national consensus for the formation of the international investigation committee, upon the assassination of former premier Hariri, has for its part brought around consequent UNSC resolutions.

Finally, the DLM strongly believes that the assassination of leading Lebanese figures including Hariri, DLM founder and Annahar journalist Samir Kassir, leftist leader George Hawi, Beirut MP and Annahar publisher Gebran Tueni are not secondary issues but rather deserve the extension of the international investigation to cover these crimes as well.

(2) On Dialogue:

The DLM has put forward its perspective on dialogue with Hizbullah. The DLM initiative has not deserved yet any merit from the Hizbullah side.

To this effect, the DLM reiterates its stance that the delineation of the Lebanese-Syrian borders – especially in the Shebaa Farms area – will enable the Lebanese to win the UN and the international community to their side. In this context, the DLM will be among the vanguard groups calling for the liberation of the Shebaa Farms – whether through diplomatic or other means – as well as for the release of detainees in Israeli prisons.

The DLM has earlier expected that Hizbullah would employ its special influence with the Syrian regime in order to acquire all the documents that would prove that this area belongs to Lebanon. Instead, all what Hizbullah came up with – telling by what Mr. Nasrallah has so far said – was that the area is Lebanese-Syrian and that earlier (Syrian-controlled) cabinets have proven such claim.

(3) On Democracy:

The DLM believes that consensus in the cabinet's decision-making is unconstitutional and that Hizbullah and the Amal Movement should not have threatened to suspend their participation when some ministers protested the Syrian President Bashar Assad's insult against Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The cabinet's decision and the will of the majority requesting that an international court be held for the Hariri and other crimes should not be obstructed under the pretext of "consensual" democracy.

The DLM views Hizbullah's continuous obstruction of justice as being unacceptable and as putting the Lebanese before two options: either obstruction of democracy or accepting terrorism as a daily activity.

At this point, the DLM reminds Hizbullah and its ministers that when the ministers of the Progressive Socialist Party resigned upon the cabinet session that extended President Emile Lahoud's term, the extension decision was carried on despite the absence of consensual democracy. The DLM also reminds Hizbullah that their support of President Lahoud and his staying in power is not consensual democracy either.

The DLM believes that the decision of going to war or holding peace – and not "this or that operation" like Hizbullah tries to depict it – are not secondary and should be decided by the majority.

(4) On Early Elections:

Since the mandate of the 2000 parliament was extended for eight months so that it would be able to extend Lahoud's term, and since in 1992 some MPs made it to the parliament with as low as 46 votes, the DLM believes that the current parliament is the first one – since Taef in 1990 – that was elected in the absence of any kind of patronage. Elections were free and alliances were indeed based on free choice and never forced. Accordingly, the DLM believes that the parliamentary majority in fact represents the majority of the Lebanese people.

Conclusion:

The DLM has repeatedly suggested, on more than one occasion and especially during the last Bristol meeting, proposals that would serve as the basis for national dialogue that should reaffirm national partnership among the different components of the Lebanese society unlike the proposals of others that include their unwavering support of the Syrian regimes that tries to depict the situation – unlike reality – as if it is under attack from Lebanon while all what is going on proves the opposite.

The DLM expresses its support of the resistence and reminds everyone that many of its members have been the founders of this resistence back in 1982. These were forced out of resistence thanks to assassinations and terrorism since they refused to transform resistance into a card in the hand of the Syrian regime.

Today we are expected to quit the battle for self-determination, freedom and independence and once again, we are being forced to through terrorism, killing and assassination.

The DLM believes that terrorism will not thwart its drive to independence, unlike how some protege might wish things would have been, even with a potential deal between Syrian and the US.

The battle for national independence and freedom goes on and all should know that the blood of Lebanon’s martyrs are not on the table for any bargains.

The Democratic Left Movement