The fate of Lebanon is uncertain. I can feel a cold wind
that reminds me of 1975, the official start of the Lebanese Civil War.
Tuesday 19th February 2013, lawmakers in the joint
parliamentary committees discussing electoral drafts approved the controversial
Orthodox Gathering proposal. The draft electoral law enables every religious sect
(19 officially recognized in Lebanon) to exclusively elect their own MPs under
a proportional representation system, with Lebanon as a single district. In
short, it strips Lebanese citizens of their right to vote for a candidate of a
different sect, reducing national identity to allegiance to the sect. It
disregards geographical communities in favor or religious communities. Each
sectorial tribe isolates itself in its own virtual ghetto.
The law is illegitimate; it is a source of discrimination
among citizens. It also goes against the hopes and aspirations of those that
are calling for a civil state where the rule of law is applied. However, these
aspects are not the source of imminent danger. The real threat lies into the
fact that the law resuscitates the Christian Muslim divide. The 14th
of March 2005 was the beginning of a reconciliation process that seemed to have
put the divisions of the civil war behind Lebanese society. Parties that fought
during the war participated together under each other banners in all events
calling for sovereignty. The sentiments sipped into the populations and the
most fundamentalists started accepting the other openly.
Today sadly, the Lebanese Christians are again taking stands
that are suicidal in nature. They are a minority as to numbers yet they have a
quota of half the members of parliament, the President of the Republic should
be Maronite, the Army Chief and the Governor of the Central bank too. They have
also a set quota in the first grade positions in the bureaucracy and army. In
short, they have much more power than their numbers would allow. Today, under
the leadership of their church, they made a tribal sectarian alliance across
the political divide of March 14th and March 8th to ask
for more, a more that in reality is a less. They want to live alone, in a
ghetto of their own and for protection would consider an alliance of
minorities, Maronites, Shia, and maybe Alawites? This alliance appears to be in
essence against the Arabs who happen to be in their majority Sunnis? For those
who lived the Lebanese Civil War debuts, it brings back bad memories. It is
clear that most did not learn their lesson.
The question that needs an answer is “why did Lebanon reach
this dangerous boiling point?”
The regional direct and indirect conflicts have a definite
influence on the Lebanese political stalemate. The Obama foreign policy of
making deals with Iran and Russia at the expense of the Arab regional component
whether in the Arab Spring countries or the Gulf area has compiled the polarisation
in Lebanon, giving Hezbollah and his allied a sense of empowerment. It also
drove Walid Jumblatt to shift alliances in an effort to protect his Druze
community and his power base. By doing so he delivered the government into the
hands of the Syrian-Iranian duo. It gave the two Maronite parties (Kataeb and
Lebanese Forces) allied with the 14th of March a feeling of
insecurity from being left alone that threw them again on the road to
isolationism.
Many do not understand the new American policy and feel it
does not have direction, others view it as a policy centred on a strange
combination of the Nixon doctrine and the Carter doctrine. The Nixon/Ford foreign
policy doctrine is best defined by Nixon’s own words "the United States
would assist in the defence and developments of allies and friends," but
would not "undertake all the defence of the free nations of the world".
This doctrine explains the callous ignorance by Obama of a dictator massacring
his own people just for their call for freedom in Syria. On the other hand the
Carter Doctrine warned against “outside” control of the oil-rich Persian Gulf
affirming that such “an assault will be repelled by any means necessary,
including military force.” Iran represents such a threat however there is a
growing belief in Obama’s Washington that a nuclear-capable Iran can be
contained, just as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. Accordingly Obama
imposed the most stringently crippling sanctions while showing readiness to
make a deal with Iran in Syria and by extension Lebanon. This could prove a
costly policy. Iran is no the Soviet Union. It is ruled by Shia fundamentalism
that ultimately believes that the end of the world will bring back the Mehdi.
Iran is also ruled by Persian fanatics whose ethnic historical hatred of Arabs
has no limitations. On the other hand, destroying hope and nascent democracy in
the Arab world gives free hand to Sunni fundamentalism, a jinni that the US
liberated from the bottle in Afghanistan during the cold war. It can burn
around it and the flame can reach far away.
Lebanese Christians betting on an American support of the
minority alliance might be a losing bet. Lebanon can at any time be sold again to
foreign influence, this time Shia fundamentalism and Iran. The Iranian
domination in Lebanon has already driven Arab Gulf countries to issue a travel
warning. Lebanon cannot survive without the Gulf countries that since the
fifties have been the fuel of economic growth. With the destruction of the
economy more and more Christians will emigrate as well as a brain drain from
all sects. Walid Jumblatt and the Druze will suffer most of this situation.
Historically they cannot be part of the minorities’ alliance. Their role, most
probably will be reduced to the size of their numbers. Playing the middle
ground might not have been a sound choice in the face of Iranian imperialism.
Druze are on the brink of breaking their Arab connection inside Lebanon and
outside the borders. In such a scenario, civil war is taking place now. Today
it is a cold civil war.
Answering the question “why is Lebanon on the brink of civil
war” there is no escape from addressing the role played by the 14th
of March locomotive, Hariri and the Future Movement. Lack of leadership and
incompetence have sped the process. At each and every stage since 2005, lack of
vision and strategic planning drove the movement to the wall. They were not
able to capitalize on their strength in 2005 and 2006. Compromises were made
with Hezbollah and Syria without a real understanding that compromise is not a
strategy. It is a tactical move that needs to be well studied. If one follows
the way the battle for a new electoral law was lead, it is clear that there was
no direction and no preparation. Their strategy was refusal, never presenting a livable alternative, and at each level they were surprised by a master
strategist, Berri supported by Hezbollah, until they lost their allies and the
possibility of manoeuvre.
Today their only choice is to accept the Orthodox electoral
law, but to insist on removing the proportional component. They and their
allies might preserve majority in parliament, thus preventing a total takeover
of the country by the 8th of March alliance.
This blog was published in Middle East Transparent http://www.middleeasttransparent.com/spip.php?article21523