Is Lebanon on the brink of civil war?

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 19^th 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 14^th 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 14^th and March 8^th 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 14^th 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 14^th 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 8^th of March alliance.

This blog was published in Middle East Transparent http://www.middleeasttransparent.com/spip.php?article21523