| News | |
About Us | |
GP Editors | |
Get Published | |
Newsletter | |
Contact Us |
Home >> Middle East >> Syria & Lebanon Old Rivalries Reignite Power Struggle in Lebanon Samer Zouehid - 4/15/2005 [From Lebanon]Once again the world's attention has turned to Lebanon, a nation haunted by its turbulent history. Just as the Lebanese people started getting accustomed to normality, a destructive reminder of its past shook the nation and sent shock waves through the Middle East and beyond. February 14th, now a fateful day in the nation's history, saw unknown assassins' murder former premier Rafik Hariri as he was driving back from a parliamentary session. As the world looked on in horror, an unprecedented movement was taking shape in Lebanon. A series of protests began to engulf the capital in an unprecedented scale, but instead of the predicted sectarian strife a national unity movement was born, as demonstrators broke with tradition, Christians marched with Muslims and Druze alike, all demanding the truth behind the assassination of Hariri and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. Syria's role as Lebanon's political masters was cemented at the end of the civil war, under the Ta'if accord in 1989, which created a special relationship between the two countries. Ironically it was under the approval of the Israeli's and the Americans that Syria's military entered Lebanon as peace brokers in 1976. Lebanon is essential for Syria's strategic interest, as it guards its vulnerable west flank from Israel. Since the beginning of Syria's intervention in Lebanon, it has been building up structures and alliances, through coordination with its own intelligence agencies in Lebanon and with the Lebanese intelligence. In essence their presence of troops is only a visible sign of their power, as through these structures they have dominated Lebanese politics for decades, as candidates for high level government jobs have to gain the approval of Damascus before taking office. It is Syria's grip over Lebanon that prompted America to co sponsor a Security Council resolution 1559 with France, which called for the removal of all foreign troops from Lebanon and the disarming of militias. After the murder of Hariri, which America blamed on Syria; an opportunity arose for America to accelerate their agenda. To understand America's policy towards Lebanon, one has to look at the Ronald Reagan plan formulated in 1982 which attempted to end the civil war, as many of its ideas resonates with the current administrations policies. The Ronald Reagan plan was composed of three parts; it called for a withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon, it also sought to centralize a regime and train its army, and finally the third part links with the second as it wanted to ensure the safety of Israel's Galilee region. Many observers saw that as an implication that America wanted to create a Maronite state, as they were the most likely sect in Lebanon to form ties with Israel. In removing foreign troops backed by the Soviet Union at the time, America felt the retreat would be sending out a strong message to its foes in its battle with communism. Obviously the Reagan plan failed due to many miscalculations of the state of Lebanese affairs. However, through Security Council resolution 1559, we can see a revival of the core ideals of the Reagan plan, such as the disarming of Hezbollah, a perceived threat to Israel, as well as the removal of all foreign forces. This would be a strong message to its foes in what it calls the axis of evil. This point is further illustrated by D.R Alia Saidi, a lecturer of Middle Eastern Studies in AUB, "The not so obvious goal behind it (resolution 1559) is to Israel's benefit. It creates a peaceful border with Israel, the threat being from Hezbollah, before it was the PLO. Foreign troops in Lebanon are not much of a concern for America except because they support Hezbollah, which according to them is a terrorist threat next door to Israel, supported by Syria and Iran." Israel's peace accords with Jordan and Egypt leaves Lebanon as its last obstacle towards creating stable borders. America's struggle against Syria seems to be gaining momentum, Syria has pledged to pull out its troops by the 30th of April, and for the first time in Lebanon there is discussion going on about the disarmament of Hezbollah. Syria's powerbase in Lebanon seems to be crumbling almost overnight, and this sends a strong signal to Arab countries that America can use the UN to great effect. For President Assad of Syria this is a time of great crisis, as not only do he risk loosing Lebanon with out anything in return, most notably peace with Israel and the returning of the Golan Heights, but they have now also become isolated internationally. Long time supporters like France and Saudi Arabia refused to back them over the current crisis in Lebanon. The latest and most damming of criticism came from a UN fact finding team which concluded in their report that Syria was partly to blame for creating an atmosphere that allowed the assassination of Hariri to take place. What ever the outcome for Lebanon, the American's dream of creating a pro-western democracy in Lebanon will be futile, as it was in the past during Lebanon's civil war. If they really want a democracy that reflects the countries diversity, do they understand that this will include a substantive role for Hezbollah in parliament? In the wider context of the Bush administrations plans for the region, Lebanon comes as the latest piece of vindication for this administration neo-conservative policy towards the region. President Bush was quick to use the situation in Lebanon to claim it as the domino effect he predicted the invasion of Iraq would have. Bush points that the elections in Iraq earlier this year were followed by Palestinian elections, local elections in Saudi Arabia, as well as the concession by President Mubarak to allow there to be two candidates running for the presidency in the upcoming elections. Bush emphasized his perceived success in a speech to the US military base in Iraq as he said, "As the Iraq democracy succeeds, the success is sending a message from Beirut to Tehran that freedom can be the future for every nation." So theses current wave of demonstrations in Lebanon are part of a greater trend in the Middle East? Are the winds of change blowing across the Middle East? Skeptics would argue otherwise. The elections only took place in Iraq because it was the wish of Ayatollah Sistani; there have been elections in Palestine before without baring fruit on the plight of their people. As for Saudi Arabia local elections are superficial as there are no signs that the monarchy is willing to loosen their iron grip on power. As for Egypt, President Mubarak is prosecuting Ayman Nour, the only likely threat to his presidency. Protestors in Beirut are unified in their outrage against the murder of Hariri, which leads one to believe that is the cause of the sudden people power in Beirut, and not because there was elections in Iraq. Salim al-Hoss, a former Lebanese premier, articulated the paradox behind the current administrations drive for democracy in the Middle East in an article published in The Daily Star. For al-Hoss, democracy is meaningless without freedom as it is portrayed as being tantamount to a ballot. Al-Hoss believes the ballot does not express the people's free will, as under foreign occupation it just becomes a ritual, with no affinity to a real democracy. He begs the question, "How can democracy possibly be envisaged without freedom?" Lebanon is in a period of transition, as the withdrawal of Syrian troops could give rise to a truly independent Lebanon, being able to progress to the ideal of a state that the Lebanese people envisage and truly deserve. However, one should be cautious of American and Israeli interference in Lebanese affairs, as President Assad will not sit idly by if his old foes try to shape a new Lebanon. Lebanon is entering a new era, as the power struggles of today will eventually shape the Lebanon of tomorrow. In the wake of the assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri, Lebanese politicians have been engaged in a bitter struggle to shape the future of this fragile country. Syria's role as Lebanon's political masters has been largely unchallenged for three decades. Through the creation of the Taif accord in 1989, Syria has had the ability to maintain influence over the three presidencies; the presidency of the Republic, the presidency of the Council of Ministers, and the presidency of the Chamber of Deputies. These roles are always filled by pro-Syrian politicians, as they are now, with President Lahoud, former Prime Minister Omar karami, and Speaker of The house Nabih Berri. However the political landscape is changing, Syria's unquestioned authority in Lebanon is eroding at an unprecedented scale. Most analysts will point to the assassination of Hariri as the final nail in the coffin for Syria's role in Lebanon, but if one looks carefully there has been a series of strategic blunders in Lebanon which has given rise to the current opposition in Lebanon, who are comprised of Druze and Maronite MP's, as well as MP's from Hariri's block. The culmination of these blunders, plus the assassination of Hariri, which most people in Lebanon blamed Syria for, gave rise for today's political climate in Lebanon. As we analyze the reactions of Lebanese politicians to these miscalculations by Syria, we shall realize that the current state of affairs in Lebanon is less of cry for democracy, and more an outpour of frustration at Syria for marginalizing political groups from the corridors of power in Lebanon. D.R Alia Saidi, lecturer of Middle Eastern Studies in AUB, highlights this point, "It is a struggle for power, it is also a show of frustration for being marginalized for 15 years, if they couldn't enter politics under the Syrian wing they couldn't be elected into public office." The Maronites in Lebanon have traditionally been the most vocal and fierce critics of Syria's role in Lebanon. Under the Taif Accord, they lost their hegemony over Lebanon, and the old aristocratic families have been marginalized from power, including the Gemayel, Shamun, and Edde families. These losses combined with the blame they place on Syria for the assassination of two Maronite presidents; Bashir Gemayel in 1982, for his support for Israel, and Rene Moawad in 1988, has mobilized the Maronite community against Syria. When Bashar Assad allowed the constitution to be changed so that they could extended Lahoud's term for three years there was an outpour of criticism in Lebanon. People and politicians alike were furious, and thus began the first in a series of miscalculations that saw Syria's influence in Lebanon crumble away. Saidi highlights this strategic blunder, "President Assad must have really miss read the signs, as very few Lebanese wanted Lahoud's mandate to be extended, and by pushing for this he turned a lot of Lebanese against Syria, even Lebanese who were sympathetic(to Syria), or pro Arab." Adding to the strength of the Maronite opposition to Syria, Amin Gemayel returned to Lebanon in 2000, and he is now a leading member of the Qornet Shehwan which is dedicated to the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. The extension of Lahoud's mandate also caused ripples in the Druze community. It was this, combined with other factors that has lead Walid Jumblatt, head of the Progressive Socialist Party, to become an outspoken critic of Syria's role in Lebanon. Jumblatt is known to many analysts as the weather nave of Lebanese politics. He has gained this reputation for his uncanny ability to ride Lebanon's political storms, and always come up on the winning side. Under the presidency of Hafez Assad, Jumblatt received cabinet level positions in successive governments and the electoral districts were gerrymandered in order to cement his reelection in 1992 and 1996. It is Bashar Assad's notorious mishandling of Jumblatt that brought about his severe opposition to Syria's role in Lebanon. In 1998, Assad gained control of Lebanese affairs from Vice-president Abdul Halim Khaddam, as well as ousting the Syrian military chief of staff Hikmat Shihabi, who were both Jumblatt's key allies in Syria. In doing so Assad eliminated any possible threat to his succession in Syria. However his actions had repercussions in Lebanon for Jumblatt, as when Assad came to power in 2000, he started granting more power to security and intelligence officers appointed by Lahoud. For Jumblatt to gain support in the 2000 elections he formed alliances with Christian groups in order to secure votes from Christian residents in the Shouf region, as he could no longer count on Syrian support. Jumblatt and his political allies won land slide victories, and secured three cabinet positions. Jumblatt had gained and is still gaining wide spread popularity among different factions in Lebanon for his criticism of Syria's role in Lebanon. This in effect cemented Jumblatt's place among the opposition, and he has stayed true to form in the run up to the upcoming elections in May by heavily criticizing Syria's role in Lebanon and for the murder of Hariri. The assassination of Rafik Hariri has brought Syria's role in Lebanon under the microscope. It seems unlikely that Syria could have ordered such an act, but the repercussions for Syria are nevertheless there regardless of the perpetrator. An indication of how frustrated Assad is at the spiraling of events in Lebanon is the recent sacking of the head of military intelligence a month ago, General Hassan Khalil. Security Council resolution 1559 calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon, plus the assassination of Hariri has given the opposition the legitimacy they need internationally and nationally to tilt the balance of power in Lebanon. So far the opposition have been able to mobilize the masses into active protests by demanding the withdrawal for Syrian troops and an investigation into the murder of Hariri, and thus secured the withdrawal of Syrian troops and security officers from Lebanon. The Hariri bloc's alliance with the opposition and its public criticism of Syria's role in Lebanon could be a major turning point in Lebanon's history. The bloc has a large faithful following created by the late Prime Minister Hariri, and has a decisive number of seats in parliament. This could be crucial in the next parliamentary elections if the opposition is going to gain a majority, which could in turn be the demise of Syria's powerbase in Lebanon. But how fragile is this current coalition that makes up the opposition? How loyal are their followers? Can the opposition work together to create coherent policies and pass important legislation if they were elected into parliament? One thing is abundantly clear; through making the cause of Hariri's death their own they have united the population in a way no Lebanese group has before, and through the protests they have organized they have shown that they have a legitimate power base among the people that is the envy of Arab regimes across the region. One thing that was made abundantly clears to me as I walked round interviewing demonstrators camped in Martyrs square is their support for the opposition is based on their stance towards the murder of Hariri, as none of the protestors had an inclination into the policies of the opposition. Jumblatt acknowledged these concerns recently, and admitted that the opposition has yet to form coherent policies, as he called, "On the opposition to meet and come up with a program, because it's not enough that we reach the elections and vote, we should have a clear and ambitious answer to what's next." Jumblatt was referring to the lack of cohesive policies on Iraq, the Lebanese economy, and the issue of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. One would be naïve to predict a complete shift in the balance of power in Lebanon, although the tides are flowing that way, there are still many loyalists who rely on Syria as there power base. As long as President Lahoud is in power, we can safely say that any attempts by the opposition to diminish the role of Syria in Lebanon will be thwarted. Nabih Berri, Speaker of the House and leader of Amal, has a strong Shia following and is unlikely to compromise his relationship with Syria. Then there is Hezbollah led by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, who is one of Lebanon's most powerful citizens. Hezbollah enjoys wide spread legitimacy in Lebanon for its patriotic stance and its role as the sole force that ended the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Hezbollah has a significant presence in parliament, and commands loyalty form its Shia following in the south. In a show of force, Hezbollah organized a pro Syrian rally in Beirut which saw a crowd of around a million turn up for the event. Hezbollah has vented interest in rejecting Security Council resolution 1559 as it also call for all militias to disarm as well as the withdrawal of all foreign forces. It was a clear signal to Hezbollah from America and Israel that there major backers, Syria, are leaving. Hezbollah responded with a sign of their own by flying unmanned drones over Israel in retaliation to Israel's constant violation of Lebanese air space. This was a message to President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon that Hezbollah is still a force to be reckoned with. Hezbollah emphasized through its demonstrations that it to commands strong loyalty and that any discussion about Lebanon's future would have to involve them, a point not missed by Jumblatt who visited Nasrallah recently. In the midst of this struggle lie the Lebanese people, waiting and praying for a truly trouble free future. The Lebanese are ready for democracy as Saidi points out, "The public want real democracy, as they feel in democracy there will be economic advancement, more education. People have been educated and they know there is a real need for a democracy in Lebanon." Unfortunately what we have in Lebanon at the moment is a perverted perception of democracy. For one, there is no free and independent media in Lebanon, as all the major television channels are controlled by certain powerful players in Lebanon, and are used to reflect their interest. The Hariri family owns Future TV, Speaker of parliament Berri owns NBN, former President Hrawi owns LBCI, and Hezbollah has its own station as well. If the lack of freedom of the press is a sad state of affairs in Lebanon, then the state of parliament creates a sense of despair. In a report commissioned in 1996, it showed many of the 128 members of parliament had been connected to the once dominant militias in Lebanon's civil war, and others were wealthy businessman who had profited from the civil war. The report estimated that 85 out of the 128 deputies in Parliament were wealthy and had incomes from other sources. The state of the Lebanese people does not fair much better. In a report published in 1995 by Antoine Haddad, it claimed that 28 percent of Lebanese were living bellow the poverty line, and in the main urban areas there are an estimated 750,000 poor, of which the report described 90,000 as extremely poor. Unfortunately things have not changed dramatically since those reports were released. What ever the outcome of this power struggle and the next elections, these issues require urgent attention if Lebanon is ever going to prosper as a nation.
|
Email
Print