Sectarian Colonies
Moustafa Zein Al Hayat - 29/09/07//
We no longer need to say that the presidents of the Lebanese Republic are chosen by the outside, whether Arab or international, before they are chosen by the Lebanese people. Starting with Charles Debbas, the first president during the mandate era, to Emile Lahoud during the era of the Syrian tutelage, spanning Beshara Khoury, Camil Chamoun, Fouad Chehab and Charles Helou, etc…these were all chosen by the outside in agreement with the inside. To be more accurate, they were chosen by pressuring the inside, sometimes politically, or by threatening to support this or that sect and flare up a civil war. This is how the democratic game took its course, which the Lebanese and Arabs were and still are proud of.
Some examples: Elias Sarkis was elected as a result of a US-Syrian-Arab accord.
Bashir Gemayel was elected, as reported by his close entourage, once he reached out to the Muslims inside through the Arabs whom he also reached via Washington. His election crowned the triumph of this bloc in the civil war. However, he was assassinated before stepping into the Palace.
The inside and outside rallied to elect his brother Amin. However, Amin was not able to rule for several reasons, most importantly because he clinged to Bashir's choices and was empowered by the Americans against Syria and its Lebanese allies, not to mention the resistance's rage against the Israeli occupation.
Shall we continue?
There are many other examples: Michel Aoun, who took over the rule from Gemayel, was not able to stay in the Presidential Palace. In addition to the rift within the army during Amin's mandate, the Muslims did not consent to having him president, though temporarily, and a government headed by Salim Hoss went aboard. Lebanon thus had two governments, until the Syrians were able to evict him from the Palace and allow him to seek refuge in the French embassy, and then in Paris, where he was fended off the political arena.
Elias el Hrawi was elected President, and the constitution was amended to extend his mandate according to a Syrian-American-Arab accord.
Emile Lahoud was also elected in line with this accord, before the Arabs split into moderate and radical, and Shiite Crescent and Sunnite Quarter.
The present regime crisis in Lebanon was triggered, in its initial stage, when Bush broke away from the approach of the former US administrations and waged the war on all those who do not back him up. He preferred to spread democracy and freedom forcefully and with creative chaos, instead of preserving stability (Bush drew back from this strategy when his forces drowned in the Iraqi quagmire, and because he needed allies to evade this disaster and terminate his wars in the Middle East). The crisis was set off, of course, when Iran, the new strong player in Lebanon, was labeled as vile, and following the disavowal of the agreement with Syria.
In light of this strategic US transformation, and the French bias towards Washington's choices for Lebanon, the UN resolution 1559 was drafted. It stipulates that the Syrian forces should withdraw from Lebanon and the Lebanese should be given the opportunity to "freely" choose their President. It also stipulates the disarmament of the militias, not extending the mandate of Lahoud, and disarming Hezbollah. The extension and the subsequent assassination of Hariri were simply the spark seized by some to turn against their Syrian ally and raise the French flag… all the way to the "Cedar Revolution" that corroborated the rift between the Lebanese people. A retaliation of thirty years of Syrian "tutelage" was set off by a political class that raised the flags of Damascus and benefited from the presence of its forces and from establishing a regime built against the backdrop of its Arab and international policies.
In a nutshell, if we take into consideration the abovementioned presidential stages, any upcoming president of Lebanon will only be elected with an Arab and international consensus on his persona and political approach. As for the constitutional discretion, and the election according to the two third of the quorum or 50 plus one, these are merely democratic luxury, awaiting the green light from the outside. They are simply sectarian attempts to get the biggest share, political or non-political, of the rule.
Lebanon is made of sectarian colonies, where each colony is guarded by one or more countries.
|
