Lebanon: Reconciliations, Apology & Dialogue
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 24/09/08//
The excessive talk about reconciliations in Lebanon does not mean that the parties involved are heading toward a minimum common denominator that allows the state to retrieve its role and to preserve the right of the nation to sovereignty or the right of citizens to a decent life. As a matter of fact, reconciliations do not attempt to achieve any of these goals. So far, each of the parties involved seeks goals that serve his interests alone, turning a blind eye to the interests and concerns shared with others.
Even on the technical level, these reconciliations do not fall within the framework of the Doha Accord, which determined national dialogue, sponsored by the president, as a place to agree on civil peace. It is a dialogue whose outcomes are binding, whereas bilateral reconciliations are at best binding to their parties.
The first episode of reconciliations started in the north, where the Sunnis were believed to be pitted against the Alawites. Its aim was to end the armed skirmishes between the residents on both sides. The second episode was between the Progressive Socialist Party and Hezbollah following the meetings between the former and the Amal Movement, that is, between Druzes and Shiites. Saad Hariri, chief of the Future Movement, may today receive a Hezbollah delegation in preparation for his meeting with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in the hope of crowning conciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites. This is all at a time when the famous "understanding" between the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah is being presented as Christian-Shiite reconciliation.
Regardless of the objectives of each side behind the type of the opted for reconciliation and the chosen party to the reconciliation, the Christian-Christian reconciliation between the Lebanese Forces and the Free Patriotic Movement is getting more complicated and facing more stumbles. In fact, turbulences and even more violence are likely among the Christian sides.
Until the national dialogue sponsored by the president reaches its farfetched goal, binding agreements to all, the realities on the Christian ground contradict the climate of reconciliation prevailing in other scenes even when the objectives and outcomes of those reconciliations are at best limited.
The "apology" made by Dr. Samir Geagea over the war practices of the Lebanese Forces revealed the weaknesses of these reconciliations, of the national dialogue, and even the Taef Accord that set the grounds for the second republic. The timing of the apology and the generated responses show that none of those who had committed similar practices and are now seeking reconciliation believe that their history is subject to discussion and their policy to review. This is exactly what happened after the Taef Accord, especially with the general pardon which absolved all criminal acts related to those practices. Back then, under the Syrian mandate, the regime had to fabricate charges of bombing a church against Geagea to exclude him from the pardon and ensure another trial for his practices although he had been forced to fight the war of elimination against General Aoun to make the Taef Accord acceptable for the Christians. In other words, the Christian side which paid the heavy price for the Taef Accord is the same side which may now pay the price of the ongoing reconciliations, especially with the efforts to neutralize as many of its allies in March 14 as possible, making it stand alone face to face against its Christian foes such as the Patriotic Movement, the Maradah and other parties in March 8. The focus is on this Christian front in particular because it constituted a central player during the civil war and continues to exercise the capacity to object.
To set the ground for national conciliation, the apology should have been made by all the forces that participated in the war. At the same time, the general pardon should not have been a replacement for the need of every side to review and correct its experience in a direction that makes conciliation with others possible. When the apology finally came, although late, by Geagea alone, his foes saw in it nothing but another condemnation at the time when such an apology should have been a moral and political introduction to national dialogue. If anything, this is a negative indicator of the extent to which this national dialogue will come up with the desired reconciliation.
|
