|
|
|
Lebanon's current risks and opportunities
Lebanonwire.com 06/04/2012
Before
addressing the expatriate Lebanese
community's continued anxiety about Lebanon's immediate and long term
future, we should start by praising the Lord that the country has
remained relatively stable despite the turmoil surrounding it. We
appreciate the reassurance from leaders inside and outside Lebanon that
the summer of 2012 will be a calm and successful touristic season. We
sincerely hope they are right and that their reassurance is based on
facts and not wishful thinking. The so called "Arab Spring" continues
to be the subject of many unanswered questions. While at one time we
said we hope it is not "autumn" many are now referring to it as "Arab
Winter." The outside players who influenced the outcome in Egypt,
Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, etc may still desire to brag about contributing
to the progress of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. On the
other hand, the people of those countries do not seem to really feel
that they achieved their desired goals. The presidential elections in
Egypt may hopefully soon offer a clearer indication of what to expect
down the line.
For Lebanon, nothing is more important than what the phenomenon of the
"Arab Spring" may produce in Syria. So far, there is only reason for
more concern and anxiety. Syria has suffered confrontation and violence
for more than one year. Since the beginning of the unrest we all said
Syria is not Libya and such statement remains essentially valid. The
evolution of the crisis is also different from Egypt and Tunisia, where
the regimes were not able to demonstrate enough support from their
people or reliable control of their armies to secure their survival.
The Syrian regime apparently continues to have sufficient control of
its armed forces and had on and off significant popular demonstrations
in support of its persistence in power. While the majority of the
Syrian people may be Sunni Arabs, there are important diverse
minorities that may not follow a religious Sunni call against the
"secular, Alawite dominated" government. In addition to the Alawites,
there are many Christians, Druze, Shiites and Sunni Kurds who may have
different points of view and may not support a Sunni Arab dominated
revolution. Further, some experts claim that at least one third of the
Sunni Arab Syrians, believed to be more moderate or secular, do support
the current regime, for fear it may be replaced by a government
dominated by the Moslem Brotherhood or possibly more radical Sunni
factions.
The official US policy is said to support regime change in Syria,
theoretically to promote more freedom and democracy. It has, however so
far, wisely limited its role to diplomatic efforts and economic
sanctions, while resisting calls for direct military intervention or
even open supply of lethal arms to the opposition. Some US leaders seem
to entertain the dangerous and ill advised possibility of encouraging
and supporting Turkey to intervene. Others suspect that the Obama
administration may have some affinity for the Moslem Brotherhood, based
on a conviction that they are more moderate than other radical factions
that may have ties to terror groups such as All Qaeda. If there is any
truth to these possibilities, it would be wiser to wait and watch how
the post-revolutionary governments will evolve in Egypt, Tunisia and
Libya before supporting or facilitating access of the Syrian opposition
to power to replace the current secular regime.
While in principle everybody wishes peace, stability and prosperity for
the Syrian people, the world is currently sharply divided with regard
to the Syrian regime. More importantly we Lebanese-Americans like our
families and friends in Lebanon are also unfortunately divided, but
hopefully less sharply than the political camps on the Lebanese scene.
We know the challenge of keeping our small moderate and mostly
independent think tank Board democratically united when we address the
Syrian issues. Be it what it may, Lebanon's divisions put the country
in a very vulnerable position, should the Syrian situation further
deteriorate and procrastinate. Thus Lebanese Americans have good
reasons to worry about Syria, and when possible lobby against foreign
policy mistakes, not just for the sake of fairness and justice for a
sisterly country, but also for the protection of Lebanon's interests,
stability and prosperity. Here again, we believe the best interests of
the United States and Lebanon fully coincide and are best served if the
US current Middle East policy is reexamined in the light of more than a
year evolution of events in the whole area.
There is therefore justification to raise the following questions with
regard to the United States' foreign policy: (1) what is the benefit
for the US from regime change in Syria? The simple answer would be to
replace the regime by a more democratic government that promotes more
freedom and would be friendlier to the West. However, are we assured
that the result would not be replacing the supposedly secular regime by
one that could end up being hijacked by some fundamentalist factions?
While a regime allied to Iran may not be very helpful to the US, the
possibility of a regime friendly to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups
could be more dangerous. (2) How far is the US willing to go to produce
a regime change in Syria? Military intervention appears to be extremely
unlikely during a Presidential electoral campaign season. Also at this
point it would seem to be a reckless option since it may risk
destabilizing the whole Middle East or triggering a broader war than
anybody wants. Attempting to intervene through a proxy, if possible,
may be an equally or even more dangerous option. In such a case the US
may know where the process may start, but will have difficulty
controlling how far it goes or when and how it will stop. (3) If the
rationale for regime change is idealistic due to its lack of democracy,
the natural question would be what country would be next on the list
for regime change, since there are enough monarchies and dictatorships
in the area with less democracy and worse records on freedom and human
rights. Further, how many times has the US policy been clearly and
loudly stated that America did not intend to be the world's policeman?
The summation of all 3 questions is why America should put its
resources, prestige and credibility on the line to seek a result that
could more than likely be against its best interest and principles? It
is therefore no wonder that the current administration policy towards
Syria appears hesitant. Even some strongly pro-Israel leaders are
unconvinced of the value of the regime change. Wallerstein clearly
discussed the rationale against regime change in a well written article
published in Commentaries - February 15, 2012. On the other hand, while
the US President and Secretary of State have implied some time ago that
President Assad's days in power can be easily counted, one of the most
knowledgeable foreign policy leaders told us: do not hesitate to bet on
his remaining in power at least until the US elections and may be way
beyond.
How about Lebanon, what can or should it do, considering that it has
the most to lose in case the situation deteriorates further in Syria
and progresses into chaos or full fledged civil war. In principle the
Lebanese Government has wisely declared that it would distance itself
from involvement in the divisions and confrontations plaguing Syria.
However this is easier said than done. Syria has frequently accused
some Lebanese factions of organizing or facilitating arms transfers
into its territory to help the revolutionary opposition. On the other
hand the Lebanese opposition has complained that some ministers in the
Miqati government are acting to serve Syrian needs ahead of Lebanese
interests. In simple terms the divisions in Lebanon remain sharp and
dangerous. While most leaders are conscious of the risks that threaten
Lebanon's stability, it is not clear whether most are doing enough to
avoid possible catastrophe. Assuming that the opposing camps trust each
other's wisdom and control in avoiding provocations that could trigger
violence or instability, nobody can guarantee that in this tense and
suspicious climate an unintended incident, a fifth column or a foreign
agent would not spark a fire that could expand into disaster. Recent
incidents, which luckily have been so far contained, and the tension
and anxiety they produced testify to the legitimacy of our concerns.
The Lebanese should remember that if their reactive divisions result a
in major security or economic problems, the countries that in the past
rushed to help them are all too busy with problems of their own. They
should therefore focus on smoothing their divisions through sincere and
enlightened dialogue. President Sleiman has been calling for sometime
to resume dialogue in Baabda. We are not aware if he has proposed any
specific agenda, that may offer enticement to the opposing pro and
anti-Syrian groups. Nevertheless we believe that the internal and
geopolitical climate has evolved to make dialogue more necessary and
possibly more acceptable to both camps, if properly structured and
prepared for. The March 8 forces had wanted the dialogue all along. We
now hear that Hezbollah may be wisely inclined to show some flexibility
regarding its arms; supposedly to preempt proliferation of opposing
radical armed extremist groups. We also hear of signs that the issue of
disarming Palestinians outside the camps, which was a subject of
consensus during the early dialogue, may currently be moving towards
implementation?
On the other hand, the March 14 forces that wanted the dialogue focused
on arms control, are now calling for the formation of a new independent
government. Such move can solidify the unity of the country in the face
of the constantly looming risks of further security deterioration in
Syria or a surprise attack by Israel against the nuclear facilities in
Iran. A technocratic government can also secure impartiality during the
upcoming legislative elections in 2013, but is unlikely to see the
light without intelligent and sincere dialogue. The challenge now is in
front of President Sleiman to skillfully convince all concerned that
dialogue at this time is worthwhile and the climate is ripe to reach a
consensus that will benefit both camps. He may find a lot of support
amongst the expatriate community which may be able to help him secure
cooperation from both East and West. When Lebanon is united on an
issue, the expatriate community can sometimes be very efficient in
helping. Many may remember when in 2004 a resolution was initiated in
the US Congress favoring implantation of Palestinian refugees in the
hosting Arab countries, we were able to explain the negative
consequences and convince the initiators to stop it. Such initiative
has not resurfaced up to this time. The efforts by Prime Minister Saad
Hariri to liberate and facilitate the return of the Shiite pilgrims
believed to be detained by elements of the Syrian opposition, clearly
demonstrate that the Lebanese can always unite to support specific fair
issues, for the best interest of their country.
Has Lebanon, to this point been able to significantly help Syria in any
capacity? We sincerely doubt and the divisions in Lebanon may have
contributed in a small way to further exacerbate the confrontations in
Syria. The Lebanese government which officially distanced itself from
the Syrian scene may not have enough strength to prevent pro and
anti-Syrian groups from interfering or appearing to interfere in Syrian
affairs. The Lebanese tend to have knowledge and understanding of Syria
better than most. However, taking sides will certainly not help solve
the problem. Helping the present government reach a fair compromise,
though difficult is not impossible. Who knows, may be a peaceful united
Syria emerging from the current quagmire could become a mediator with
Iran and help defuse most of current Middle East tensions. A united
Lebanon through consensus may have a shot at mobilizing formidable
assets amongst its expatriate community to help Syria effectively
progress towards a fair compromise. This may be the best pathway to
stop the violence and give the Syrian people hope that a genuine
democratic process will sometime determine the future of Syria in a
peaceful climate. We acknowledge strong imagination and extreme
optimism, but not naivete in putting our thoughts together. We hope the
leaders in and outside Syria and Lebanon who may read this article will
examine their conscience and consider some of these ideas towards not
just finding a way out of the current Syrian quagmire, but also towards
resetting the stage for a fair and complete peace in the Middle East.
|
American
Lebanese Foundation