Why a defensive strategy now?

Friday, Feb 13 2009

"An understanding between the army and the resistance is positive for building a defensive strategy" – so came the statement by President Suleiman this week from Yarze in relation to the issue of the necessary defensive strategy to protect Lebanon from Israeli aggression which has been visited upon the country and its people, in particular the people of the South, for so long.

The President made this statement independently of the dialogue session which he chairs in Baabda during which this strategy is a major issue of debate amongst those attending.

The question now arises as to why the President chose the issue of the defensive strategy from amongst so many other pressing issues to discuss, including the issues of wiretapping, the assemblies and the budgets, the 2009 budget, the administrative appointments and the completion of the constitutional council without which there would be no elections and no one to elect. Also in this context, we are seeing the struggles between the ruling authority and the opposition as well as within each group. All of this is trying the patience of the Lebanese people who, as a result of all these issues, are losing their rights. In addition to this, we are seeing a total absence of any meaningful role being played by the institutions and the total absence of any surveillance of them.

At the same time, inflammatory speeches which incite sectarian, doctrinal, factional and regional tensions are increasing. These are ripe for exploitation in the ballot boxes, without fear of the consequences of this on the people’s security and all the resulting dangers which have already been seen on the streets of Lebanon. All of this has been placed in the balance by President Suleiman along with the dangers posed by Israel, using his experience as the previous commander of the army. So we may wonder what we are to expect from the Israeli state’s threats and promises while politicians are busy furthering their own personal interests.

It seems strange that while some of Lebanon’s politicians are congratulating the army and its leadership, they are at the same time underestimating it. The current political layer, in place since after the Taef agreement, has worked to strip the agreement of any positive points, to empty the constitution of most, if not all, of its positive elements, to effect the destruction of the democratic order after its imposition of self-interested electoral laws and the subjugation of power to its whims, to poke fun at the state institutions, to paralyze the abilities of the state and to dominate the state until the public debt exceeded 50 billion dollars. One may now wonder how high this public debt will reach after the upcoming elections.

The Lebanese people feel that, with the army being dealt with in this way, that it is merely being used as a political need to keep alive any particular issue or to solve whichever crisis, without really considering the importance of supporting the army in any meaningful way, particularly in light of the current tense security situation in general and the new escalation of tension in the Palestinian camps. The security issue and the lack of stability will serve to drown Lebanon in chaos, especially given the paralysis which has hit most of the country’s institutions. This means that all hopes are pinned on the Lebanese army, the only remaining institution which constitutes any kind of guarantee of civil peace. It is of great importance that the army remains healthy, that it remains unified for the protection of inclusive living and that is constitutes a guarantee for the security of the nation and the safety of its people.

The president then brought up the issue of the resistance, particularly in light of the increased tension and the absence of civil solutions. These include the dangers to Lebanese security and the underestimation of the need of the Lebanese people to defend their land in the face of Israeli aggression; herein lies the importance of maintaining the resistance and its achievements. If what is needed is to deal with the fears and suspicions raised by the presence of weapons in the hands of one Lebanese faction, then we need to engage in immediate work to contain this within the state’s national plan and within the ordered boundaries of a comprehensive national defense dependent on close cooperation between the army and the resistance. If we do so, then we would have placed the country on the road to safety, which was the point that the president was trying to make in Yarze.

However, what are worrying at this time are the cracks which are appearing amongst the Arabs and the accumulation of urgent issues. All the while, Lebanon remains an open arena for fighting out all the regional crises which are threatening to become even greater, in particular the issue of the Palestinian camps. We also should not ignore the increased threats for war on Iran along with the effects of the global financial crisis which has resulted in the economically weak Arab states relying on the support of the Arabian Gulf.

This shows the necessity for Egypt and Saudi Arabia to work on sealing the cracks, removing the stranglehold on Gaza, establishing reconciliations, working on internal national unity in Palestine which will appease all sides, returning Syria to the Arab fold and establishing peaceful relations with Iran. All of these issues, as well as the divisions within the various Arab countries, not least of which are religious or doctrinal in nature (in addition to attempts to make Lebanon a center for extremism), and the predominance of the mentality of dealing with division through violence, all call for hard work by the Arabs. This would be the case even if a plan for peace were ready to put an end to the Arab-Israeli war!

The Arab states do not expect miracles; they only ask for the implementation of the Security Council resolutions relating to Israel for the past year and a fair and balanced policy based on the conditions of 1967. However, these are totally absent from the plans of the Israeli state with the rise of Benyamin Netanyahu. This is the case even if we assume that the negotiations between the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, depend on the new American administration as Abbas hopes they will. The Obama administration has not shown clearly any changes in its foreign policy regarding the region, and so the dangers of the inter-Arab differences will be a heavy burden on the larger Arab states. Given these circumstances, what will stop Israel from taking advantage of Arab weakness and imposing a ‘settlement’ on the weak and divided Arabs?

In Lebanon, the 14 March group is still imagining that the role which was played by the previous American administration will continue with the new administration. This suggests that the previous administration was giving vocal support to this group, which is made clear by the political and media war, some of which is facing off against Damascus. Also, the indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations are progressing, under indirect American auspices and direct Turkish involvement.

Out of this situation come the repeated warnings of the National Dialogue Party of escalation in the use of doctrinal and sectarian tensions for political purposes. This will have fearsome results, as no internal or external side can hide its effects on the security or politics of the country. What is happening now is that some of the political figures are having trouble figuring out how to pass their personal and factional interests, while the government faces a tangible paralysis in the administration of its general affairs in a political climate blackened by conflicting interests and divisions. The two sides of the current authority, or at least one of its sides, is hedging its bets until the results of the parliamentary elections are through in order to monopolize power and thus deal a blow to the concept of communal Lebanese living. While waiting for this new situation, power will remain linked, with all of its negative consequences, to the lives and standard of living of the Lebanese people.

The fate of the country remains in the hands of some politicians, most of whom have been in power since the Taef agreement. This calls for a serious awareness on the part of the civil community to wake up to the dangers, in order to avoid attempts to drag the country into all too familiar civil strife. This is particularly important given the lack of hope for imminent change and the expectation that the same political piracy seen during the 2005 elections will rear its head once again. The adoption of a fair electoral law which is dependent on proportional representation will do away with the sectarian order and its political adherents. Once this happens, the Lebanese people should not shirk from holding to account those who promoted divisive talk. They will also need to rally around their army to maintain their national unity and civil peace, and undertake the hard work required to maintain the conditions which will allow us to build a safe and democratic nation for our children and grandchildren.