Small civil conflicts: the solution lies in the implementation of the Taef agreement.

Friday, Feb 20 2009

The internal situation in Lebanon points to a rapid movement towards increased division through the deepening of the various political conflicts. This helps to create a state of hostility which is only seen in situations of divided conflict such as the Lebanese people witnessed on 14 February past, in various streets and neighborhoods. The reason for this is that the conflict over political positions is having an effect on the streets and is manifesting itself in violence and conflict. It seems as though the Lebanese people are divided into two camps with two mentalities and no common ground for agreement or compromise. This situation has prevailed, though sometimes beneath the surface, since the Doha agreement and the establishment of a national unity government following the difficult past four years.

We have heard in some of the speeches commemorating the late Rafik Hariri an emphasis on the Taef agreement. This raises the question of who has violated this agreement and who has prevented the implementation of its articles? What we and all the Lebanese people know is that the present political layer, whether old or new, has only worked to violate the Taef agreement, and this is just internally. As far as relations with our closest neighbor, Syria, go, the reign of President Suleiman constitutes an opportunity for the Lebanese people to re-establish the bond between the two countries. The establishment of national unity is the only way to deal with the challenges facing the country internally, and indeed President Suleiman has undertaken, since assuming power, to sort out the situation in Lebanon and its situation within the region. The re-establishment of relations with Syria is made difficult by the inflammatory talk towards Damascus which serves to hinder the normalization of the Lebanese-Syrian relations which were instigated by President Suleiman’s visit to Damascus, by the official visit of the commander of the army, General Kahwaji, and by that of the Minister of Defense, Elias al-Murr, amongst other historical visits, such as that by the ‘Alliance for Change and Conciliation’ bloc.

So why the resumption of arguments, especially as Syria and its forces are now out of Lebanon? Such arguments have no place now in relations with Syria except to ruin the steps which have been planned and are being planned by General Suleiman and to demolish Lebanon’s gateway to the Arab world in addition to dividing the Lebanese people!

The 14 March group has, over the past 4 years, got us used to unprecedented political, social and moral duplicity in Lebanese political life. This group says one thing while doing another. They claim to want independence and not only from Syria. At the same time, they are calling on the Arab world, based on their own personal needs and requirements for wresting control of power. The matter of some members of the 14 March group is strange indeed – is it not noteworthy that Saudi Arabia sent, on the 14 of February, a delegation to the Syrian president bearing greetings from the Saudi monarch, while others are standing by to wage war on Damascus? They have also internationalized Lebanon’s issues, including the judiciary, the economy and security, and are working to internationalize all of Lebanon’s affairs.

We are currently seeing the repetition of an all-too-familiar game which has been a factor in all the governments formed since the ratification of the Taef agreement. Is there anyone who remembers that the same people who have held power since 1989 are those still in the decision-making positions? How can these politicians be honest while they are calling for holding on to Taef while at the same time working to undermine it, most recently in Doha, through political agreements on electoral divisions for Beirut particularly without recourse to the institutions or respect for the constitution or the law!

Does the Taef agreement not account for the occurrence of the parliamentary elections in accordance with the new electoral law on the basis of provinces? Does it not protect the basics which guarantee communal living amongst the Lebanese? Does it not establish a healthy political representation for the various groups and the effectiveness of this representation, taking into account the administrative divisions in the framework of the unity of the land, its people and its institutions? We are now, unfortunately, witnessing further collapse of the Taef agreement, and most of those in power are working towards this end. At this stage – which some are claiming is fundamental and fateful – some politicians are working to bring back the sectarian and doctrinal order which is so destructive to the existence of the nation and to the Lebanese people.

Most of the powers involved in the Doha agreement are speaking of the Taef agreement and the law of proportionality. However, in truth, they are actually working to disfigure the Taef agreement and figure out how to get past it. The proof of this lies in the electoral divisions of the Doha agreement. This brought forth a wholly unfair electoral law and an abhorrent governmental apportioning which cares only for the distribution of spoils and gains to those same people who dealt a blow to national unity by raising dangerous sectarian feelings. It is unfortunate that those who incited sectarian, doctrinal and national feelings were able to pick from the Doha agreement what they were not able to from the Taef agreement.

It is also clear that these powers will not let go of the Doha agreement except in the sector relating to internal appeasement. According to Walid Jumblat, appeasement is a word which is absent from the dictionary in relation to the internal political differences. In reality, the statements and positions of some politicians have shown that the Doha agreement is not up for dismissal except where it relates to internal appeasement.

In any case, we need to thank Mr. Jumblat for his work in stopping the neglect of the streets. Having said that, denying and appeasing dangers, particularly after the fall of victims in events like those of last Saturday and for which responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who would promote enmity, are not enough. The solution was, is and will remain the passing of an electoral law which is dependent on proportional representation and which will work to stop the manifestations of sectarian and doctrinal divisions. This will serve to reassure the Lebanese people and will deal with the consequences of civil tension on the streets.

However, we still have to be wary of the danger of the possibility that Israel will wage a war, taking advantage of current Lebanese internal division. The signs point to Israel being reluctant to resume clashes in Lebanon after the defeat which it suffered in July and August of 2006. However, the results of the Israeli elections reveal the possibility that Israel will work on a new plan to limit the crisis of forming the government in Tel Aviv through the results of a new adventure in Lebanon. The Israelis are also certainly aware of the situation in Lebanon with all its political differences following electoral interests. This is shown particularly by the divisions which have existed, not only since the murder of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, but also since Resolution 1559 relating to Lebanese division and factionalism.

In conclusion, the National Dialogue Party hopes that the political layer will revise its approach to rule, at least over the past 4 years, and will place a limit on the difference between what it says and what it actually does. The Taef agreement is still the approach which ensures the most cohesion of the internal powers. It must formulate the basis of the awakening of the civil community to the importance of hard work for the implementation of this agreement even if the state should slacken in its efforts. If the Taef agreement is destined to be implemented, then most of the current political layer would disappear. This agreement effectively ended the civil war and not implementing it constitutes a warning that we will continue to witness small civil conflicts in the streets and neighborhoods of Lebanon.