BOSTON — Just as it was half a century ago, Lebanon is once again a pioneer and pacesetter in the Arab World, though this time the direction of movement may be towards destruction and incomprehensible violence. For years, Beirut and Lebanon prided themselves on being called the Paris and Switzerland of the Middle East, reflecting their dynamic, freewheeling leisure activities, liberal culture, human talent in banking, education and engineering, and their open, welcoming capital that accommodated exiled politicians from all parts of this very ideological region.
This week, those who rule Lebanon and Beirut seem to be saying that they are also capable of being the Mogadishu and Afghanistan of the Middle East, characterized by inter-communal warfare and collapse of law and order, brought on by the irresponsibility that all sides have practiced in bringing the country back to the brink of inter-communal clashes.
The street clashes in Beirut and other parts of the country Tuesday and Thursday have left over half a dozen dead and several hundred injured, a night curfew in Beirut, and heightened fears that the situation could spiral out of control into full-fledged sectarian warfare. This occurs, paradoxically or deliberately, during the week that many countries in the world met at the Paris 3 gathering, and pledged over $7 billion to assist Lebanon in its economic recovery program.
The tragedy of the current clashes throughout the country among groups of angry politicized youth and spontaneous neighborhood and sectarian gangs is that neither side is totally right or wrong. The opposition led by Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement has already been widely blamed for escalating tensions to their current dangerous level, and is more likely than the government side to lose politically if things persist in the current direction of tension and clashes.
Hizbullah has already elicited criticisms by many Lebanese that it recklessly triggered the Israeli war that destroyed much in Lebanon last summer and set back its economy many years. It is now also widely accused of pushing its legitimate demands beyond reasonable limits, and acting more like a tyrant on a rampage than a respected and powerful opposition that operates through the existing political and constitutional system.
Hizbullah and its smaller partners in the opposition are correct to point out that the ruling political elite that has dominated Lebanon for the past two decades has irresponsibly raised the national debt to some $41 billion, and is taking on more debt through the Paris 3 mechanism. They are correct to demand more integrity, efficiency and rationality in state policies, less corruption and nepotism, and a more effective defense system. They also raise some reasonable concerns about aspects of the tribunal being established to try those who will be accused of killing the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
These are relevant issues that require serious political debate and resolution, which Hizbullah and its junior partners should have forced through the political structures that exist, such as the parliament, the cabinet, the judicial system or the national dialogue. Instead, they detracted from the validity of many of their grievances and concerns by pushing their street protests to the point of widespread disruption of life and weakening of the economy. Their tactics, and the response they triggered from pro-government groups, also stoked the flames of sectarianism, unleashing the hazard of groups of young men with guns and sticks roaming the streets of the capital looking to fight or destroy cars and property.
There is nothing special about Lebanon’s current predicament in terms of the wider Arab region. It is just another Arab state that has suffered the tensions inherent in a situation where the central government and institutions of statehood are weak and inefficient, and most citizens turn instead to their religious, tribal or ethnic identities. The problem is compounded by support from external forces — Iran and Syria behind Hizbullah, and the United States and France behind the Fouad Siniora-Saad Hariri government — which creates deep suspicions among the Lebanese themselves.
Lebanon’s strong external support, as demonstrated in the Paris 3 pledges, should be a blessing for the country, and the structural reforms in state finances that will be enacted as part of this process should also benefit all Lebanese. There is a chance that this will not happen now, which could plunge the country into years of low-intensity conflict and simmering tensions — well below the level of the 1975-1990 civil war, but enough to keep Lebanon mired in perpetual mediocrity and stagnation.
The stakes are very high, and very clear. Lebanon is at an ominous moment of reckoning, and sadly its fate might be determined by the vagaries of gangs of angry and fearful young men with sticks and guns. The modern Arab state is tested once again, and is not doing very well.
Rami G. Khouri is an internationally syndicated columnist, the director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star, and co-laureate of the 2006 Pax Christi International Peace Award.
Copyright ©2007 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global
—————-
Released: 26 January 2007
Word Count: 796
—————-
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757