Lebanon, Syria and Sovereignty
By Luke Thomas
Sep 10, 2004
On September 3, the Lebanese parliament, under intense pressure from the Syrian government, approved an amendment to the Lebanese constitution that will allow current president Emile Lahoud to service a second term of three years.
According to Nabih Berri, the measure, largely a rubber stamp required by Syria’s mandates, passed by a count of 96 to 29 votes.
Lebanon’s constitution forbids anyone from serving two consecutive presidential terms. If the amendment had failed, November 24 would have been the terminating date of Lahoud’s service.
The New York Times correctly observed the following about Syria-Lebanese relations:
Syria has long called the political shots in Lebanon since a 15-year civil war ended in 1990. About 20,000 Syrian troops are still stationed there. The 20,000 troops moved in around 1976 to provide order after the civil war and pose a military challenge to Israel.
This strong-arming is not the first by Damascus. Middle East Online reports Lebanon’s constitution has been modified twice in the last 15 years. In 1995, an amendment passed to keep then incumbent Elias Hraoui’s mandates and also in 1998 to allow Lahoud to be elected president, despite being commander in chief of the army.
Strong reaction to the move by Damascus was witnessed across the Arab world and internationally. The Lebanese Daily Star said:
Syria has unilaterally made the ultimate political move for Lebanon or any other country: choosing who is or is not president, and for how long the chief executive serves, is the most compelling symbol and element of any nation’s sovereignty.
The New York Times reports that a poll published in the Lebanese weekly magazine Ash Shiraa displayed “an overwhelming majority opposed to the extension of Mr. Lahoud’s term.” Of the 1,000 sampled, 65 percent opposed amending the constitution, 74 percent asked for a new president, and 84 percent of those polled believed that foreign and outside parties “dictated the results of presidential elections.”
Prime Minister Rafik Hariri initially vehemently opposed Syria’s requests. However, after a series of private meetings with Syrian officials, Hariri apparently changed his mind.
The U.S. and French have drafted a co-sponsored resolution in the United Nations calling for the complete sovereignty of Lebanon in elections and the removal of foreign troops. The measure, Resolution 1559, passed with a 9 to 0 vote even though Syria was not explicitly mentioned in the document. Syria called the U.S. and French position “ridiculous.”
The resolution said Lebanese presidential election should be, “free and fair…according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence.”
It also called “for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias” and “supports the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory.” The resolution also calls for United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to report within 30 days of its implementation.
In the wake of the Syrian order, four Lebanese ministers have decided to resign. According to The New York Times:
Environment Minister Fares Boueiz, who had been a potential presidential candidate and delivered a passionate speech against the amendment last week, announced that he was resigning, saying, “It is not natural I should remain in a government with which I differ on a pivotal national issue.”
Walid Jumblatt, the Chief Druze MP, had three ministers aligned with him (Economy Minister Marwan Hamade, Culture Minister Ghazi Aridi and Minister of the Displaced Abdullah Farhat) tender their resignations.
According to The Daily Star, the left-wing Jumblatt said, “the Taif Accord is over and we have entered into a presidential system of military law.” The Taif Accord, adopted as a reconciliation move after the 15-year civil war, transferred power from the Maronite president to the cabinet, where seats are divided equally between Muslims and Christians.
Political analyst Simon Haddad had this to say about the classification of the Lebanese government:
Lebanon’s system could not be considered as parliamentary because the decision-making is not the hands of Parliament. In a parliamentary system, Parliament issues laws, and takes the decisions, whereas currently, Parliament is a place where debate takes place…I think that Lebanon is currently leaning toward a presidential system because the president is not responsible to anyone.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the Lebanese government, according to The Daily Star. Annan reportedly said, “They should not change the Constitution to suit the needs of one individual. Constitutions are for the long-term interest of the nation.”
Control by proxy of one’s country is unimaginable to the average American. The very notion that another nation could simply call the shots and alter the most sacred of government documents for politically expedient needs, largely unjustifiable, is unthinkable. Yet, this is a reality the Lebanese now face for the third time in decade.
The New York Times acutely describes the situation as follows:
When it comes to occupied Arab territory, Syria applies a brazen double standard and does not even have the decency to be discreet about it: In Iraq, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza, every additional day of foreign occupation is viewed as intolerable, and immediate, unimpeded sovereignty is considered imperative. For Lebanon, under the thumb of Syrian troops for the past 28 years, Damascus never uses the word occupation and never hesitates to abuse Lebanese sovereignty.
The Syria-Lebanon relationship is very curious. By and large, many Lebanese do not totally object to the occupation. It is radically different than the American or Israeli occupations in Iraq or the West Bank. Most notably, a very strong argument can be made that the Syrians, who often maintain Lebanon is part of “Greater Syria”, without their presence the security situation would rapidly deteriorate. Almost as a pause in time, the Syrians help to secure the peace in fractured Lebanon and as soon as they withdraw, the internal fighting would resume (or so the argument asserts).
It appears that most Lebanese would at least grant some legitimacy to this argument. But there is a serious error in this view.
If the Syrians were to keep troop levels steady in Lebanon, but withdraw its very visible hand of political meddling and allow the Lebanese to govern themselves democratically, it is reasonable to conclude that the democratic exercises would inculcate a new habit of cooperation in Lebanon.
Setting aside fringe groups who are bent on violence regardless of circumstances, it is conceivable that over time, democracy, which is strongest in Lebanon as compared to any other Arab country, could take serious root and become a time-honored tradition. Syria could still benefit by having the economically open relationship with the Lebanese that it needs.
Unfortunately, Hezbollah is still supported by Syria, thus another wrinkle in the problem. But it is worth pursuing the notion of Lebanese sovereignty, if for no other reason than to secure its own peace.
For now, however, that is merely a hypothetical. The regrettable reality is Lahoud, even if he does well in the next three years (a highly contestable notion given his contemptible record), has subverted the political process in Lebanon, thereby stymieing the indispensable growth of Arab democracy.
|
|