August 16, 2007.
By Graeme Bannerman
This perspective first appeared in the Newark Star Ledger on August 26,2007
By Graeme Bannerman
This perspective first appeared in the Newark Star Ledger on August 26,2007
Perspective
The defeat of former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel in a local by-election in Metn earlier this month is like the death of a canary in the coalmine. American policymakers should be warned that it is time to reshape our Lebanon policy. Otherwise, a larger tragedy awaits.
The Metn region, an eastern Beirut suburb, is overwhelmingly Christian and probably more pro-American than any place in the Middle East. The people who live there are educated, prosperous and cosmopolitan. They share the American goals of keeping Syria out of Lebanon, opposing international terrorism and strengthening Lebanese democracy. They still have great respect for the Gemayel family, which includes a former president elect and a cabinet minister, both of whom were assassinated. Nevertheless, the voters rejected the Gemayel patriarch and put their faith in an unknown and uncharismatic candidate opposed to the policies of the current government.No place in Lebanon is more hostile to Syrian influence than the Metn. On March 14, 2005, the people of Metn were united in demonstrating against Syria’s military and intelligence services continuing their control of Lebanon. They all cheered when the Syrians withdrew and were grateful to President Bush for demanding the Syrians withdraw.
The people of Metn agree any increase in Syrian influence should be prevented and Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs eliminated. A growing number, however, think the confrontational approach to Syria of the Siniora Government and espoused by the US will not succeed. More and more Lebanese believe that if Lebanon is seen by Syria as a threat to Syrian national security or as an instrument which the US uses to threaten or intimidate Syria, Damascus is likely to increase its coercion and foster instability in Lebanon. The way to minimize Syrian interference in Lebanese internal affairs is for Lebanon not to be seen as a threat to Damascus.
Syria is clearly much weaker than the US, but it has greater interests in Lebanon. The US may view Lebanon as a concern but not as essential to its national security. Lebanese, like the voters in Metn, increasingly think US interests in Lebanon are unsustainable and will fade, but Syrian interest will not. In the 1980s, even though the US had troops in Lebanon, then-Syrian president Hafiz al-Assad noted, “the Americans are short of breath.” He was proven correct. When the US wanted Syrian support in the 1990 Gulf crisis, Washington acquiesced in Damascus asserting full control over Lebanon. Those Lebanese who had opted for a policy of confrontation with Syria — many of them from Metn — suffered greatly.
Metn voters also view international terrorism as a scourge on all of our lives. They support the Lebanese Army’s battle against Fatah al-Islam and favor confronting international terrorism. However, most do not share the American view that Hizbullah should be lumped together with international terrorists.
Views of Hizbullah vary widely throughout Metn. Most are uncomfortable with the strength and influence of Hizbullah and believe armed militias are not in the national interest. But they argue that if the Israeli army cannot disarm Hizbullah, how can anyone expect the Lebanese army to do so? The majority recognizes Hizbullah as part of the fabric of Lebanese society and the dominant influence in the largest Lebanese community. No peace and reconciliation can come to Lebanon if Hizbullah is not part of the equation. Even the majority in the Metn now believes it is time to test reconciliation to prevent more pain and suffering.
The call by President Bush for more democracy in the Middle East was widely applauded in Lebanon. Most Lebanese believed their state, despite its flaws, was the most open and democratic in the region. One of the harshest complaints against the Syrians was the wanton destruction of Lebanon’s democratic institutions. But, US support for some constitutionally questionable actions by Fuad Siniora’s government has tarnished the democratic credentials of both and raised concerns over whether the US is committed to democracy or only uses democracy to promote American interests. In a country where the powers of government have been carefully divided among religious sects, US willingness to ignore the constitutional rights of the presidency worries many in Metn.
The US will find it difficult to convince many Lebanese that its commitment to democracy is universal and not situational.
American leaders need to realize that the local election in Metn is a clear signal of a shift in Lebanese opinion against American policy. Lebanese leaders who have linked their fate to American power and influence against their domestic opponents will use every means they have to persuade Washington not to change course. The US administration must not be drawn into internal Lebanese political struggles. It needs to stand back and reassess US interests, goals and policies with a clear mind toward avoiding yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.
The defeat of former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel in a local by-election in Metn earlier this month is like the death of a canary in the coalmine. American policymakers should be warned that it is time to reshape our Lebanon policy. Otherwise, a larger tragedy awaits.
The Metn region, an eastern Beirut suburb, is overwhelmingly Christian and probably more pro-American than any place in the Middle East. The people who live there are educated, prosperous and cosmopolitan. They share the American goals of keeping Syria out of Lebanon, opposing international terrorism and strengthening Lebanese democracy. They still have great respect for the Gemayel family, which includes a former president elect and a cabinet minister, both of whom were assassinated. Nevertheless, the voters rejected the Gemayel patriarch and put their faith in an unknown and uncharismatic candidate opposed to the policies of the current government.No place in Lebanon is more hostile to Syrian influence than the Metn. On March 14, 2005, the people of Metn were united in demonstrating against Syria’s military and intelligence services continuing their control of Lebanon. They all cheered when the Syrians withdrew and were grateful to President Bush for demanding the Syrians withdraw.
The people of Metn agree any increase in Syrian influence should be prevented and Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs eliminated. A growing number, however, think the confrontational approach to Syria of the Siniora Government and espoused by the US will not succeed. More and more Lebanese believe that if Lebanon is seen by Syria as a threat to Syrian national security or as an instrument which the US uses to threaten or intimidate Syria, Damascus is likely to increase its coercion and foster instability in Lebanon. The way to minimize Syrian interference in Lebanese internal affairs is for Lebanon not to be seen as a threat to Damascus.
Syria is clearly much weaker than the US, but it has greater interests in Lebanon. The US may view Lebanon as a concern but not as essential to its national security. Lebanese, like the voters in Metn, increasingly think US interests in Lebanon are unsustainable and will fade, but Syrian interest will not. In the 1980s, even though the US had troops in Lebanon, then-Syrian president Hafiz al-Assad noted, “the Americans are short of breath.” He was proven correct. When the US wanted Syrian support in the 1990 Gulf crisis, Washington acquiesced in Damascus asserting full control over Lebanon. Those Lebanese who had opted for a policy of confrontation with Syria — many of them from Metn — suffered greatly.
Metn voters also view international terrorism as a scourge on all of our lives. They support the Lebanese Army’s battle against Fatah al-Islam and favor confronting international terrorism. However, most do not share the American view that Hizbullah should be lumped together with international terrorists.
Views of Hizbullah vary widely throughout Metn. Most are uncomfortable with the strength and influence of Hizbullah and believe armed militias are not in the national interest. But they argue that if the Israeli army cannot disarm Hizbullah, how can anyone expect the Lebanese army to do so? The majority recognizes Hizbullah as part of the fabric of Lebanese society and the dominant influence in the largest Lebanese community. No peace and reconciliation can come to Lebanon if Hizbullah is not part of the equation. Even the majority in the Metn now believes it is time to test reconciliation to prevent more pain and suffering.
The call by President Bush for more democracy in the Middle East was widely applauded in Lebanon. Most Lebanese believed their state, despite its flaws, was the most open and democratic in the region. One of the harshest complaints against the Syrians was the wanton destruction of Lebanon’s democratic institutions. But, US support for some constitutionally questionable actions by Fuad Siniora’s government has tarnished the democratic credentials of both and raised concerns over whether the US is committed to democracy or only uses democracy to promote American interests. In a country where the powers of government have been carefully divided among religious sects, US willingness to ignore the constitutional rights of the presidency worries many in Metn.
The US will find it difficult to convince many Lebanese that its commitment to democracy is universal and not situational.
American leaders need to realize that the local election in Metn is a clear signal of a shift in Lebanese opinion against American policy. Lebanese leaders who have linked their fate to American power and influence against their domestic opponents will use every means they have to persuade Washington not to change course. The US administration must not be drawn into internal Lebanese political struggles. It needs to stand back and reassess US interests, goals and policies with a clear mind toward avoiding yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.
Disclaimer: Assertions and opinions in this Perspective are solely those of the above-mentioned author(s) and do not reflect necessarily the views of the Middle East Institute, which expressly does not take positions on Middle East policy.
Author: Graeme Bannerman is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute. He runs his own international consulting firm and is a former Staff Director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment