Civil peace is based on security, freedom and development

BEIRUT - Alain Aoun

April 2005

Translated from Arabic

It's not possible to talk about the danger of a "civil war" in the future without tracing back the reasons behind the Lebanese war which broke out on April 13, 1975 and was called, mistakenly and inaccurately: "The Lebanese Civil War."

Despite the participation of Lebanese factions in this painful war, it would be simplistic to restrict its reasons to its domestic or sectarian dimension while isolating it away from the overall regional and foreign factors that were the basis for its outbreak through the exploitation of some loopholes in the Lebanese combination.

For the conspiracy aimed at the destruction of Lebanon actually started after the Six Day War in June 1967 that reshuffled the cards of the Arab-Israeli conflict especially at the level of transferring the leadership of the battle from the leader Gamal Abdul-Nasser to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and focused on Lebanon as a new and basic front in this conflict after the loss of strategic territories such as the West Bank in Palestine.

Back then, Palestinian military personnel flocked into the Lebanese territories through the Syrian territories and were followed by the flooding of Arab funds to the PLO under the banner of supporting the Palestinian conflict and against the background of pushing "the danger" of this organization away form the Arab regimes since it (the PLO) had influence and won sympathy of all the Arab peoples.

These on-the-ground factors were coupled with strategic dimensions to form the core of the conspiracy against Lebanon since the Lebanese model of coexistence, freedoms and openness was contagious and could have threatened the nature of the Arab regimes surrounding Lebanon and based exactly on its (the Lebanese model's) opposite.

Furthermore, cutting the Palestinians down to size and their elimination through their attrition in a domestic Lebanese war was an Israeli interest. The collapse of Lebanon and its institutions was an old dream and urgent need for the Syrian regime.

The interests of the opposites intersected and Lebanon was the victim. A series of clashes between the Palestinians and the Lebanese Army as well as a series of political stances, led to the weakening then the collapse of the Lebanese state and the outbreak of the civil war officially on April 13, 1975, But that war, which the conspirators rushed to call civil, was mostly between Lebanese and non-Lebanese. In 1975, it started between Lebanese and Palestinians and in 1978 it was between Lebanese and Syrians in Ashrafieh and between the Palestinians and the Israelis in the south. In 1981, the war was Lebanese-Syrian in Zahle and in 1982, it was Palestinian-Israeli. In 1989, it was Lebanese-Syrian. As for the different stages of the war that witnessed Lebanese-Lebanese conflicts, these were mostly upon foreign instigation and for non-sectarian reasons and the proof was its outbreak between factions of the same sect.

All of these foreign reasons could not have succeeded in moving Lebanon had it not been for the loopholes that were exploited and through which sinful hands crept into the inside of Lebanon.

The first loophole was the controversy that some lived between their belonging to the homeland and their belonging to the greater Arab nation, which made them express solidarity with other issues especially the Palestinian issue at the expense of Lebanon the state, the homeland and the institutions.

The second loophole was the prevalence of the sectarian belonging over the national belonging in the absence of the state culture and where (individual) rights were often secured through sectarian clientele.

The third loophole was the feeling of oppression among some at the level of prerogatives, which also contributed in weakening national solidarity in favor of sectarian lineup.

All of these reasons facilitated playing with Lebanon which witnessed the wars of others on its land. These wars led to the dismantlement of the state and the erection of dams and roadblocks between the different factions of the Lebanese people.

Is there a danger of a Lebanese civil war after a Syrian withdrawal?

Asking the question this way insinuates that the Syrian occupation of Lebanon was the guarantee against inter-Lebanese fighting. We don't want to retrieve the past today as Syria finally withdraws from Lebanon but it is a must to remind of its negative role in feeding the differences among the Lebanese, obstructing dialogue amongst them, assassinating its political rivals, founding a corrupt system based on security-intelligence and employing the policy of differentiation between the Lebanese factions on the basis of giving heaven to (Syria's) loyalists and hell to the opposition, which increased the feeling of oppression, sectarianism and division at the expense of national unity.

The role of the obsessed fireman which the occupation forces played along the implementation of the rule of "divide-and-conquer" was completely opposite to the picture that was marketed time and again that the presence of these forces was a guarantee against the outbreak if a civil war among the Lebanese.

The "civil peace" that we witnessed in the past 15 years was in fact "the Syrian peace," that is peace imposed by the de facto rule coupled with the Syrian military victory in Lebanon and was not the fruit of domestic and free Lebanese dialogue. Meanwhile, the true "civil peace" came out of the spontaneous awareness of the Lebanese people, its learning from past experience and holding on to its national unity without the need for foreign patrimony as all of this was incarnated in the past two months upon the assassination of premier martyr Rafik Hariri.

There are no ingredients for a civil war in Lebanon today. The foreign destructing existence is about to end and national unity is stronger than any time in the past. Retrieving the balance in prerogatives, despite its errors, has abrogated the feeling of oppression with the Taef Agreement becoming part of the Lebanese constitution. Lebanon's surrounding has changed and the region is going along the track of peace and not the track of war. The new formula after the events of the past years tends to end regional roles in the region and restrict them within their context. This diminishes the factor of foreign intervention in Lebanon.

The whole world is under world surveillance today whether at the level of the flow of funds or the flow of heavy weapons while the project of spreading democracy in the Middle East, even if it takes time, will reinforce stability in the region that will move from conflicts, repression and dictatorships into a new political situation with challenges of a different nature facing the peoples, whether economic, educational or cultural.

One of the most important consequences of the end of occupation in Lebanon today will be that the Lebanese state will retrieve its role while the constitutional institutions resume their proper functions whether in ruling and administering the affairs of the state or in legislation or in security which should be reformed  on the basis observed in democratic systems. The judiciary branch should also be reformed so that it practices its role of doing justice and protecting freedom. All of these are basic conditions for the reinforcement of stability and civil peace which should be based on the demands of real security, the protection of freedom and starting economic development.

All of this is within the building of a state of law and the drafting of a new social contract based on the declaration of human rights which gives assurances to the minorities no matter how big or small they are. Add to this the importance of unifying the understanding of different terms in the country on top of them the terms sovereignty and independence so that we avoid exploiting such differences in the service of foreign mal intentions.

On a different note, the restriction of arms in the hands of the legitimate authority alongside the reinforcement of the role of the military institution is the basic barrier against any civil war. As for the keeping of arms in the hands of militias, and despite all assurances, will always be a source of worry and instability under a factor of confidence that is available in different degrees in the Lebanese society and susceptible to change at any moment.

The war has become behind us and the effort for building a better future and a new Lebanon will be the title of the coming years while the guarantee and hope lie in the new rising young generation that has proven time and again its ability and energy to handle this big challenge.

Alain Aoun is a leading activist of the Free Patriotic Movement.