Tony's response on Lebanon

I am posting Tony Badran's response to my previous "Syria Occupying Lebanon" post because he has put careful thought into it and it deserves to be highlighted. For more, see his blog, Across the Bay

In response to Tony's comments, I can only say that I am more skeptical than he about everyone getting along in a Federation. I still think Salibi's, "House of Many Mansions" thesis - that each major sectarian community in Lebanon has its own understanding of history and dreams for the future, is useful. It makes compromise difficult. There is no basic liberal understanding that "truth" in the public arena must be understood with a small "t" rather than a capital "T." The liberalism deficite makes compromise difficult. The rhetoric of a Hizbullah, for example, is uncompromisingly absolutist, even if its political actions suggest a move toward accomodationist policies. I don't believe an unpoliced federalism in Lebanon would work today. The dismissiveness with which Tony talks about Hizbullah and Amal, not to mention so many other leading Lebanese politicians, makes my point. Syria maintains a form of federalism in Lebanon - but of course Tony is right to point out that it abuses its authority and is not a liberal power at heart. All the same, it is not responsible for turning Hizbullah into the electoral powerhouse it has become; in fact, Syria has restrained its electoral power by forcing it to run a combined ticket with Amal in many districts. Syria made this point in the latest round of Lebanese elections by allowing Hizbullah to run on its own, which has brought it greater power. As Michael Young rights in today's Slate,

Damascus saw an opportunity to raise the ante on the United States, which recently imposed sanctions on Syria under congressional legislation known as the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. One of the act's stipulations is that Syria give up support for Hezbollah, which U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage referred to last year as "the A-team of terrorists." So Syria, by allowing the party to score well in the elections, effectively told the Bush administration, "Don't ask us to suppress Hezbollah; the party has strong support and legitimacy in Lebanon."

Syria does not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg (lebanon), and at the end of the day, the Alawites have a vested interest in "ta'ayyush," the vaunted Lebanese "convivienda" or notion of "live and let live," that has characterized Lebanese inter-confessional affairs for much of the century. After all, the Alawites are potentially the Maronites of Syria.

In Syria the situation is worse than in Lebanon. It is precisely because Syrian society is so deeply illiberal, that I am skeptical about revolution today. Bashar is much more liberal than the society over which he rules. Were he to be removed forcefully, worse would probably replace him. The best thing is to push liberal reforms - a liberal economy, trade, respect for the law, and worry about democratic elections down the line. As Farid Zakaria has written in his article, "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy",

the most useful role that the international community, and most importantly the United States, can play is -- instead of searching for new lands to democratize and new places to hold elections -- to consolidate democracy where it has taken root and to encourage the gradual development of constitutional liberalism across the globe. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war.

At 9:52 PM June 2, 2004, Tony said...
Well, Dr. Landis, if this was supposed to convince me that you were not too pro-Syrian, it certainly failed! Here's why.

First things first, to clarify the thing about the jails. I realize that the person who said it was Turk, but the place and the fashion with which you quoted it adumbrated that you endorse it as proof for improvements under Bashar. There are further problems with a statement by Turk (which even on the face of it, is clearly a condemnation of Syrian practice as it is!) because he is a internationally known figure, so I wouldn't be surprised if his treatment was different. But how about those Lebanese prisoners (not to mention countless innocent Syrians) who have "disappeared" during the war never to be heard from again, whose mothers were recently sent back packing at the Syrian border when they marched to Syria (you want the Lebanese to voice their concerns well here it was)? That piece I linked which was published in Lebanon's leading daily testifies to that extent. As for Bashar's lifting of the emergency rule (tentative as it is), some might argue that it wouldn't have been possible had it not been for the US war in Iraq and the tremendous heat it generated, and the courage it gave to some opposition groups to voice their demands. Let me just remind you that previous to that, many an editorial appeared in LEBANESE papers, by Syrians and Lebanese alike, (and they still do) demanding a reconsideration of Syrian internal and external (vis - vis Lebanon) affairs.

As for your point about revolution, well it is in fact needed, and I believe you do agree. The only difference is how measured should it be, or to put it differently, of what type should it be, since not all revolutions are military. You say regime-change is not the answer, and you may be right. This is certainly the view of people like Fareed Zakaria in his book on illiberal democracies. Granted, let's assume that Bashar is the best thing for pushing Syria forward. The problem with this view is that it assumes that Bashar is president for life! But if that is the case, then how real are these reforms and changes!? As for the "from within argument" which has been propagated ad nauseam by all the guild of dictators in the region, starting with King-President Mubarak, it is a bankrupt argument. No change happens in isolation, and someone like you who advocates engagement should be the last to argue for it! All change comes from interaction and exchange of ideas and models. Despite the rantings and ravings of Edward Said, it the Napoleonic campaigns into Egypt, and the ensuing contact with Europe, that stimulated what is the only "Renaissance" in the Middle East, whose effects and figures people still quote to this day.

With regard to pressure, none of them would have been effective (indeed they have not been) had it not been for the US action in Iraq, which created a sense of urgency, even as the peoples of the ME were against it, but this type of schizophrenic behavior is not alien to the region. In fact, you yourself mentioned in that paper in the Syria Report that the US is the bad cop to the EU's good cop, that gives leverage to the EU to press on clauses that the Syrians would otherwise not agree to.

Finally, concerning the economic prerequisites, they strike me as slightly materialistic and deterministic. Reading your paper on Islamic education in Syria, I get the feeling that there needs to be a profound change in the conscience collective of the country. The flip side of that argument is to point at Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, where people enjoy a decent GNP, yet they can hardly be called democratic. But herein lies the dilemma: in your paper you lay out the conundrum where a leader like Bashar has to cater to this pathological culture in order to maintain legitimacy! This is what Mubarak did in Egypt (cf. Geneive Abdo's No God But God book). Your conclusion was that, ironically, it would need a non-minoritarian leader in order to reform the education system in Syria. But if we need to keep Bashar, then that will not happen. Again, this seems more like a vicious circle, just like the old argument that held that "secular" dictators are needed to fend off Islamists. Your paper proves that those "secular" leaders, and the predominant ideology of the region (Arab nationalism) are farthest from secular, and alien to liberalism. So, in complete reversal of your position, I fail to see how you can maintain liberal economies in illiberal cultures and societies.

As for the roots of the SALSA, you go back to Sharon and Israel's ill-conceived and ill-fated 1982 adventure in Lebanon. That is certainly not a good model. But, NO ONE in Lebanon says that it is, including the Christian party, the Lebanese Forces (whom Asad has banned in Lebanon) who were Sharon's allies. Jean Aziz, a high ranking member of that party, has been constantly writing and lecturing on the necessity of rebuilding a contract with the Christians' "sole partner, the Lebanese Muslims," as he called them, and not to re-establish Maronite ascendancy in Lebanon. In any case, this ascendancy has been abolished by the Syrian-sponsored and Syrian-engineered Taif accord. This view of inra-Lebanese politics, and Lebanese-Syrian relations is shared by the most powerful, and most independent, Christian institution in Lebanon, the Maronite Church, led by Cardinal Sfeir. Sfeir opposed the SALSA for its sanctions on Syria, but agreed with one of its aims: Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and reconfiguration of Syrian-Lebanese relations. You said the Lebanese never voiced their will on the issue of occupation (the use of quotation marks to qualify this term is beyond me); RUBBISH! Christian groups, students, and political parties have been voicing it constantly, only to be met with imprisonments, beatings, intimidation, silencing, and prosecution by the Syrian-appointed Lebanese puppet government.

As for the remainder of your expose on Lebanon's recent history, it is rather one-sided, and thus seriously flawed, and ignores the Syrian, Egyptian, and Palestinian interventions that led to the breakdown of the intra-communal agreement among the various Lebanese confessional groups. As Farid Khazen convincingly argues in The Breakdown of the State in Lebanon, the breakdown of the system is inextricably linked to the unbearable pressures that were laid on it due to the deadly ideology of Arab nationalism. That pressure made it impossible for groups to do what they used to do best which is COMPROMISE. That is the backbone of consociational democracies like pre-war Lebanon (cf. Arend Lijphart). Yet, the ideology of conformity by force which is Arab nationalism, made it impossible for Christians to negotiate, as it was correctly seen like an abandonment of their identity, as well as the agreed upon compromise on Lebanon's identity (which was never called "Arab" before the Taif accord). It was a time of extreme tension with PLO militias running around the country with talk of a substitute state for the Palestinians etc. You can't negotiate in these conditions. It was too late, the sacrifice had been made without the Lebanese's approval (I'll remind you that Muslim Jordan had no problem decimating the Palestinians and kicking them out from Jordan to Lebanon).

Yet, what is the FIRST clause of the Taif accord? "Lebanon is ARAB in identity and belonging." The funny thing is that you've dealt with this issue in Syria in your paper, but fail to see its repercussions in Lebanon! So Syria has gone completely in favor of the Muslims when it came to the identity of Lebanon. That by extension was a blow to the Maronites. So the re-arranging was not only of the "power-sharing formular" as you put it, but of the entire nature of the country. And then you say that the civil war has not been resolved. Well DUH!! You blame the Lebanese for it, which is partly correct, but you leave out the Syrians' role. If the Syrian solution was to define Lebanon's identity, and if the civil-war was in large measure due to that definition, then how do you expect anything to be resolved under the Syrian solution!? Secondly, the Syrian appointed government, with people like Berri and Jumblat, are warlords from the war! So how can anything be resolved when some of the parties to the war are in power with Syrian tutelage!? Many a Christian militiaman, including a former high ranking Lebanese Forces fighter, came out and apologized for the Muslims. There has been no reciprocity on the Muslims' part (save for a certain Hisham Chehab), but then again what should there be!? They won! Who makes the topic taboo? Syria's cronies, who happen to be the Lebanese government! So your clause on the Muslims coming to terms with Lebanese exceptionalism seems a contradiction in terms after reading your paper on Syrian policies of conformism! If Lebanon is Arab then how is it exceptional?! I'll make a further analogy with your paper on Syrian education and conformism. You made a point in there about the Alawites being so insecure about their identity as to be more Sunni than the Sunnis so to speak. Well, all you have to do now is hear the post-Taif CHRISTIAN leaders speak about Arabism! My God, you'd think they just came fresh from the Arabian desert on camel backs! They're more royal than the king! Gone is even the TALK of a multiculturalism. Jumblat for one has pretty much called it treason! Basem Yamout, the education minister, has banned the word "conquest" from history textbooks when it refers to the Arabs' invasions of the Levant! His logic was, "how can they be invaders if we were already Arab?" Beirut MP Naser Qandil, a particularly annoying Syrian pit bull, has even demanded that the Christians reconsider their relation to the Old Testament, as it is Jewish! A friend of mine from Beirut told me of a conversation he had with a Beirut area Muslim mayor regarding the construction of a new mosque near a large cathedral in Beirut. The mayor reportedly told him that it was "precisely" because it was a large cathedral that they were building the mosque! So, as I have always maintained, the adjacent presence of mosques and churches in Beirut which was always taken as a sign of peaceful coexistence, is and was indeed a rivalry! If there is a church, make sure you build a mosque next to it!

As for the "Auberge des minorites" comment, it is ironic that your paper on Syrian education mentions that Hafiz Asad's father co-signed a letter to the French requesting that the Alawite minority be annexed to Lebanon, indeed "l'auberge des minorites." But you can't have a country of minorities with Arab nationalism! The two are mutually exclusive, and your paper demonstrates that without a doubt. But Asad's legitimacy and survival RELY on this ideology as you argued yourself!

"How does one resolve the great cultural gap between Hizballah teaching Imamism and Khomeinism in its schools and the Christians teaching that Lebanon is an Auberge des minorites, created and protected by Christians."

Some Christians have suggested federalism (which, by the way, is the de facto reality in the Hizbullah areas, and in the Druze area!). But the (revised) pre-war formula of consociational democracy would be more than enough. In fact, the Taif accord postulates less central government and more local autonomy and decentralization (the hallmark of the pre-war system. Think of traditional Republican politics in the US.) Furthermore, Hizballah is not alone, there are other Shiite groups. For instance, the shiite cleric Shamseddine wrote in a book (al-Wasaya) before he died that Lebanon's confessional system should be maintained. That Lebanese exceptionalism should be respected, etc. (all the things you mentioned). But, Hizbullah didn't grow in a vaccum. Who is giving it cover, and backing it in order to use it against Israel? Syria. Who's Nabih Berri's, Shiite Amal's leader, patron? Syria.

So to say that Lebanese officials don't say that Syria is a problem for the internal Lebanese balance is ridiculous as all these officials are appointed by Syria! I don't see how Syria's role in the elections is a case in point of Lebanese passivity!!! As far as I'm concerned it's the opposite!! Furthermore, the Maronite Church issued a strong condemnation of Syria's involvement. I'll remind you that the Syrians interfered to overturn a local election in the Christian dominated Mount Lebanon when its vassal Michel Murr lost it to the opposition. The issue of Syrian interference with elections has been studied by Farid Khazen (it's online I believe if you search for it). The Syrians have been playing sectarian politics in Lebanon as well (not just in Syria!).

But also you completely leave out the issue of Syria's draining of Lebanon's economy. You once hinted that Syria is a force of stability in Lebanon. Like hell it is. It's draining its economy. Its elite thrive on blackmail and illegal trade. Their propping of Hizbullah as an untouchable militia (like the PLO in the 60s and 70s) and using them to pressure Israel. Also, this cover means that Shiites in Hizbullah areas don't pay bills or taxes. That's made up for from the pockets of the Christians of Mount Lebanon. Their dismantling of Labor Unions (see this piece here). Their support of overbearing repression of the (mainly Christian) opposition is hardly a record of stability! If the Muslims perceive that the Syrians' presence there is to their advantage, why would they call for their withdrawal? But this is to Syria's advantage as well, as it is making quite a use of Lebanon! In fact, it's Syria's only regional card, especially after the Iraq war.

The Christians don't call Syria an occupier under their breath. They do it out loud and often. But then they get that same breath beaten out of them by Syria's cronies. In fact, Pro-Syrian Muslims (like the aforementioned Qandil) have made a point of organizing demonstrations to coincide with those anti-occupation marches by Christians. Often, the Muslims come armed.

Yes, the Lebanese bear responsibility, but hearing you one would think the Syrians are puppies and the Lebanese a cold ungrateful pet owner! You talk about change coming from within. Well how is that possible in Lebanon with a foreign occupying power controlling things?

"It seems that the Syrian President understands that political repression and the extreme limitation of the freedom of expression signify a continuation of the isolation of Syria from the Western world of normal nations."

Unfortunately, that's not the policy in Lebanon! But, like I said, if I read your paper properly, his reforms will always be limited, and contingent on Sunni conservatism! The recent move with the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't seem promising if it means more concessions to a more rigid Sunni control of culture and education. You can try to liberalize the economy as much as you want. That's always good as it might force liberalization of society. But there's always the counter point. What if that liberalization attempt gets hamstrung by an illiberal culture? What do you do then, especially if the liberalizer's standing depends on the support of the illiberal?

"Danny's words are still true today. Syria's footprint in Lebanon could be much heavier than it is."

I suppose the Lebanese should be grateful! Sure, go tell that to the staggering number of Christian youths emigrating. They are the best educated and the most liberal and multiculturalist in the region. Almost all trilingual. Ironically, this was your conclusion in the Syrian education paper!

"No one expected Bashar would let Hariri become PM again in 2000, but he did."

He needs his connections with Jacques Chirac and other world investors.

"If the Lebanese really wanted the Syrians out and were willing to unite and fight for an independent Lebanon, there is a good chance Syria would leave."

Yes, I'm sure those 25,000 soldiers are just ornaments! But then again, I thought that revolution was not the way you recommended!

"Bashar is busy rebuilding good relations with all Syria's neighbors and Europe. He would not squander Syria's return to the world community and its economic reintegration into the region in order to repress Lebanon in the case of a concerted revolt by the Lebanese."

The security services crushed a demonstration when Powell visited! You can't get any more public than that!

"Were the Lebanese to stand united against Syria, the world would back them."

Now who's dreaming? You or the neocons!?

"Today, most everyone believes the Lebanese need a Za'im to balance their divided and bickering notables."

You should talk to King Abdullah of Jordan. He'll like that comment. So will Mubarak and Qaddafi. That's a real way forward!

"Most countries fear Lebanon will slip back into civil war, should Syria leave."

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy now isn't it!? If the Syrians prop it up to be that way, of course it will! This is not to say that the Lebanese factions love each other. But the Syrian stalemate of the last 15 years didn't help one bit in that reconciliation process, but rather hurt it.

"That is why they don't insist on it and why the US congress is a lone voice singing SALSA."

Rubbish. All the Christians, save for Syrian cronies, are for their withdrawal. You should hear what the Maronite Church says. As for the unity with Muslims, the Christian opposition group, the Qornet Shehwan Gathering, tried to reach out to Muslims to get them on board in the request to reformat relations with Syria. One Muslim responded, Walid Jumblat (a Druze actually), and then he backed out. Instead, pro-Syrian Muslims formed their own "Gathering" calling for the opposite. But please don't tell me that Syria is a poor passive entity just waiting to hear the Lebanese say the word for them to gracefully pull out, and lose millions of dollars and a strategic asset in the process!

Lastly, while you answered one side of the issue of expatriates (not convincingly, as your analogy is so over the top and not accurate), you completely ignored the other, which is the Syrian pressure to issue Lebanese passports to thousands of non-Lebanese Muslims, and Syrian infiltration of the Lebanese army (through the same process of naturalization of Syrian Muslims).

And for the gentleman who posted the other comment. That argument of Lebanon being a Western invention is so useless. The Lebanese (especially the Christians) have an extremely strong sense of national identity. But beside that, the same argument goes for Syria as well, as before the European powers there were NO nations at all (including Syria). There was only the Ottoman Empire and its districts, period. No Palestine, no Syria, no Jordan... just the Ottoman Empire.

As for keeping Lebanon for protection, there is a piece on it by Michael Young in the Daily Star (dailystar.com.lb). I don't have the link, but you can go and search for "Michael Young" and you'll find it. I'll try getting it for you.