sito in fase di manutenzione: alcuni contenuti potrebbero non essere aggiornati
 ottobre 2021 


Ministero degli Affari Esteri

Living together - Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe [Report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe] PDF DOWNLOAD >>


Cookie Policy

>> The Daily Star (Lebanon)


The Daily Star (Lebanon) - January 6, 2014

by Rami G. Khouri

The continuing wave of bombings and assassinations in the two main ideological camps in Lebanon have prompted dire warnings from top political and sectarian leaders – Hezbollah’s Naim Qassem, the Future Movement’s Saad Hariri, Amal leader Nabih Berri, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt and others – that the country is threatened with destruction if things continue along their current trajectory. They are correct, of course, but to be taken more seriously they should acknowledge three important corollary factors that they conveniently omit: Their own leadership legacies are a large reason for the precarious nature of the Lebanese state, for they are not passive bystanders. They have the power to make Lebanon a more stable place. Lebanon is typical of many other Arab states also threatened with implosion; and Arab states and their existing power structures certainly are threatened, but society and the people of these countries will persist and regroup under more competent leaderships one day. Governance systems might be dysfunctional, but societies at the grass roots will continue, as they have for thousands of years.

When Arab politicians start issuing frightening warnings about imminent national collapse, and always blame foreign hands for this predicament, the real threat is to their own political grip on the levers of power rather than to any imagined existential threat to their societies.

Lebanon is probably the most severe Arab case of under-achieving national leadership, because the power elite in the country has remained largely unchanged for the past half century, with the exception of the rise of Hezbollah and the Aounists. So if this otherwise wonderful country is truly threatened with collapse, it is relatively easy to pin the blame on the collective mediocrity of the political elite that prevents any meaningful domestic consensus while simultaneously forging deeper and deeper links with foreign patrons, financiers, protectors and weapon suppliers.

So what should we make of the sudden announcement last week that Saudi Arabia intended to provide the Lebanese armed forces with $3 billion to upgrade its capabilities? The expected impact, given Lebanon’s severely dysfunctional and polarized political system, would be a fresh round of sharp accusations by both main ideological camps that make of this generous grant a new cause for contention and political immobilization. This is likely in view of the current state of Lebanese political stagnation, but it would be terribly unfortunate and a huge missed opportunity, given the pivotal role that the armed forces play in the country to avert national collapse.

The actual Saudi motives for offering this grant are known only to the leadership in Riyadh, which has become much more proactive on the regional political stage. Lebanese President Michel Sleiman, a former Army commander, knows very well the immense need for this boost to the capabilities of the military, along with the critical need that it maintain political neutrality. The $3 billion grant to the armed forces, coming at a time of escalating violence across the entire country, could be a means of moving toward an agreement on the one issue that strikes at the heart of the deeply stressed political system: the reality of a heavily armed Hezbollah group operating outside the control of the state.

Hezbollah has argued for years that it must maintain its military and intelligence capabilities to protect the country from Israeli and other threats, because the central government and the national defense forces are unable to do the job. Repeated attempts in the National Dialogue sessions to reach agreement on a national defense and security strategy have always failed. Could Sleiman, with a combination of other respected figures, initiate a process that uses the $3 billion grant as a political catalyst to initiate a fresh attempt to bring Hezbollah into a mechanism to forge a more effective national security system?

In effect, this would challenge Hezbollah to reveal the veracity of its argument that it needs to maintain its independent military capability because the state is not doing its job to protect the country. The combination of a rejuvenated national army that enjoys widespread public support and also draws on Hezbollah’s proven technical capabilities would seem to be a win-win situation for all Lebanese.

If Hezbollah rejects such an approach, it would lead many Lebanese to conclude that it was never honest about the reason for maintaining its armed capabilities, and Lebanon would persist on its disastrous path toward internal strife and chaos.

If it accepts, Lebanon might look forward to a better future with more internal cohesion and stability. This is a very unlikely scenario, but it is useful once in a while to imagine a more productive situation than a parade of Lebanese politicians predicting imminent doom, when they can achieve something more decent and dignified for their own people.


Altri articoli su:
[ Arabia Saudita ] [ Israele ] [ Libano ] [ Medio Oriente ]

Comunicati su:
[ Arabia Saudita ] [ Israele ] [ Libano ] [ Medio Oriente ]

Interventi su:
[ Arabia Saudita ] [ Israele ] [ Libano ] [ Medio Oriente ]

- WebSite Info