Saad Hariri faces a
totally unstable situation. Lebanon is a
seething cauldron of popular discontent.
It took decades for the head of steam to build up but finally, on
October 17, 2019, the country blew its top.
That was the day the government, in a desperate attempt to get a grip on
the failing economy, announced that new taxes were to be imposed on an already poverty
stricken population, and that the cost of gasoline, tobacco, and internet
calls such as What’sApp were to be hiked up.
Crowds took to the
streets. The proposed taxes were the trigger, but the underlying causes of the widespread
fury soon emerged. They ranged from opposition to the basic system of government
by religious affiliation ‒ a system established when Lebanon became independent
of colonial France in 1944 ‒ to the stagnant economy, unemployment at very
nearly 50 percent of the working population, endemic corruption in the public
sector, and the totally inadequate provision of public services such as garbage
collection, water, electricity and sanitation.
Come the first anniversary
of the national uprising on October 17, 2020, anti-government protesters
attended rallies the length and breadth of the country chanting “Revolution,
revolution.” Yet revolution seems
reluctant to show its face in Lebanon. The
population, apparently ready for radical change, appears unable to bring it
about.
In recent years the
Lebanese people have endured a civil conflict, a long Syrian occupation, two
wars with Israel, several economic crises, huge unemployment and political
assassinations. The past twelve months alone has seen the country very nearly
brought to its knees from a collapse of the currency, the onset of the
coronavirus, the devastating explosion in Beirut port and two changes of prime
minister. Yet the old ruling establishment ‒ moribund, corrupt and inefficient
‒ continues in power.
In the perception of a
large proportion of the population enough is enough, and only root and branch
reform will put the country back on its feet. Ever since that outburst of
national rage in October 2019, demonstrators have been demanding the
resignation of all those in power from the president down. All, without
exception, are seen as the same power-hungry chieftains who led their followers
into the 1975-1990 civil war before making peace with one another, and going on
to enrich themselves.
One key factor in the
malaise afflicting Lebanon is the fact that, embedded within the establishment
structure, is the Iranian-supported Hezbollah organization. Founded by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah
Khomeini, shortly after he took power in 1979, it declared that its aims and
purpose were entirely at one with Iran’s. Over the past few decades it has been
consuming the political, military and administrative organs of the state, until
only the outer shell of an independent sovereign country now remains. Many now believe that the Lebanese state and
Hezbollah are in effect indistinguishable. It follows that if there is no place
in a reformed Lebanon for those who run the present state, there is no place
for Hezbollah.
During the first riots in 2019 protesters smashed the offices of Hezbollah MPs in southern Nabatieh. Before October was out, Hezbollah had rallied hundreds of supporters including an armed militia, and mounted a charge on protesters in central Beirut. As Amnesty International, making no distinction between Hezbollah and government forces, put it: “The largely peaceful protests since October 2019 have been met by the Lebanese military and security forces with beatings, teargas, rubber bullets, and at times live ammunition and pellets.”
France’s president
Emmanuel Macron, who visited Lebanon twice in the aftermath of the Beirut port explosion,
said the country’s ruling class had “betrayed” the people by failing to act
swiftly and decisively against the party suspected of importing and storing the
chemicals, Hezbollah.
If the Lebanese
government has undertaken any positive action in the recent past, it is the
decision to participate in the US-mediated talks aimed at demarcating the country’s
maritime border with Israel. The
situation is awkward. Following the 2006
conflict Israel and Lebanon are not
technically at peace, but both are adhering to a UN-sponsored ceasefire. So the
talks are being held at arm’s length.
All the same it is not Lebanon that is pledged to eliminate Israel, but Iran-backed Hezbollah, and the 2006 conflict was triggered by the armed forces of Hezbollah, not those of the state. It is scarcely surprising that Hezbollah and its main ally, the Amal Movement, are opposed to the maritime negotiations. They perceive the move, and perhaps they are correct, as an extension of the normalization agreements reached between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
All the same, some in
Lebanon welcome the development. Ziad Assouad, a member of President Aoun’s
party, said Lebanon’s dire economic situation meant that it should have no
qualms about holding even direct negotiations with Israel.
Realistic thinking is called for within Lebanon’s administration. How long can the country’s affairs be dictated by an organization dedicated to the interests of a foreign state? If anyone is prepared to face down the vested interests within Lebanon linked to Hezbollah, it is Saad Hariri. Sooner or later the Lebanese establishment must recognize the inevitable. The time for fundamental change has arrived.
Published in the Eurasia Review, 24 October 2020:https://www.eurasiareview.com/24102020-why-lebanon-needs-its-revolution-oped/
Published in the Jewish Business News, 23 October 2020:
https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/10/23/why-lebanon-needs-its-revolution/
Published in The Times of Israel, 29 October 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-lebanon-needs-its-revolution/
No comments:
Post a Comment