The story: Lebanon NOT consumed by civil war...
... so what's going on?
This is a really interesting story, though most of the western ("If it bleeds, it leads") MSM haven't even started to notice it.
But what's been happening in Lebanon since even before the Feb. 14, 2005 killing of ex-PM Rafiq Hariri is that-- okay, in addition to the ghastly Israeli assault of summer 2006, and the brutal fighting at Nahr al-Bared refugee camp last summer-- there have been numerous other sporadic acts of lethal violence. And each time, many people around the world would perk up their ears and say, "Oh my! Is Lebanon about to plunge back into civil war?" But it doesn't happen.
Why not?
I think this is due, in large part, to the sense of realism and political wisdom that so many Lebanese political leaders actually have. Starting with the country's biggest party, Hizbullah, but extending far beyond them. Nearly all the acts of violence that have occurred since late 2004 have been unclaimed, and unexplained. Under those circumstances, normally, people would have every reason to be fearful. Where might it happen next, and to whom? People would be on-edge and ready to "counter-attack first". Back in December 2006, there was a small eruption of fighting between Sunni and Shiite militias in South Beirut. But it was rapidly contained and defused. Last Sunday, there was another such cliffhanging incident. Again, it got contained. There is evidently some very serious and intentional conflict-defusing work going on there, for which the people of Lebanon and the region should all be glad.
I'm just thinking back to the few days I spent in the generally cosmopolitan hub of Ras Beirut last month. Ras Beirut seemed a lot more relaxed and pleasant to be in then, than it did when we were there for two months in later 2004 (i.e., before the Hariri killing.) Maybe that had to do with the removal of the Syrian military presence from the country, which happened-- as a response to Hariri killing-- in summer of 2005.
Last month, the main gripe of many people in Ras Beirut was against the selfishness and arrogance that so many local parliamentarians seem to display in various facets of their personal and political lives. The parliamentarians have periodically been enacting their big drama of "Can they convene enough MPs together and reach agreement on the formula for forming the next government?" Yesterday, they just postponed that constitutionally vital session for the 14th time. As a result, the country still doesn't have a president. The sitting ministers-- that is, all the non-Shiite ones, since the Shiite ones all resigned a year or so back-- continue to get their hefty salaries and to do not very much of anything except renew the contracts they all gave to their friends a while back. The MPs also take their salaries, and throw out huge barricades around their lavish residences, which inconvenience everyone else no end. No legislating, and precious little real governing, gets done at all. The country generally keeps running along, even if in an extremely unorthodox way.
Lebanon, remember, is a country whose founding ethos was one of aversion to, or flight from, anything resembling central government authority. That's what being a mountain-dominated society full of theologically heterodox communities is all about. Iraq, which is a plains country, is actually far, far worse affected when the central government doesn't function, since back to the days of the Sumerians the river/plains systems there have always totally relied on having a central authority to regulate both waters and the livelihoods and communities so heavily dependent on them.
So in Lebanon, it is indeed quite possible that the country won't get a new president or a new president before the scheduled holding of parliamentary elections next year. In which case, the main job for the sitting MPs will be to draw up the rules for that election. (A bizarre system, eh?) It will be interesting to see whether an international community in which George W. Bush is no longer a leading actor will be one that supports Lebanon at last having a strong, fair, and non-sectarian election system... Let's hope so.
Welsh, Hariri and Junblatt unanimously and coordinately declared:" we will not keep our hands tied."
I agree with your observation 100percent, that a civil war had not yet occured is due to Hizbullah's wisdom and constraint.
Their wisdom trumps their emotions
maybe not a civil war but the serial assasinations of Lebanese anti-Syrian parliamentarians and journalists is quite unsettling...don't you think?
I've been wondering about who was committing these killings of officials. The US naturally points toward the Syrians, but does it make sense ? What do the Syrians gain from these killings ? I don't think that they have any interest in destabilizing Lebanon. And supposed that they got Rafic Harriri because he was too close to the Saudi : why would they need to assissante others members of this current ?
Sometimes I wonder whether it's not the US policy to destabilize Lebanon in order to weaken the Hizbullah and the pro-Syrian parties.
why would they need to assissante others members of this current ?
Sorry, for the typo, I meant assassinate.
Helena,
This is a great post ! I must say that back in December, hearing/reading what was said by the media in the West, I really thought that after all, this could be the beginning of a civil war.
In correlation to your analysis of the "very serious and intentional conflict-defusing work" going on, one get the impression that someone really want to stirr up troubles in Lebanon and it's as if every time they try to strike a match, responsible Lebanese are able to thwart the danger.
Syrians have no plan to redraw the map of ME, unlike the US and Israel.. and may be perhaps the French ? It's as if some want to go after the Hizbullah, but its leaders are wise enough not to respond to the provocation.
Truesdell, of course every killing and act of violence is a tragedy. We should note, though, (1) that the victims have NOT all been "anti-Syrians", and (2) that even after all the investigations undertaken by the heavily funded UN investigation team for nearly three whole years now they still have not come up with any indictments.
Secondly, in the post I should have added that during my recent visit to Beirut I found the atmosphere different in many significant ways from the one I lived through in March-April 1975, when the country was indeed poised on the brink of the civil war that ensued. This is definitely worth taking note of.
Nice article. There is an incitement to violence here, and there is containment after. It is the exact opposite of how the media portrays it in the Western media, in terms of who is creating fear and who is reducing fear....The U.S.-backed leaders are champing at the bit for war.
What are talking about, Daniel? What "champing at the bit?"
US Institute for Peace's Mona Yacoubian on the dangerous stalement in Lebanon-
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2008/0212_lebanon.html
Yacoubian provides some useful (though not entirely balanced) background. But her analysis follows the standard Bushist line that it is only Syria and Iran that have been blocking a negotiated settlement and raising tensions, and it is only those two countries' outside intervention that needs to be stopped. Not very persuasive.
Isn't saying that the lack of open conflict is entirely due to Hezbollah's side alone, as "world peace" was implying, also not balanced? Why is Hezbollah getting all the credit while the people daring to oppose them get demonized?
Because there is a power differential between the two sides. It is a very....American view, first, that "evil" springs up out of nowhere with no cause and second, that all powers are "equal" in the world. This is why you will see billboards in the States that ask "both sides" (of the Palestinian conflict) to put their arms down, as if an occupation is not taking place, as if the wars being waged in the name of imperial powers don't exist.
In terms of "champing at the bit" I'm speaking mostly very locally, my neighborhood in Beirut.
But it was reflected yesterday in spades in terms of the rhetoric of the speeches and banners downtown.
There's a big difference between saying "we will accept a thousand martyrs before lifting a weapon against a fellow Lebanese" and saying "if they want a confrontation (war, chaos, etc.) we are ready to fight".