IS LEBANON A REAL NATION, OR JUST A COLLECTION OF INTEREST GROUPS?
Harry Sterling

The Gazette (Montreal)
May 26 2008
Canada

There is a political entity called Lebanon but some days it’s hard
to call it a nation

Does Lebanon really exist as a nation?

Admittedly, there is a political entity called Lebanon recognized by
the world community.

But does Lebanon exist in the hearts and minds of its own citizens,
a nation whose people have a shared vision of their own country?

Many would dismiss such questions as ludicrous. However, the recent
violence in Lebanon and a deal announced May 21 to end inter-communal
fighting there has focussed attention on whether Lebanon is truly
a unified nation or simply a conglomeration of competing religious
and ethnic groups, rival political factions, warring clans and
self-perpetuating power-brokers, some with private militias, all
individually intent on pursuing their own interests regardless of
the bloody consequences for Lebanese society.

For some, this month’s fighting has sadly demonstrated that there
is not one Lebanon but rather several, each pursuing its own narrow
objectives regardless of the devastation inflicted upon Lebanon’s 13
million people.

Although the formal state of Lebanon obviously exists – and has all
the normal trappings of an independent state, including a parliament
– Lebanon remains a highly divided and fractured society, a society
lacking in a sense of shared nationhood and shared values

In fairness, Lebanon’s never-ending divisions are, to a certain extent,
a result of the Middle East’s own turbulent history and the creation
of artificial states by colonial powers, notably Britain and France.

What is now called Lebanon was a magnet for other cultures, resulting
in the arrival of once persecuted Maronite Christians, Muslim Druze,
Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, culminating in the domination by
the Turkish Ottomans from the 16th century until the end of the First
World War when France was given Lebanon as a colonial mandate.

Although a Lebanese republic was established in 1926, Free French
forces occupied Lebanon from 1941-45. Full independence was achieved
in 1945.

Paradoxically, independence only exacerbated long-simmering tensions
and rivalries between Christians and Muslims over who should control
Lebanon. Those tensions were aggravated by the presence of Palestinian
refugees who fled there after Israel’s 1948 independence.

The fighting between Christian and Muslim communities eventually
unleashed full-scale civil war between 1975-90, resulting in
intervention by Syria, which always considered Lebanon part of a
greater Syria.

If Lebanon’s internal divisions weren’t already serious enough,
the arrival of the Palestine Liberation Organization led to Israeli
military attacks, including Israel invading Lebanon’s southern region
in 1978 and again in 1982 when it occupied the southern border area
until forced to withdraw by the fundamentalist Hezbollah.

While the intrusion of outside countries into Lebanon’s domestic
affairs, especially that of Syria, Israel and Iran undermined the
country’s precarious stability, the various rival Lebanese factions
deserve much of the blame for the endless violence and devastation
inflicted upon the country.

While their competition for power originally pitted Christian groups
against Muslim groups, it was never quite so black and white. The
rise of the Shiite Hezbollah movement made it a major opponent of
the traditional Sunni establishment.

Muslim and Christian groups have even joined alliances with traditional
adversaries to achieve political gains. (The Phalangist Christian
militia even aligned itself with Israel.)

During this month’s fighting Hezbollah was joined by Maronite Christian
and Sunni elements in their showdown with the Sunni-Christian dominated
government bloc.

Much of Lebanon’s domestic instability arises from a power-sharing
arrangement from 1943 that attempted to balance the competing groups
by dividing power between a Maronite Christian president, a Sunni
prime minister and a Shiite speaker of parliament.

However, determined to increase its power after its unprecedented
military successes against Israel in 2006, Hezbollah quite Lebanon’s
shaky unity coalition last autumn because its demand for more cabinet
seats was denied.

For reasons that remain unclear, Prime Minister Siniora chose this
month to challenge Hezbollah by ordering the dismantling of its
unauthorized telephone network and firing the pro-Hezbollah security
chief at Beirut airport.

Siniora’s action resulted in Hezbollah militia erecting barricades
in Beirut and seizing control of Sunni facilities, wuth 65 people
killed in subsequent fighting.

Although the two sides have now agreed on a new cabinet- sharing deal
that enables Hezbollah to block unwanted legislation and Hezbollah and
other militias have agreed not to use weapons against one another,
such deals are only short-term measures, incapable of resolving
Lebanon’s longstanding problems.

The deals only prolong the influence of traditional power brokers at
the expense of society at large. This situation won’t change until
ordinary Lebanese people jettison their allegiance to narrow sectarian
groups, and demand leaders who govern in the best interests of the
entire population. This should involve greater central control of
the country’s infrastructure, ending the interference of factions.

At that point, Lebanon might finally evolve into being a unified
nation with a common vision of itself, not merely a geographical
entity beholden to special interest groups.

Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator.