Exclusive - Crisis Fails to Reunite Lebanon’s March 14 Forces

A general view of demonstrators during 2019 anti-government protests in central Beirut. (Reuters)
A general view of demonstrators during 2019 anti-government protests in central Beirut. (Reuters)
TT

Exclusive - Crisis Fails to Reunite Lebanon’s March 14 Forces

A general view of demonstrators during 2019 anti-government protests in central Beirut. (Reuters)
A general view of demonstrators during 2019 anti-government protests in central Beirut. (Reuters)

A new crisis emerged in Lebanon after the “Shiite duo” of Amal and Hezbollah, as well as the Free Patriotic Movement, voted for Hassan Diab as the country’s new prime minister-designate. The development revived the rivalry between the March 8 forces, which includes Hezbollah, Amal and the FPM, and the March 14 forces, which had abstained from naming Diab as PM.

However, the March 14 camp’s decision to distance itself or its deliberate exclusion from the government has not prompted its members to regroup. Conflicts of interests among its members and their own personal agendas have fragmented the camp that has championed Lebanon’s sovereignty away from foreign meddling.

Prominent members of the camp have doubted that a new political reality would be introduced in Lebanon even though the March 14 forces support the popular uprising that erupted on October 17.

Mustaqbal Movement politburo member, former MP Mustafa Alloush said: “The ties that have been broken between the March 14 forces cannot be mended.”

“Experience in recent years has proven that every party has its own agenda and prioritizes partisan and sectarian interests above the national ideals of the March 14, 2005 revolution,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Moreover, he did not rule out the possibility of some March 14 parties striking settlements with Hezbollah and its allies, “as they have done in the past.”

“In politics, everything is possible. There can be no permanent rivalry and no permanent alliance. Everything is based on interests,” he stated.

“The March 14 forces may return to their former unity should they receive strong regional support,” he remarked.

The March 14 camp does share some of the demands of the ongoing popular protests, most significant of which is limiting the possession of weapons to the military and state security forces and restricting the decision of war and peace to the state.

The factors that forced the camp out of power are incapable of reuniting it, said a leading member of the Lebanese Forces of the March 14 forces.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, he was frank in blaming the current division in the camp on the 2016 presidential settlement that eventually led to Michel Aoun’s election as president.

“The settlement dashed all hopes for reuniting the March 14 forces,” he stressed.

“Unfortunately, we deliberately chose suicide because we opted for a settlement with a camp that has no agenda but to reach power,” he said in reference to Aoun and the FPM.

“Such a camp has displayed so much disloyalty. It struck a settlement with partners and no sooner had it sucked all of their blood, that it abandoned all agreements with them,” he went on to say.

“The whole of Lebanon is today paying the price of the presidential settlement that allowed Hezbollah to impose its control over Lebanon, which is now isolated from its Arab surroundings and international community,” said the LF member.

As it stands, the international community and Arab world have yet to make a stance over the Diab’s appointment as PM-designate. Their positions will emerge once the upcoming political phase in Lebanon begins to take shape.

Advisor to the Progressive Socialist Party chief, Rami al-Rayyes said: “Reviving the March 8 and 14 fronts is the thing of the past due to the various developments that have taken place.”

He cited the shift in priorities, the fundamental difference between the 2005 and 2019 revolts and the reshuffling of political cards after the collapse of the presidential settlement.

The March 14 camp is still committed to its slogan of sovereignty, independence and freedom, but it is too soon to speak about returning to the former political divisions, he told Asharq Al-Awsat. The positive cooperation and the political relationship between the Mustaqbal Movement, LF and Kataeb party will, however, remain.



Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: World in Store for Broader Wars, More Nuclear Countries

Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: World in Store for Broader Wars, More Nuclear Countries

Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

The world is facing growing uncertainty as the first quarter of the 21st century draws to a close. The changes are rapid and old convictions are dropping one after another. To come to terms with this uncertainty, Asharq Al-Awsat sat down with Lebanon’s former Minister of Culture, and former United Nations envoy Ghassan Salame, whose latest publication, “The Temptation of Mars: War and Peace in the 21st Century”, sheds light on which path the world is headed on for decades to come.

Nuclear ambitions

*What has changed in the world system in the first quarter of the 21st century?

Since the end of the Cold War, the world witnessed massive positive change, such as a drop in military spending, nuclear warheads and military bases in foreign countries. The Soviet Union withdrew from Eastern Europe and the United States closed several of its military bases in the Philippines and Central America. Work at the United Nations and several international agencies was also revived.

However, the situation was flipped on its head when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 because the invasion had no legal basis – certainly not from the UN Security Council – and world powers opposed it.

Moreover, the US played the biggest role in establishing the international order since 1945, starting with the UN, international funds and other organizations. So, if this country allowed itself to violate the rules it helped put in place, what’s stopping other countries from doing the same? And this is indeed what happened: Russia entered Georgia and Moldova and then Ukraine for the first time, and again for a second time. Other countries followed suit where they resorted to force to achieve their goals.

As a result, we witnessed a gradual growth in military budgets and nuclear countries, such as Russia, the US and France, began to gradually expand their nuclear arsenal. China is aiming to double its nuclear warheads from 1,500 to 3,000 by 2030.

Non-nuclear countries are meanwhile seeking to obtain them. Some 20 countries are capable of becoming nuclear in one year and I believe some will do so.

If the lack of trust between major powers, including the US, China and others, continues then the tensions will persist and escalate. Just look at how Russia changed its nuclear doctrine and Israeli officials called for bombing Gaza with a nuclear bomb. Such statements could not have been uttered in the 20 years before that.

Comprehensive South

*Will the “comprehensive South” play a role in restoring balance in the global order?

Certainly, but it will take time. Let us take a look at the scene. We have the NATO alliance which has no other equal in the world. When Russia started to move against Georgia and later Ukraine, NATO became more important and neutral European countries, such as Sweden and Finland, previously opposed to joining the alliance, have asked to become a part of it. So, this alliance mainly brings together western countries.

There is no other alliance that is similar to it across the globe. So, there is an imbalance between the West and the rest of the world because the West is reliant on an integrated alliance. There is a feeling among other countries, such as China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and India, that they are not getting their share in international organizations and that their opinions, demands and interests do not get the same attention because they are not part of an integrated alliance or unified bloc.

This is why organizations, such as the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, were formed. These groups are still in their early stages of development and they are also victims of contrasting interests: China wants more countries to join the BRICS, while Russia doesn’t. China is speaking of an integrated global south, while Russia doesn’t want to lump itself in that group.

Furthermore, members of these groups have differences between them, such as India and China’s border disputes. The BRICS has not, and will not, in the near future transform into anything like NATO unless it sets a doctrine for itself. NATO is formed of countries that enjoy similar political systems. It is based on a free economic market and liberal constitutional system. These features don’t exist in the BRICS countries.

China and the US

*Where is the rivalry between China and the US headed? Will the years to come lead us to a bipolarity?

It is wrong to believe that China and the US are already in bipolarity. Bipolarity is a project that started 15 years ago. The US does not like multiple poles. It knows that it won’t be able to retain a large number of its allies if it were the sole pole in the world. Washington is most at ease in a bipolar world where it holds the upper hand and where fierce competition makes its allies take its side.

Between 2006 and 2007, when US President Geore W. Bush was in power, the deep state and political elite in the US sought a new rival and believed that China could be it. So, efforts got underway to form the bipolar world and for China to become the main strategic competitor. Of course, China was very comfortable with this.

When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the first foreign dignitary he met was the president of China, not of Russia or France. This elevates China’s status. So, China has become embroiled in this American project to establish a bipolar world. The project is still facing some major resistance from several countries. The question is: Will Russia, India, Brazil and others accept this bipolarity? I believe that several major countries are wary of this bipolarity because it will curb their political and diplomatic freedoms.

Tectonic shifts in the Arab world

*The Arab world is witnessing tectonic shifts, most notably with the ouster of the Syrian regime. Will the Arab world remain this fragmented?

What you are asking has to do with the conditions for political stability. Why are some countries and regions politically stable and others are constantly witnessing revolutions and lack of security?

There are several explanations for this. The common answer is the absence of the state of law, and representation of the people and their involvement in political decisions. These elements provide stability. This is the liberal explanation. Some would say that the liberal reading applies to advanced countries with low populations, not backward ones with large populations where stability can only be imposed through the forceful application of the law.

I believe the Arab world is experiencing a phase that does not allow stability. First, we have the vast inequality in incomes between neighboring countries. This will lead the poorest countries to demand that the wealthier ones share their wealth.

Other factors are the population explosion, people moving from rural to urban areas and the lack of new job opportunities. Syria, for example, has several factors that do not lead to stability: desertification, water scarcity, drop in agricultural production and a population explosion. I think Syria is the third country in the world in terms of population growth, people moving to urban areas and lack of job opportunities. Syria needs 300,000 job opportunities each year and they are mostly unavailable. I’m not even talking about politics, sectarianism, oppression and other issues.