Nothing undermines Lebanon’s safety more than its authorities’ indecision and their lack of progress on two fronts: monopolizing arms in the hands of the state and enacting reforms. Not only will paralysis deprive Lebanon of a rare opportunity to recover if it continues, it could, following Hezbollah's defeat in the "support war," draw the hammer of the Israeli enemy. Indeed, Hezbollah maintaining its arsenal benefits the Jewish state, and the former is now surrounded by hostile forces from the east and north as a result of its intervention in the Syrian war.
Nearly 190 days into the new president’s term, sovereignty has yet to be restored. Decisions of war and peace have not returned to the state despite the significant progress made south of the Litani River. Meanwhile, the gates of reform are being shut by the sectarian-quota spoil-sharing regime that threatens to permanently plunder the people’s rights. The dream of a just state that protects its citizens, safeguards their rights, and guarantees their freedoms is faltering.
US officials are signaling that the Lebanese response to the presidential envoy’s memorandum was vague and timid, reflecting no real sense of urgency in taking the steps needed to ensure national security and restore the state's authority domestically and the respect of other countries.
In this context, US Ambassador Tom Barrack raised the alarm. He was aware of the signal he sent when he said that "If Lebanon doesn’t move, it’s going to be Bilad Al Sham again.” It unsettled Lebanon officials, who deliberately overlooked the gravity of the statement. He subsequently clarified his remarks and denied that the “new Syria” harbored such ambitions, but that has done little to dispel the deep apprehensions regarding this dismissal of Lebanon’s national consensus as a final entity. His comments are especially alarming in light of his previous remarks about the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
Deploring the fact that had divided Syria and the broader region for imperial gain - not peace. That mistake cost generations,” stressing that it was a mistake they would “not make it again.”
Then came the State Department’s statement about the Lebanese state's reluctance to adopt a clear policy program: this window of opportunity will not remain open forever: "Security reforms alone are not enough in Lebanon. Rather, the adoption of critical economic and judicial reforms is essential to ensure its financial stability and restore the confidence of the international community. Parliament must move to pass a law restructuring banks and legislating for judicial independence."
It is reassuring that the President of the Republic has declared that “the unity of Lebanese territory is a solid principle... Anyone who thinks that someone who has twice sworn to defend a united Lebanon could break that oath is mistaken.” These statements signaled a very different performance to that which we are now seeing. Indeed, acknowledgement of the critical nature of this juncture entails zero tolerance for excuses. It means not allowing armed factions to wreak havoc. Past experiences with the Americans (and Israelis) does not suggest that the ruling class has the luxury of waiting for Hezbollah to implement what it has already agreed to in the ceasefire agreement.
One cannot ignore the reality that Hezbollah, which is increasingly less capable of confronting or even hitting back as the enemy targets its operatives on a daily basis, is seeking to circumvent this agreement. It is under the illusion that it can maintain a status quo that has already been crushed.
It is no secret that some of our officials are ignoring the people’s demands and the national interest. Serving both sustainably and ensuring security demands immediate and swift efforts to impose a state monopoly on arms. Otherwise, we cannot have truly sovereign security or economic policy. Particularly worryingly, some might be betting that Israel could finish the job and get rid of Hezbollah’s arms, failing to consider the disastrous consequences of this enemy’s agenda and timing. It is thus extremely dangerous for Lebanon to remain under the hammer of Israel and for its people to remain exposed to a policy of collective punishment.
Equally troubling is the failure to learn from history. In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger allowed Hafez al-Assad to eliminate the threat Palestinian factions had posed from South Lebanon to protect the Jewish state; in return, he turned a blind eye to Syria’s hegemony over Lebanon. After Syria’s token participation in the First Gulf War, Washington granted Assad “rights” in Lebanon. It legitimized his forces as “temporary and legal.” This foreign dominance and subjugation did not end until the Independence Uprising of 2005. Even after that, however, the country surrendered to another hegemon: Hezbollah’s gradual seizure of power.
Today, authorities must seriously consider the implications of every word Ambassador Barrack pronounces- they are calculated and deliberate.
In this context, the sudden revival of the case of the Syrian detainees saga, and the associated threats to close the border, is noteworthy. Corroborating reports suggest that Damascus has informed Beirut that it is not comfortable with the slow pace at which it is gathering the illegitimate arms. It reportedly sees Hezbollah’s survival as a military structure, particularly the maintenance of its missile arsenal in parts of northern Bekaa, as a direct threat to the “new Syria.” These concerns were conveyed to Beirut. Fears that Hezbollah could stage a military operation across the border or activate groups aligned with the former regime have also been shared.
The implicit bet that foreign actors will solve Lebanon’s domestic crises will lead to destruction. The hesitation to impose sovereignty, the refusal to liberate national policy, and the reformulated alliance with Hezbollah (despite the disintegration of its regional axis) will only tighten the noose around this country and its people: Israeli pressure from the south, Syrian pressure from the east and north, and the looming threat of instability fueled from within and the spread of cantons.
It is time to rise to the occasion and assume our national responsibilities.
