| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Aoun's hollow rhetoric violently divides Christians in Lebanon |
| 2007-08-02 |
| The leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, Michel Aoun, gained his "Christian credibility" with his dual calls for returning sovereignty to Lebanon and returning the Lebanese state to its role. Translation: The expulsion of the Syrian army from Lebanon, disbanding the militias, and fighting corruption. The General's followers are almost repeating the same calls today in all their detail, with no regard for the advancements that have taken place since Aoun became president of an interim military government when there were complications surrounding the election of a successor to the previous president Amin Gemayel two decades ago. The crux of the General's positions was his staunch objection to the Lebanese reaching, through their representatives from all sects, a new pact to end the civil war when they convened in the Saudi city of Taif, under Western patronage (American and French in particular) and regional patronage (Saudi and Syrian in particular). He considered the agreement that led to a new constitution as assigning the Lebanese situation to Syria; an assignment that paved the way towards a political direction which did not give Aoun a role since he decided from the beginning that he was not concerned with it. He did not notice the political aspect of the agreement which redistributed authority on the basis of maintaining coexistence in a final nation for all its sons and organizing Syrian military withdrawal from Lebanon and disarming all militias. The agreement also mentioned organizing the armed Palestinian presence in Lebanon and the confrontation with Israel. It escaped the General, then as well as now, that Lebanese Muslims accepted once and for all a final allegiance to Lebanon and that the Christians let go of their dream of a private nation and that everyone accepted providing concessions to save this settlement. Two decades ago, the General fought a "war of elimination" to check the Lebanese Forces because it covered and supported the Taif agreement and announced its willingness to facilitate its implementation, etc. Afterwards, the General rushed into a "war of liberation" and issued a decree thereby dismissing those MPs who participated in the election of a new president under Taif. When President René Mouawed was later assassinated, Aoun described him as a "former MP" who lost his mandate with the implementation of the Taif agreement. During his exile in Paris, Aoun focused on the "Syrian occupation" and on the Lebanese agents that supported the Taif agreement. He vowed to expose administrative and government corruption, but could not find a link between this corruption and the Syrian presence which, by sidestepping the Taif stipulations, set up military and administrative structures parallel to the authorities and funded with public funds. He considered those who supported the agreement, regardless of their involvement with the authorities at that time, responsible for the corruption and indulgences in matters of authority. According to Aoun, those who were part of the command structure under Syrian patronage and those who opposed it, particularly the Christians, were one and the same. Upon his return to Lebanon from exile, Aoun found himself in direct clashes with the agents that supported Taif and thereby worked to organize a Syrian withdrawal; those who later organized themselves into what is now called March 14th. At the same time, he rushed into an "understanding" with Hezbollah and into an alliance with the Amal movement; the two fundamental Shiite powers in Lebanon. These two powers publicly deny any intention of amending the Taif agreements but, along with the allied General, do not hesitate to consider the cabinet which is headed by a Sunni and which the Taif agreement gave executive powers to be monopolizing authority, regardless of the internal balance of power that the last elections allocated and that controls the make up of the cabinet. This is the crux of the current crisis, and the crux of the campaign against the current government which has made decisions (from abiding by resolution 1559 to the international tribunal to resolution 1701) stipulated in the framework of Taif (Lebanon's sovereignty and letting go of false security on one hand, and the extension of the nation's authority and disbanding the militias and ending parallel military and security structures and their use of public funds on the other). It is here that the difficulty in solving this current crisis lies, because it pits a movement calling itself sovereign and adhering to the Taif agreement against a movement which wishes to reexamine the details of the agreement. When Aoun accused the former president Amin Gemayel who, like him, was exiled in Paris, and blamed him for what happened during the past two decades, he told the former president that everything that he had done had amounted to nothing compared to what Aoun had done. Aoun was alluding to everything that happened since Gemayel chose him to head an interim government: the refusal to accept the Taif agreement as a settlement between the Lebanese to end the war, entering into any adventure for the sake of a settlement, including the infamous "understanding", no matter what risk of explosion it may entail. However, since the General has assured us that he is the only one eligible to hold the upcoming presidency, and that the choice is between him and chaos and war, his calls for the politics of virtue ring hollow. |
| Posted by:Fred |