 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 28 Sep. - 4 Oct. 2000 Issue No. 501 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 28 Sep. - 4 Oct. 2000 Issue No. 501
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Elections Region International Economy Opinion Culture Special Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Stirring sectarian sensitivities
By Ranwa YehiaA bold statement issued last Wednesday by the Council of Maronite Bishops calling for a withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon has not only gouged a rift among politicians and observers alike, but it has reignited sectarian sensitivities unseen since Lebanon's 15-year civil war ended in 1990.
Addressed "to whom it may concern in Lebanon and outside," the daring statement evoked immediate concern from analysts, many of whom regard the move as overstepping the council's authority and challenging that of President Emile Lahoud.
Although the council's assertions reflect the general sentiment of most Lebanese -- particularly with regard to a Syrian withdrawal -- observers believe the timing of the statement served to spark an even wider division among different factions in the country. What is undeniable, however, is that the Maronite clergy, headed by Cardinal Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, were determined to voice an uncompromising criticism of the Syrian presence in Lebanon.
The statement accuses Syria of being responsible for the economic and social crises Lebanon now faces, a claim that takes Sfeir's traditional dispute with Damascus to new heights. The impact such a statement could have on Lebanon's unstable political situation was registered only a few hours after the statement was announced. The cabinet immediately decried "extreme positions" that would widen internal divisions and "serve the interests of Israel," while Sunni, Shi'ite and Druze authorities issued a joint statement on the same day expressing their "astonishment" at the stand taken by the Maronite bishops. The angry reactions persisted throughout the week, with Agriculture Minister Suleiman Franjieh, a Maronite with strong Syrian ties, charging that the bishops were under the influence of "religious opportunists," who are themselves under the control of foreign intelligence services.
Responding to the claim that Damascus is the root of Lebanon's economic difficulties, the Muslim religious leaders argued that Syrian labourers have been working in Lebanon since the 1950s and "they have never annoyed anyone or caused a problem." The leaders nonetheless confirmed that they planned to work together with the bishops to "remove any negative repercussions these stands may have on higher national interests."
Meanwhile, many Christian politicians visited Sfeir to express their support and defend the bishops' statement. Most denied allegations of external influence and affirmed that the statement reflected the resentment of the majority of Lebanese for the Syrian presense in the country. They also called on officials to consider the statement a basis on which to launch a national dialogue.
President Lahoud was quick to respond, issuing a statement the following day reiterating that the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon was "legitimate and temporary," and that any discussion related to the topic was based on both countries' strategic interests. On Friday, a front-page editorial in the Syrian newspaper Al-Thawra urged those with Lebanon's interests at heart to discard all "suspicious calls" trying to jeopardise the strategic relationship between Syria and Lebanon, and to resist those trying to "plant seeds of doubt" on the importance of the role Syria played to save Lebanon. The commentary also urged people not to ignore "what Syria gave Lebanon, which would have turned into mini-states crippled by tension had Syria not interfered."
But not all observers saw the council's statement as a return to the type of sectarian dialogue prevalent during the civil war. "I don't see anything sectarian in their statement," commented political analyst Mona Ziade. "The bishops repeated their position regarding Syria, which is nothing new. It's true that the tone of the statement was stronger, but this does not indicate an intention to stir up sectarian sentiment," she said, arguing that the accusations against the council stemmed mainly from the fact that it was Christians who were making the complaints.
"If a similar statement was issued by any other official or party that is not traditionally opposed to Syria, such accusations would not have taken place," Ziade said. Referring to Druze leader Walid Jumblatt's statement two weeks ago calling for a new approach to the relationship between Syria and Lebanon, Ziade asked, "Why didn't anyone react to Jumblatt's call with the same intensity they did to the bishops' statement?" It is those who have described the council's statement as sectarian in nature who want to monopolise the relationship with Syria, she argued.
Though opening a dialogue is not necessarily stoking the fires of sectarian strife, observers have warned that such a harsh position at this critical time is tantamount to replicating all the elements that had previously contributed to the eruption of a civil war.
One observer noted that Sfeir's track record has always been "anti-Damascus." Therefore, the mere fact that he is bringing up the subject again creates tension in other camps, namely the Muslims, where loyalty to Syria is at its peak.
Related stories:
Handling the Lebanese file 15 - 21 June 2000
