22 - 28 March 2001
Issue No.526
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 22 - 28 March 2001 Issue No.526 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Doing without 'outside influence'
Lebanese Christians are intensifying their opposition to Syria's presence in the country, reports Zeina Abu Rizk from Beirut
Fundamental differences in perception of Syria's presence in Lebanon has recently widened the gap between the pro-Syrian Lebanese authorities and an important faction of the Lebanese population which continues to call for the departure of Syrian troops. Cardinal Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, the Maronite patriarch, used his US tour to loudly express the latter group's -- mainly Christian -- opposition to Syrian presence and influence in Lebanon.
The vehement statements and sermons that Sfeir delivered in the US apparently upset the Syrian leadership, thereby lowering the likelihood of improved relations between Damascus and Lebanese Christians in the foreseeable future. While Damascus is preparing for the visit of Pope John Paul II in May, there is little chance that the patriarch will accompany him. Sfeir himself said that he will not go to Syria "if such a visit were to be interpreted as a sign that I am abandoning the right of resisting the Syrian presence in Lebanon."
During his US trip, Sfeir repeatedly asserted that the Lebanese were capable of managing their own affairs "without outside influence."
Sfeir's most recent attack came suddenly after a fairly lengthy period during which he had softened the tone of his criticism of the Syrian presence. The patriarch had received guarantees from Lebanese Speaker Nabih Berri that a Syrian redeployment to the Beqaa valley would soon take place, in accordance with the Taif Accord which brought an end to the Lebanese civil war in 1990. When it became apparent that no changes, in fact, were in the offing, Sfeir chose to harden his tone.
Lebanon's Christian community, and in particular the Maronites, would like to see several issues clarified and have presented them to mediators between the prelate and the Syrian leadership. Sources close to the patriarch assert that Syria should be aware that no party in Lebanon is against the goal of strengthening the Lebanese state.
All Lebanese, the sources added, seek to set up a state based on the law, equality, independence and sovereignty. This, they argue, does not amount to a plot against Damascus.
Bkirki, the seat of the Maronite Church, emphasises that what is required is a state-to-state relationship which takes into account the sentiments of the various sectors of Lebanese society. In the opinion of the clergy, statements by Lebanese officials to the effect that Syrian troops are needed and will not leave the country provoke mistrust and contribute to feelings of animosity towards Damascus. Such feelings could lead to "uncontrolled and undesired reactions," the clerical sources warn.
According to Bkirki, healthy relations with Syria require mutual trust. A young and open-minded Syrian president such as Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad should be able to realise this, the sources say, but the clergy fears that old-guard Syrian politicians are responsible for Syria's inability to change its attitude towards Lebanon.
No official comments on the prelate's US declarations were made in Lebanon, but Sfeir's statements were perceived by Lebanese politicians according to their allegiance. Those opposed to Syrian presence and influence in Lebanon supported the patriarch, while Syria's allies said his comments were harmful to the Lebanese in general, and to Christians in particular.
Deputy Speaker Elie Ferzli, a Christian Orthodox involved in mediation efforts between Damascus and the Maronite clergy, called on the patriarch to reconsider his positions. And others involved in this mediation fear that the prelate's stance not only delays Christian-Syrian rapprochement, but also reduces Christians' chances of obtaining what they wish out of such a reconciliation.
As if to add to the increasing tensions, last week former Army Commander General Michel Aoun called for demonstrations against Syrian influence in Lebanon. In political exile in France for over 10 years, Aoun asked his followers in Lebanon to protest against the country's current political establishment on 14 March. The date is the anniversary of two important events: the "war of liberation" proclaimed by Aoun, then prime minister, against Syria in 1989, and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978.
Lebanese authorities officially commemorate the latter event every year. Aoun's call for demonstrations against Syria on the same date was perceived as further provocation from the renegade general. Lebanese Speaker Berri warned against turning the remembrance of the 1978 Israeli invasion, "which has so far constituted an occasion for the Lebanese to express their unity, into a day of internal division."
However, the measures taken by the Lebanese authorities to prevent the demonstrations were widely criticised. The Lebanese army was deployed throughout Beirut. What was scheduled to be a day for Aoun's supporters turned out to be an army exhibition day, some politicians ironically pointed out. Some of them, such as Druze MP Marwan Hamade, complained that the measures amounted to "pure and simple repression."
But even politicians who do not necessarily support Aoun were riled by the heavy-handed measures into taking virulent positions against the Syrian presence in Lebanon. One of the most noticeable stands came from Christian MP Butros Harb, who condemned the authorities' repressive measures against a portion of the population, "of which I am part," he said, that is opposed to Syrian presence.
Security officials' efforts to justify the measures, supposedly needed to face Aoun's "madness" and avoid "undesired developments," were not convincing.
Moreover, Syria's opponents used the impressive army deployment to call into question the necessity of the Syrian army's continued presence. The Lebanese government usually explains that the presence of the Syrian army is "necessary, temporary and legitimate" because it contributes to maintaining order and achieving security. Lebanese editorialists were quick to point out last week that the Lebanese army's firm handling of the events of 14 March proved that there was no need for foreign troops to assist the Lebanese authorities in maintaining order and that the Lebanese could take care of themselves.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page