FOR A DEFINITIVE PEACE IN LEBANON

Will the blood spills and the cries finally make it clear that without freedom there can be no peace, and convince the proponents of pragmatism that any normalization at the cost of justice and rights is only a promise for a future war?

In this comedy in one hundred acts, one day Israel, another day Syria, the gun changes hands but the same people is ravaged, exiled, maimed and killed.

The butchery of Cana shook the consciences of the world powers which denounced the crime and called for a cease fire. Unfortunately, that is not enough. In order to avert another carnage against our people, insure that the awakening of the consciences does not become a bailout for a heinous crime committed against a charter member country of the United Nations, and in order not to commit a crime while trying to redress another, it is time to find a definitive and permanent solution to the Lebanese crisis.

I say at the outset that the double occupation is the fountainhead for the deteriorating situation in Lebanon.

Occupation has transformed Lebanon into the battlefield for the wars of others and an incubator for many radical and fundamentalist movements. Occupation too prevents the emergence of a sovereign government, alone capable of insuring security inside and along the borders of the country.

The recent attacks by Israel are a flagrant breach of law and understanding. How can Israel pretend to pressure the Lebanese government into securing its borders when it knows full well that that government, a mere follower of Syria, is reduced to counting the deaths without any freedom of action?

Israel knows that its conflict is with Syria and Iran. Why then does it turn itself against Lebanon's population and its strategic resources?

It is no secret to anyone that Syria channels weapons and ammunition to Hezbollah which, unlike all the other militias, was not dismantled according to the requirements of the Taif Accord.

Yet, by its ties to Iran and its ideology running counter to the spirit of national consensus, Hezbollah is a constant challenge to the authority of the State and is therefore another form of foreign occupation. The proposition that this militia crystallizes the State's resistance to occupation is moot.

The only resistance is that of the Lebanese people expressed repeatedly against the double occupation.

Through its sponsorship of Hezbollah, Syria aims at three objectives: to strengthen its alliance with Iran and offer it a beachhead on the Mediterranean; to pressure Israel in the ongoing negotiations; and to maintain a climate of instability in Lebanon which justifies its own occupation of that country.

While engaged in the peace process, Syria continues to lend a hand to the enemies of peace, turning the Middle East into a powder keg ready to explode at any moment, much as the recent events have been the cruel evidence.

Truthful to its role of the arsonist fireman, starting conflicts only to be given the task of putting them down, the Syrian regime only yesterday was given the green light to crush the last free bastion of resistance in Lebanon, in exchange for its participation in the Gulf war.

What price will it receive this time to control Hezbollah?
Will it be granted carte blanche to maintain its occupation of Lebanon under the pretext of insuring the security of Israel's northern borders?

Let it be understood that I am not trying to extenuate Israel's warmongering or to exonerate it from the crime it committed against my people.

To the contrary, Israel occupies my country and must withdraw unconditionally in application of Security Council resolutions.

By the same token, the Syrian policy in Lebanon is what offers Israel the pretext to intervene militarily, harvesting the lives of innocent civilians and creating entire towns and villages.

It is this implicit understanding, this de facto complicity between Israel and Syria which I want to denounce, in account of the harm it has done to Lebanon and to its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

No rocket scientist is needed to realize that the pounding, shelling, blockading and displacing of people committed by Israel these days are precisely what Syria was doing five years earlier in the north of the country.

This goes on as if both Syria and Israel have agreed to destroy Lebanon and eliminate any possibility of its future recovery.

The Lebanese government holds its due share of the responsibility in bailing out the occupier, contributing to the demise of the country in the eyes of the international community, and thus blocking its rescue.

How can this government call upon international public opinion and announce the country's return to peace when it is choking under occupation?

The reconstruction of the country is a need which no one can deny.
However, it is all justice to denounce it when it serves to cover up the real stakes and becomes an excuse for collaboration.

It is imperative to put an end to this policy of burying one's head in the sand and face the truth:
the result of the occupation has been the real absence of Lebanon as an independent partner at the negotiations at a time when the future of the region is being decided.

There is no mistaking the diagnosis or the objective.
Lebanon suffers from occupation. Priority must be given to the recovery of all attributes of its sovereignty. The formula of Taif, consisting in freezing the real solution while waiting for a definitive settlement to the Middle East conflict, is nothing but war delayed.

This must be emphasized at a time when initiatives abound to calm down the latest military escalation, and to caution against a policy of half-measures. The Lebanese government cannot be resolved with homeopathic doses.

Under the cover of putting an end to the violence, the partial settlement s of today lead inexorably to the wars of tomorrow.

If there is one lesson to be learned from the latest events, is that security is an a priori condition to any agreement and the major stakes for the countries in the conflict. Security is possible only when it stems from a Lebanese authority free of any foreign patronage.
The only form of assistance that is necessary is that of the UN, already present on Lebanese territory and which must be reclaimed.

Of all the aberrations which may be spawned in the spirit of realpolitik, the most dangerous would be to grant Syria the role of the peace enforcer in Lebanon, providing it with the alibi for postponing indefinitely the withdrawal of its troops.

Any solution must take into account the recuperation of Lebanese sovereignty over its institutions and its territory, according to the provisions of resolutions 425 and 520 of the Security Council which provide a constitutional basis and a unified source of legitimacy.
Any attempt at dislocating that basis is part and parcel of a secret diplomacy aiming at aborting any possibility of a genuine settlement.

Therefore I call for:

1.The formation of a government of national unity, a first step in the recuperation of a sovereign Lebanese decision-making capability.

This would re-establish Lebanon as an agent, rather than an object of the peace negotiations, and rehabilitate the Lebanese State as the sole guarantor of security at its borders, allowing it to fulfill its role as a factor of peace and stability in the Middle East.

2.The holding of a tripartite summit between Syria, Israel and Lebanon, with the task of discussing the obstacles to peace in the region and establish a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon.

The presence of one or more international sponsors would be very useful in order to speed up normalization and guarantee and monitor its application. Such a summit can only restart the peace process in the Middle East. Rather than being the quagmire where all normalization attempts vanished in the past, Lebanon would become the stage for a new dynamic leading to a fair and long-lasting peace.

Partial settlements must make way for the definitive solution. The logic of peace must win over the policy of appeasement.

The solution to the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina became possible the moment when, on the basis of those principles, the concerned parties were forced to meet around the negotiations table, a control apparatus was established, and the mechanism of application was defined. Does Lebanon deserve any less?

I call for a change in the diplomatic paradigms with which the Lebanese and Middle Eastern problems have so far been comprehended.

One more time, we must conform to the following constant in history:
when freedom is the goal, peace is the outcome

---