Lebanese politicians criticise Assad's calls for changing system

By Malik Mohamed Misbah in Beirut
For Al-Shorfa.com
2010-02-09

[JOSEPH EID/AFP/Getty Images] Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Syrian President Bashir Assad in December of 2009.

Political leaders in Lebanon were preoccupied over the last two days with a comment by Syrian President Bashar Assad about the political system in Lebanon that was posted on The New Yorker magazine's News Desk blog.

Assad told writer Seymour Hersh that "A civil war in Lebanon could start in days. It does not take weeks or months. It could start just like this. One cannot feel assured about anything in Lebanon unless they change the whole system."

Syrian official sources offered an explanation to clarify the remark, notably with an article published in Al Hayat on Saturday (February 6th), stating that The New Yorker article was not specific about distinguishing between President Assad's words and Hersh's understanding of the Syrian position. Nevertheless, some of Lebanon's leading figures did not take the Syrian appeasement seriously.

Boutros Harb, Lebanon's Minister of Labour, found it strange "that a head of state would give his opinion on another country's political system".

"It's up to the Lebanese people to determine the type of Lebanese system they want to have, and no one else can do that on their behalf," he said. "We understand that we have paid with our blood for this system, and we went to Taif after years of civil war, infighting and destruction. Many have lost their lives, and a national consensus was reached. This is the system that we want, and when we decide to change it, we will be the ones who change it."

MP Antoine Zahra, a member of the Lebanese Forces party, said that "no one is working to cause a civil war in Lebanon, and in the foreseeable future, there is no alternative to the current system which was agreed upon in Taif. Messing with this orientation means an end to Lebanon as we know it."

Samir Franjieh, a member of the March 14 General Secretariat and a former MP, told Al-Shorfa that "Assad's comments are out of line with the political framework which we are trying to build on, turning the page of conflict between Lebanon and Syria, which is as old as the Lebanese republic itself."

Franjieh said it is sad that such a stance should be adopted at this stage when there is a serious attempt to normalize relations between the two countries and establish a new kind of relationship.

"It is time to turn the page on this painful past between Lebanon and Syria and think together about the common future of Lebanon and Syria and the region, especially in such critical and dangerous times as these."

Franjieh added that "We would like to think the clarification [by Syrian sources] will help to minimize the negativity of the comments that were published, but one has to think more about the future and remove the Syrian factor from the equation of Lebanese internal affairs. Syria is not part of Lebanese internal politics, and it shouldn't be, and the opposite is true as well. We have to think about the future of the Mashreq (eastern Arab World) and its role in uplifting the state of affairs in the Arab world in general on this level. I hope that the clarification will help turn the page on these statements."

Rafiq Khouri, editor-in-chief of Al Anwar newspaper told Al- Shorfa that "President Bashar Assad has preconceived notions about the system in Lebanon which is an ideological position that is focused on the idea of establishing a civil state in Lebanon."

"But there is a difference between Assad's stance and Syrian behaviour in Lebanon," he added. "During the era of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, the Syrians were keen to keep the Lebanese sectarian state of affairs intact."

Khouri said, "It's true there is dysfunction in the Lebanese system, but the real change happened with the Taif Agreement by means of clauses that were not implemented, such as decentralization and gradual elimination of sectarianism and the establishment of a senate", adding that "all that has changed in Lebanon after the Taif Agreement is a readjustment and balancing of the various sectarian groups."

For his part, writer Hazem Amin told Al-Shorfa that that rhetoric is part of the "Arab nationalistic rhetoric towards the Lebanese system".

Amin added that "The Arab mind sees weakness in any type of diversity, although the causes of weakness in the Lebanese system are not what President Assad referred to in his comment that the Lebanese system is a manufacturer of civil wars. Sure, the Lebanese system is weak, but its weakness stems from being juxtaposed to a regime such as the Syrian regime.”

Political analyst Hasan Hadi told Al-Shorfa, "We are not sure whether Assad said those words, which were denied by official sources in Syria. In addition, Seymour Hersh did not put these words between inverted commas, and this additional element leads us to ask the question, 'Did Assad say those words, or were they inferred by Hersh?'"

Hadi added, "But some Lebanese believe that something along those lines was said, knowing as they do that the Lebanese system is not welcome in Syria because it conflicts with its own system in terms of guaranteed freedoms and the fact that it's not prone to coups d'état. In addition they believe that Syria has old ambitions regarding Lebanon, hence the [Syrian] clarification is not convincing."

Bookmarking

Please comment on this article so that we can improve the experience of viewing this website.