Integration of decentralization and internationalization

Editorial, Al-Nahar newspaper, February 18, 2021

Sejaan Azzi

Former Minister

@AngelsSejean

(See Translation in Arabic Section)

The military balances in place in Lebanon are suitable for imposing compliance agreements with an enemy, and not for concluding a partnership agreement to build a single state. The adoption of military scales as a criterion for modifying the system leads to regime change whenever the balance of power changes, and these are subject to change periodically. Since the year 1975, all the Lebanese components have experienced the taste of strength, bullying, weakness and vulnerability, and settled - because of their divisions - in scattered defeats instead of seizing on united victories. Today's belief in its power, without deterrent, pushes others to confront it in light of the state's resignation from its role in the system of national relations between the components of the nation, and its bias towards non-legitimate forces at the expense of the legitimacy of the nation and all the other components.

For half a century we have been suffering from this pernicious confusion in the role of the state. Sometimes the state watched as the military situation deteriorated due to impotence (sectarian division), times due to presidential ambitions (some army commanders), and times due to collusion with foreigners as occupiers or trustees (some of the presidents of the republic, the government, and the Parliament). And times, it is our situation today, due to all these reasons. Regardless of the reasons, the result remains the same: sedition, occupation, assassinations, national division, civil wars, massacres, the domination of a strange reality, the breeding of militias, the emergence of Lebanese resistance, and the fall of the authority of the state and its institutions ...

Here are the de-facto forces, in partnership with legitimacy, the regime’s change by disrupting it and forcing the Lebanese to live under the shadow of a state and disorder until they accept another state and another regime. The other parties are still responding to these with dialogue, patience, and striving to revive the inclusive state. However, the continuation of the general disruption approach and the disregard for others would push these parties to search for other subjective, regional and sectarian alternatives to avoid the power of obstruction.

The national duty calls for anticipating the final coup with national steadfastness, holding an international conference, and adopting decentralization. Any delay in the face of the coup makes it difficult to stop it later because it is steadily creeping, and those responsible for it are not concerned with an opposition that has not yet proven its seriousness, nor with a revolution that has weakened in the prime of its youth. There is no room for thwarting this centralized coup except through decentralized measures in which the central authority becomes "occupying" without land, people and resources. These alternative compelling options revive a regional economy, enhance decentralized security, preserve the “Lebaneseness” of these regions, and protect their identity, while waiting for the legitimate state to regain its freedom, decision, and national color.

If only the legitimacy would restore its constitutional and national independence today before tomorrow, so that each component would not regain its autonomy and regional independence. However, it is clear that Hezbollah, which is the most advanced in its project, is preventing the legitimacy of its various officials from responding to this call. This advanced project necessitates dealing with it from the position of national responsibility, as we did in previous historical milestones, and we prevented the fall of Lebanon. The sovereign and democratic components do not intend to submit to the fait accompli, whatever the sacrifices, and it is not within them to accept this state's proxy for its "bearer" regardless of the pressures. No one is kidding us, either.

These components do not demand Hezbollah to retreat or concede, nor do they favor the assistance of a foreign power against it. The international conference does not necessarily mean the seventh item. The most that Hezbollah wants to know is that it will not back down from its faith in the one Lebanon, it will not give up its special and vanguard role in the state, it will not accept a substitute for the national partnership, and it will not let the identity of Lebanon change. On the other hand, it is assumed that Hezbollah will realize that there will no longer be a need for military resistance in Lebanon, nor for fighting in the countries of the Middle East. It is better for him to develop his political role and be in harmony with the other Lebanese components.

Patriarch Bechara Al-Rahi suggested that he go to the United Nations in search of peace for Lebanon, not wars in Lebanon. Internationalization, unfortunately, is the fate of people divided over their homeland. We are aware of the dangers of internationalization and we have been a victim of the international game more than once because of our divisions, the multiplicity of our loyalties, our stupidity, our stubbornness, and our fraternal and fraternal fighting. We will not accept internationalization that establishes the status quo such as illegal weapons, Palestinian resettlement and the survival of the displaced. Then we are not calling for internationalization, but for resistance. We know that most of the Western military interventions in the Middle East (America and NATO countries) in the last twenty years lacked a strategic, democratic and moral dimension.

But the historical truth reveals two constant: The first: that whenever a weapon took control in Lebanon, be it Lebanese or foreign, the Lebanese crises would follow the path of internationalization because no local authority was able to solve the political crisis without solving the problem of arms. And the other constant: that the Western intervention in Lebanon was always positive and peaceful and in the interest of Lebanon’s unity and its legitimacy because the West - (Ya Subhan Allah) - is keen on the existence of a civilized and peaceful Lebanon.

The French military intervention in the year 1861 ended the division of the Emirate of Mount Lebanon between two entities and unified them in the Almtsrvip system. The French mandate in 1920 confirmed the decisions of the Versailles and San Remo conferences, and transferred the Lebanese from the Mutasarrifiyya to the state of Greater Lebanon. The landing of the US Marines in 1958 stopped the bloody events, prevented Lebanon from joining the Syrian / Egyptian unity, and secured the election of the president of the republic. The international forces in the south in 1978 fixed the international borders of Lebanon and limited the expansion of the Israeli occupation, and in 2006 it supervised the cessation of the war and the implementation of Resolution 1701. And the temporary deployment of the multinational forces in 1982 stopped the Israeli war and supervised the disarmament of Palestinian organizations. And any possible new international role will previously disrupt any Israeli aggression hovering in the air.

Hence, instead of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah questioning internationalization and making accusations and threats - which do not scare us - he deserves to stop the coup against the state so that the Lebanese solution becomes possible. Otherwise, internationalization will come without a request, and without a silencer. Hezbollah has fallen into the issue of internationalization with what it has fallen into regarding federalism. He rejects federalism and applies it to the ground, and he rejects internationalization and asks him, by virtue of his practices, an invitation card with a notification of arrival.