From Beirut to the Beltway

AUB student elections: why everyone lost

Those rejoicing over the results of student elections at AUB, which incidentally is my alma mater, need to stop and think twice about it all means. For this blogger, this is not a lesson in democracy or democratic governance, this is transposition of feudal and sectarian politics into a college campus. Casting ballots to pick someone based on their affiliation to outside parties with no agendas relevant to student life is unfortunate. AUB officials ought to protect the student body against this kind of theft of democratic principles. The leaders of tomorrow need to understand that improving the conditions of their constituents, not those of the lord outside the gate, should be their platform.  One person interviewed by Now Lebanon echoed this well:

Becky Katz, an American graduate student at AUB, who until Tuesday was a candidate for election among international students and has participated in student elections in the States, said that while it's understandable "given the dense and highly charged political environment that student activists want to begin playing a role, the student government is polarized by these parties and as a result is paralyzed… Students are unable to organize collectively and efficiently to advocate on their own behalf and improve student life."
 


"The initiatives of one party tend to be turned down by another just because of the national political divide," Katz added. "There's less of an emphasis on platform and more of an emphasis on simply which Lebanese party you side with."
 
She said the political divide created by student candidates who represent national parties also "creates problems after the elections, breeding an atmosphere of hostility and hindering the capacity of students to work together."

Nobody is saying students can’t have political affiliations. But what kind of message are we instilling in the new generation when we allow their student life to be polarized and paralyzed even before they are let out into a society they are entrusted with enriching and improving?

Of course, when even March 14 leaders hail the results of student elections as a “message” that validates their political agenda, there is little hope that one day, change will come to this little country, in a form that will preempt the kind of events that have rocked it since its inception.

Aoun, Jouzou, and their Lebanon

It’s painful enough to listen to Michel Aoun preach about the alleged failure of the American model, and how he allegedly made all the successful choices in the past.  But now Sunni Mount Lebanon mufti, Mohammad Ali al-Jouzou has sailed into the Aoun-Hizbullah twilight zone:

The Mufti of Mount Lebanon Sheikh Mohammed Ali al-Jouzou said he approved of the position of Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun with regard to broadening the culture of resistance among the Lebanese population, especially among Christian factions. Jouzou said in a statement issued on Sunday that having Muslims and Christians carrying weapons to resist Israel, in cooperation with the army, would be “the most honorable battle” and a “great achievement and historical event.”

Jouzou said he was ready to even go further and ask for the immediate implementation of Aoun’s “great” defense strategy, starting with the training of all youth in the use of weapons and establish mixed Christian-Muslim military bases. He also encouraged spreading weapons among all citizens so that they could integrate themselves with army brigades in order to become a parallel army.

“That is why I call for distributing weapons to all youth trainees, and giving licenses so that weapon carriers are not attacked, as is currently happening. No citizen of the North, Beirut, or Bekaa would be arrested for carrying weapons, in the same way as citizens of the South, Dahiyeh, and Ramil al-Ali are allowed to carry weapons and roam with them everywhere without any objection,” he said. “General Aoun’s request is fair, because we all become one [equal] before the army and security forces. Our youth will not be imprisoned if weapons are found on them, whether they carry a license or not, while others roam with their weapons freely because they are weapons of the Resistance,” he said.

Jouzou said that justice in the country was seen from only one perspective, because all those accused of terrorism were Sunni. He called on March 14 to approve Aoun’s defense strategy proposal which “transforms the Lebanese population into a resisting population; accordingly, our weapons become resistance weapons like Hezbollah’s weapons.” (Now Lebanon)

I don’t believe this was sarcasm. And for the record, I expected nothing enlightening from that man. But what we have here is a prime example of why, one day after Lebanese independence day, this nation is doomed thanks to the prevalence of such trash. Although on the opposite end of the political spectrum, they embody the failure of the Lebanese model, where religious clerics play dangerous politics, and MPs behave like de-facto presidents, or prime ministers, dictating policy, and threatening violence, as Aoun did if elections don’t go his way.

So it’s really rich for Aoun and others like him to claim that the American model “failed”. The only failure I see is what they exhibit day after day in Lebanon. Despite the harsh economic conditions we are living, and the effects of the Iraq war, the United States has not collapsed.  The election of Obama, whether you like him or not, and the hope that is driving so many, including those of us who just began to live the American dream, stand in sharp contrast to Lebanon’s pathetic political class, lack of democratic spirit, and the abject subservience to foreign agendas at the expense of national interests. Look no further than John McCain’s concession speech to understand what America stands for. Contrast with the above examples, which, though not representative of Lebanon's potential, are nevertheless the reason why so many of us have stopped looking towards our country of origin for inspiration.

March 14 and the Arab League

March 14’s call on the Arab League to form a “fact-finding mission” to investigate the Fateh al-Islam group will likely increase the dandruff population, since many inside and outside of Lebanon will be furiously scratching their heads in wonder over the futility of such a move.  The Syrian media stunt had left many in the failed independence movement angry at the regime’s insolence in making up facts and airing them so blatantly. How dare they accuse the free Lebanese of conspiring to kill their own? This at a time the Lebanese and their counterparts in the UN have been investigating for years now! So, March 14 logic goes, if anybody has the moral right to fling accusations, it is March 14. And the logic continues: The Arab League should act. As if the league members do not already know who is behind this group, or need a fact finding mission to figure it out.  Whatever happened to the briefing on the Islamist group that Siniora gave Amr Moussa many months ago? They didn’t condemn the Assad regime then, and they will not condemn it tomorrow. Not even Europe is prepared to level accusations at Assad. International denial and compromise is the name of the game -- just read the naive statement by British FM David Milliband on Syrian-Lebanese relations and the UK and Syria cooperating in the fight against terrorism. 

So why is March 14 expecting the league to deliver what Lebanese authorities and the world couldn't? And does this call not undermine confidence in the work of the UN commission and the Lebanese authorities? Why are Lebanese papers bothering with accounts of arrests and investigations? Will the Arab league unearth evidence or facts that years of interrogations, investigations and fact-gathering by hundreds of individuals from across the world didn’t?

 The Arab League involvement makes no sense. If this is March 14’s way to defend itself against Syrian accusations, then someone in their leadership needs to fire his advisors. 

Of course, the Lebanese government’s response was as pathetic. They send the interior minister to Syria, and continue pushing for diplomatic relations with the regime, and form a committee to “address methods of cooperation”. Sending Baroud with no mission to defend his country and confront the accusers is an act of treason. And having your information minister, who once denounced the regime’s acts, say that relations between the two countries are “built on mutual respect” is mind-boggling. The same can be said about this whole embassy business. The Lebanese government should not have accepted diplomatic representation before the Hariri investigation is over. In most other countries, ambassadors are expelled and embassies shut down when there is violation of sovereignty and sponsored murder. Lebanon, however, chose to REWARD the Assad regime by not only agreeing to exchanging diplomats before a criminal investigation is concluded, but also allow the Syrian regime to vet all candidates for the post of Lebanese ambassador!

Of course, this twisted logic was made possible by the Arab League. That March 14 is yet again resorting to this body is yet another thing to add to the heap of nonsense that is Lebanese and Arab Politics.

Desperate moves

You know the Assad regime is desperate when their own creation had to issue a statement denying televised allegations that they were behind a recent Damascus bombing. Fatah al-Islam today denied claims in “confessions” aired by Syrian TV that they orchestrated the attack with Hariri money. 

The regime, looks like, has re-discovered itself stuck between two countries inching towards relative stability. Lebanon, and Iraq, despite their domestic theatricals and unknown long-term viabilities, are arguably more stable than in recent years. The same cannot be said of Syria, which has had to endure violence and recently, humiliating American and Israeli attacks.

Of course, the Assad regime brought all this upon itself. Fatah al-Islam was a slightly more organized version of its Iraq efforts. Thinking they would be scoring points against the US and March 14, and perhaps relieve pressure caused by the Hariri tribunal, the regime resorted to becoming a conduit for terrorism. Perhaps more foolishly, Assad thought he could become a nuclear power. 

At the end, you reap what you sow. 

Considering that these allegations surfaced on the eve of visits by the Lebanese interior and defense ministers, one has to wonder how many regimes the Syrian regime has produced over the past year. The “confessions”, which could not have been the product of judicial transparency that does not exist, looked like the work of a disgruntled official who couldn’t believe relations with the Lebanese have devolved into pseudo-normalized relations. Embassy? An interior minister who has no allegiance to the lion? A defense minister who rebelled and escaped assassination, and has the audacity to visit? There are a lot of negative things that can be said about the current Lebanese situation and about Syrian-Lebanese relations not being ideal, yet. But you couldn’t help but gloat a little bit when you see functioning Lebanese cabinet ministers arriving in Damascus to represent their country, and not to report to the ruler. 

It increasingly looks like anything positive in Lebanon or Iraq will produce negative repercussions on the Assad regime. Some in Lebanon figured it out. Even the fakest of reconciliations could plunge the Assad regime, which feeds on conflicts, into turmoil. This formula is something to learn and run with, though not to be used as a bible. Spread the love, and let the terminally ill die a natural death. No “engagement” will cure the ailments of one of the sickest regimes on earth.