Lebanon: The forgotten revolution

Uprisings elsewhere in the region shouldn't blind us from the upheaval in Beirut.

The bronze statue in downtown Beirut, commemorating those who fought for Lebanese freedom from foreign occupation - first against the Ottomans, then against the French - is presciently one of the few surviving structures in Martyrs' Square from before the Lebanese civil war. Pocked with bullet holes, it is now in a no-man's land; flanked by busy roads on either side.

Although the Middle East is saturating news reports at the moment, Lebanon has been mostly ignored since the uprisings began in Tunisia in mid-January. However, it was in Lebanon where the first Middle Eastern revolution was quietly staged in early January 2011, and Lebanon whose future is most uncertain.

Visible from the Martyrs' statue is a massive tent-like mausoleum in which rests the body of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, who was assassinated on 14 February 2005 when his motorcade was bombed in central Beirut. Lebanon has seldom been stable, but the controversy and mystery surrounding the circumstances of Hariri's murder are the key to understanding its unclear future.

Hariri was a self-made billionaire construction mogul of the Sunni Islamic faith, and held the Prime Ministerial position for two non-consecutive terms from 1992 till 1998, and then from 2000 till 2004. However, he eventually resigned from office in October 2004, purportedly over a disagreement as to the extent of Syria's influence in Lebanese affairs. Indeed, Syria had occupied Lebanon since 1975, in an uneasy relationship based primarily on protection, but its popularity had been severely waning since 2000. In fact, it was in 2000 that the Israelis withdrew from southern Lebanon, and when the Syrian president Hafez al-Asad died, leaving the title to his son Bashar. Under these circumstances it seemed that the Syrians had little left to offer Lebanon, and their presence became less welcome in the country.

A month before Hariri quit, in September 2004, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1559 which called for respect of Lebanese sovereignty and the withdrawal of all foreign occupations. Though this request carried international weight, Syria still made little attempt to withdraw. Five months later, Rafiq Hariri was dead, the victim of a calculated bombing.

On 30 May 2007, the UN Security Council established the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to attempt to find the perpetrators of Rafiq Hariri's murder. Though Syria were initially suspected, it appears now that certain anonymous members of the Lebanese Shia Islamic organisation Hezbollah are most likely to be indicted, a move which threatens to destabilise Lebanon's fragile peace.

The US and the Dutch governments have branded Hezbollah a terrorist organisation, but many others do not agree, citing its social development schemes and property development unit as evidence. The latter, named Waad SAL, helped rebuild the southern suburbs of Beirut, partially from their own funds, after the 33-day war with Israel in 2006. Nevertheless, Hezbollah's Iranian funded military wing serves as a powerful political tool in Lebanon, with many claiming that they win elections and policy concessions through threat of violence rather than positive policies. Others argue Hezbollah are the only real ideological alternative to a corrupt, secular, pro-West group of politicians, headed by the Hariri dynasty. In fact, Rafiq Hariri's son, Saad, became Prime Minister in 2009.

The main divide in Lebanon can be understood from the 'Cedar Revolution' that took place in March 2005, a direct consequence of Hariri's death. Though the 8th March that year saw tens of thousands of pro-Syria demonstrators arrive at Martyrs' Square in a Hezbollah organised protest, March 14th saw over one million anti-Syria demonstrators cram themselves into the area.

Political alliances were built from these protests, with Rafiq Hariri's son, Saad, heading the March 14th alliance, backed by Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the small but powerful Islamic group, the Druze. The secular Free Patriotic Movement fronted the March 8th alliance, with strong support from Hezbollah. Roughly a month after the protests, Syria had completely withdrawn.

In late 2010 and early 2011, instability returned to Lebanon as pressure began to mount on Saad Hariri when the Special Tribunal's pace quickened. Furthermore, the Syrian-Saudi attempts at mediating between Lebanon's conflicting March alliances failed. Amid leaks that certain members of Hezbollah would be accused by the UN, the organisation made it clear that it would not accept any indictments of its own people. In protest at Hariri's staunch reluctance to denounce the issue, Hezbollah pulled representatives out of the cabinet in mid January 2011, forcing the government's collapse.

In the search for a new cabinet and Prime Minister, fears of a new rise in sectarian violence were widespread if Saad Hariri were to be reappointed. Eventually, in what is claimed to be a self-interested move, Walid Jumblatt switched allegiance from the pro-West faction to the Hezbollah-backed pro-Syria faction, necessitating the appointment of Hezbollah's preferred candidate, Najib Mikati as Prime Minister. Thousands of angry people gathered to protest in Martyrs' Square, but little came of it. As the wave of large Middle Eastern protests began in Tunisia, Lebanon had already revolted and emerged anew with an Islamic-backed government.

Though Martyrs' Square is quiet for now, the streets of Beirut are crawling with soldiers anticipating a potential outbreak of violence in reaction to the imminent release of the UN indictments. Politically untouchable, it is likely now that Hezbollah will pressure Mikati to block any UN decision, which will greatly anger much of the secular, Sunni and Maronite Christian population in Lebanon, as well as the Israeli, and the US governments. Hezbollah themselves see the tribunal as biased, and believe Hariri was killed by Israel to destabilise Lebanon.

Ultimately the legacy of the country's tumultuous history ensures that whatever the UN decides, peace and stability in Lebanon look to be severely under threat.

Liam McLaughlin is a freelance journalist who has also written for Prospect and the Huffington Post. He tweets irregularly @LiamMc108.

Getty
Show Hide image

How Labour risks becoming a party without a country

Without establishing the role of Labour in modern Britain, the party is unlikely ever to govern again.

“In my time of dying, want nobody to mourn

All I want for you to do is take my body home”

- Blind Willie Johnson

The Conservative Party is preparing itself for a bloody civil war. Conservative MPs will tell anyone who wants to know (Labour MPs and journalists included) that there are 100 Conservative MPs sitting on letters calling for a leadership contest. When? Whenever they want to. This impending war has many reasons: ancient feuds, bad blood, personal spite and enmity, thwarted ambition, and of course, the European Union.

Fundamentally, at the heart of the Tory war over the European Union is the vexed question of ‘What is Britain’s place in the World?’ That this question remains unanswered a quarter of a century after it first decimated the Conservative Party is not a sign that the Party is incapable of answering the question, but that it has no settled view on what the correct answer should be.

The war persists because the truth is that there is no compromise solution. The two competing answers are binary opposites: internationalist or insular nationalist, co-habitation is an impossibility.

The Tories, in any event, are prepared to keep on asking this question, seemingly to the point of destruction. For the most part, Labour has answered this question: Britain will succeed as an outward looking, internationalist state. The equally important question facing the Labour Party is ‘What is the place of the Labour Party in modern Britain?’ Without answering this question, Labour is unlikely to govern ever again and in contrast to the Tories, Labour has so far refused to acknowledge that such a question is being asked of it by the people it was founded to serve. At its heart, this is a question about England and the rapidly changing nature of the United Kingdom.

In the wake of the 2016 elections, the approach that Labour needs to take with regard to the ‘English question’ is more important than ever before. With Scotland out of reach for at least a generation (assuming it remains within the United Kingdom) and with Labour’s share of the vote falling back in Wales in the face of strong challenges from Plaid Cymru and UKIP, Labour will need to rely upon winning vast swathes of England if we are to form a government in 2020.

In a new book published this week, Labour’s Identity Crisis, Tristram Hunt has brought together Labour MPs, activists and parliamentary candidates from the 2015 general election to explore the challenges facing Labour in England and how the party should address these, not purely as an electoral device, but as a matter of principle.

My contribution to the book was inspired by Led Zeppelin’s Physical Graffiti. The track list reads like the score for a musical tragedy based upon the Labour Party from 2010 onwards: In My Time of Dying, Trampled Underfoot, Sick Again, Ten Years Gone. 

Continued Labour introspection is increasingly tiresome for the political commentariat – even boring – and Labour’s Identity Crisis is a genuinely exciting attempt to swinge through this inertia. As well as exploring our most recent failure, the book attempts to chart the course towards the next Labour victory: political cartography at its most urgent.

This collection of essays represents an overdue effort to answer the question that the Party has sought to sidestep for too long.  In the run up to 2020, as the United Kingdom continues to atomise, the Labour Party must have an ambitious, compelling vision for England, or else risks becoming a party without a country.

Jamie Reed is Labour MP for Copeland.