Lebanon is really very small but in the some word very “big” country. Big in its own magnificent past history and in the tragedy that has been faced with, together with the Palestinian people. And what is worse, Lebanon, even after gaining independence, become again an region on the various political and military conflicts between neighboring Arabic countries and between nation inside of the country. Foreign countries supported all that as well as all the situation has been supported by the traditional intolerance between Christians and Muslim communities, and other religious branches.
That were in shor the basic purposes of Lebanon’s crisis and war without the visible perspectives for overcoming it in the time which was coming later.
LEBANON CIVIL WAR:
In the very beginning of the crisis, Lebanon was a country with the very positive attitude concerning the Palestinian’s presents in its territory and ant their Liberation Organization. Because of that, taking as reason actions of Palestinian commandos on Israel’s territory, Israel executed one of the worse revenge at the south of the Lebanon. In that action totally were destroyed several villages in Lebanon and were killed hundreds of people, Lebanese and Palestinian too. After this attack Christian’s phalange, for the first tiime have started to reconsider and alter their opinion concerning the Palestinian’s presents and status in Lebanon. They were accusing them as the main offenders for the most of the difficulties that Lebanon’s society has been faced. In the same time, the right oriented police had gone farther and was killed about thirty Palestinians in a bus.
In that time Lebanon’s army still did not reacted. The new Government did not succeed in taking all the control in their hand over the country. Consequently armed conflict were unavoidable. Very fast, conflicts were spilled all over the country. And again, Lebanon’s Army did not reacted. It prevails opinion that the Muslim’s succeeded to stop them. Even the negotiations between several main religious groups and parties couldn’t thrive in avoiding conflicts that have spilled later in Beirut.
In later period, from that time Lebanon’s Army starts its actions. With that actions of the Army conflicts were became more serious. And all negotiations between neighboring Arabian countries were failed. They were failed probably because in the core of that negotiations were their own interests or interests of the power counties. And they simply couldn’t make acceptable convention.
Something, which was absolutely true, was that suffering becomes reality and averyday life for the Lebanon’s people. In that situation it wasn’t important to which religion or political party they were belonged. They all suffered. They all lost their homes, their families, and their lives. It seems that in history usually, when nations or their parties and religious groups couldn’t negotiate they all, without exemption become the victims of sufferings and bloodshed. It remain the question for the history and for other related sciences how is possible that people couldn’t speak openly and honestly with amount of obviously mutual cessions just in order of making and finding the common solution, equally optimal for both or many sides. And at least for avoiding such terrible tragedies. Unfortunately, Lebanon’s example is reality even in the new days.
However, in that time, Palestinian’s supported by Muslim’s progressive groups step by step becomes very powerful in Lebannon and especially in Beirut and they run against the Lebanon’s Army. In those conflicts significant parts of Beirut were destroyed, particularly very important trade and bank center of city.
Therefore, division of the Lebanon had been floated in the air. But the neighboring countries and the United States particularly were against of division. They all in their speeches and actions were supported integrity of whole Lebanon as the best solution for resolving the conflicts and for other countries and their interests too.
However, the overall life in the country was disintegrated. Anarchy was ghosted. Political and economy life was out of the authoritie’s control, Lebanon’s Army too.
Finally, as the only solution that was applicable here was deploying of Arabian Peace Corps. And the soldiers from Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Yemen and United Arab Emirates become another reality of the life in Lebanon. That was the end of Lebanon’s civil war which is so important. Unfortunately, it was not the end of Lebanon’s crisis and sufferings.
SIRIA ROLE IN THE CIVIL WAR:
It was almost normal for a country with unstable social and economic structures present is influenced by Syria, especially when the Palestinian cause was used as defining issue. This situation was even more normal after the “Black September” events in Jordan 1970, when bloody clashes between the Jordanian army and armed Palestinian organizations in Amman and Jericho resulted in the death of hundreds of Palestinian fighters, who then moved into Lebanon with the assistance of Syrians. And than Syrian influence on Lebanese political decision has increased over time. The extend of Syrian occupation in Lebanon was characterized by rigid values that Syria adopted from the beginning of the Lebanese civil war in 1975, and which continue. Three factors helped the Syrian government achieve its goals: the historic and geopolitical ties between Syria and Lebanon, the Arab and Islamic balance of power, and Syria’s diplomatic skills in taking advantage of regional and international conflicts. The situation changed dramatically and Syria has occupied Lebanon since 1976, and has been defining the course of domestic and foreign policies in Lebanon ever since. Syrian diplomatic involvement grew during 1976, but it had little success in restoring order in the first half of the year. Continuing its search for a domestic political settlement to the war, elected Ilyas Sarkis came to take over as president when Franjiyah’s term expired. Sarkis had strong backing from Syria and as consequence was unacceptable to Jumblatt, who was known to be antipathetic to Syrian president Hafiz al Assad and who insisted on military solution. As Lebanese Front declined two outcomes appeared: the establishment an independent Christian state as possible second Israel and if the Lebanese National movement won the war the creation of radical state on Syria’s western border. To Assad neither of these possibilities was acceptable. To prevent all next occurrences in 1976 Syria intervened military against the Lebanese National movement, hoping to end fighting very soon. But Syrian forces suffered a lot and even more provoked outrage from many of the Arab states. And because of these military and diplomatic failures Syria decided to the resistance, and chose to participate in an Arab peace conference held in Riyadh, 1976.
As Sarkis concerned he in 1976 appointed as Prime Minister Salim al Huss, who chose a cabinet of technocrats that was authorized to rule by decree for six months. One of the first tasks this government faced was reorganization of the army. Although the intention of the Cairo Agreement was to station Lebanese military units in southern Lebanon, instead the ADF controlled the area only to the Litani River, leaving the region south of it in the hands of the Palestinians. Relation with Syria and the problem of the Palestinians in southern Lebanon remained central concerns for Lebanon during the period 1976 to 1982. And degree of cooperation between the Sarkis administration and Syrian authorities varied, depending on external circumstances in the region. Recognizing its dependence on Syria and Syrian military forces to preserve peace, the Lebanese government generally cooperated. But as a result of the Egyptian-Israeli peace negotiations and Syria’s rapprochement with the PLO, Lebanese-Syrian relations cooled.
From early 1980, Syria became preoccupied with its domestic difficulties and leaves Sarkis administration.
Throughout the Sarkis administration various shifts were occurred in domestic politics. His Prime Minister was unable to form a national government. And the inability of the Lebanese Army to maintain any effective control over the country was a major factor contributing to the weakness of the Lebanese government.
During the term of 1970-1976, when the president was Suleiman Franjieh, Lebanese authorities attempted to attack armed Palestinian groups. Syria responded by closing its border with Lebanon. Franjieh’s son Toni, who was a minister in the Lebanese government, met with Syrian leaders in the Bekaa, and reached an agreement to organize Lebanese-Syrian ties, and prevent further armed Palestinian expansion. The agreement protected their presence in Lebanon but Syrian role increased.
When the civil war started in 1975, by conflicts between nationalists and Palestinian fighters, relations between the Syrian and Lebanese governments weakened. This was due to the division that was occurred in the Lebanese military and civil institutions, Lebanon even was fighting Palestinians in a war that its social, political and economy structure could not sustain.
Syrian forces occupied Lebanon in 1976, and wanted to play central role in any resolution of the Palestinian status. This was very important to Syria, as former Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat had signed the Camp David accords in 1979 with Israel without Syrian approval. All this helps us to understand why Syria meant Lebanon as an important issue of its overall national security, either through its historic and geopolitical ties, or through the developments of the Palestinian cause. These Syrian concerns eventually overrode any regard for Lebanon’s sovereign identity. And during the civil war, Syria fought all foreign presence in Lebanon. This considering Israel as state opposed to Syria and Arab states, as Iraq, Jordan, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization that competed with it.
And between 1975 and 1981 parties in Lebanon were divided into two groups. The first group included the PLO and factional Lebanese and Arab allies. The second group comprised Syria and its Lebanese allies. Syria’s goal was to overthrow the PLO, and dismantle Lebanese and Arab forces that were backed by anti-Syrian Arab countries. Meanwhile, the different sectarian groups in Lebanon were drained of their power, and were unable to reach any agreement. In that way they allowed Syria to achieve its political goals, just because of certain vacuum.
And by 1982, Israel had invaded Lebanon. Syrian troops withdrew and Syria gradually regained its influence in Lebanon, especially when it refused to sanction any agreement between Lebanon and Israel. Syria counterattacked by supporting anti-Israeli forces, and acting against Israel.
Syria succeed to weaken the regime of former President Amin Gemayel and prevent signing agreement between Lebanon and Israel because it did not care to play one Lebanese faction against another.
Upon the request of a group of Lebanese political leaders, Syrian troops returned in 1987 in order to contain the chaos and disorder that was in the country. And Syria succeeded in presenting itself as necessity in Lebanon during this period. Syria even called for fighting Israel so clever that politicians that were against the Syria at that point became useless, especially when it controlled Lebanon’s politics. But despite its control Syria did not succeed in controlling all in the essence of the Lebanese economic system, which had supported vital economic and banking sectors prior to the war. But it succeeded in ensuring its economic interests by facilitating the work many of Syrian workers in Lebanon, and profiting by corruption by both Syrians and Lebanese. There are serious profiteers through hashish and drug trading routes in the Beqaa. And also Syrian government protected the interests of its commercial and industrial bourgeoisie in Lebanon.
Concerning the Riyadh Conference, when speaking about the Syrian influence into the Lebanon, it was followed by an Arab League meeting in Cairo, and formally ended the Lebanese Civil war. The establishment of the Arab Deterrent Force by the Arab League in 1976 was secure in some way Syria’s presence in Lebanon as legitimated.
And relative calm returned to Lebanon and Beirut was divided into Muslim and Christian sectors, separated by so-called Green Line.
LEBANON AFTER THE CIVIL WAR:
In the years that followed the civil war from 1975, the overall situation was very difficult. The Lebanon’s capital Beirut was the main place for very often conflicts between many political, religious and military groups. Lebanon’s authorities were not able to prevent or stop them. They were financed and supported by foreign Arabian and other countrie.Those had some reflection of permanent division in the Arabian world.
Lebanon’s people become aware that the negotiation between nations is the only way for resolving their conflicts and permanent crises in their society as well as key for eliminating many accumulated problems. But Lebanon’s parties were totally frustrated and they did not put any efforts in that way.
Persuaded that Lebanon situation is so serious the US and in that time, SSSR took some diplomatic steps for finding possible solutions. Again sufferings for people in Lebanon. This time from Israeli side, whose reaction on Syrian rockets situated in Lebanon, resulted with bombing Palestinian camps in the South of Lebanon. Thanks to the OUN this situation had been temporarily resolved, and peace had been achieved between Israel and Palestinian Liberation Organization.
Lebanon had good relation with Palestinian Liberation organization, which is very sensitive question for its neighbor - Israel. Later, in 1991 the Lebanese Army will defeated the PLO in series of battles.
As PLO concerned, it is the political body founded in 1964, and that represents Palestine.
PLO was recognized as the representative of the Arabs. The PLO did not recognize Israel’s right and when it moved in Lebanon started to attack against Israel.
Actually, since 1960’s PLO guerilla groups have started against Israel from time to time. From 1965 to 1971 the PLO operated with the rule of King Hussein of Jordan. But when Jordanian army forces drove out the PLO it had moved to Lebanon. And from there it had attacked against Israel.
Yasir Arafat became chairmen of the PLO, and Syrian government supported rebels within the opposite Arafat’s leadership. And a majority of the Arab states continued to support Arafat and the PLO as PLO pledged to liberate Palestine.
And Palestine’s location between Egypt and southwest is a center of conflict for thousand of years. In the past Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, and after Palestine came under British control. After the war in 1948-49 Palestine was divided among Israel, Jordan and Syria and Palestine’s residents became refugees.
However, situations in Lebanon have been followed with unbalanced, full of uncertainty and an unpredictable outcome about the new occurs.
Conclusions
We can conclude that the Lebanon and Middle East is not failed region. No one who compares the Middle East of today with the Middle East of 1970s and 1980s would suggest that there has been no progress, or that it regress back to the past. The Middle East is just not successful region by the standards of the most advanced developing regions and countries. The problem is that the Lebanon and the Middle East are moving too slowly. It is very hard to speak about economical reforms and much harder to implement them.
Further, the population growth. Most countries in the world cannot be able to afford such high rate of growth. The Lebanon and all the Middle East need aggressive efforts to limit population growth and bring it in balance with its rate of economic development.
Also, misunderstandings between nations, their religion and political orientation, who couldn’t find minor sense for mutual interests and common life.
Finally the peoples of Lebanon and the Middle East deserve action, not promises and words. They deserve competition not domination. They deserve better education, creativity and growth. And life without missiles wars, without enemies. I hope that entire world have reached the age where dialogue is the only way to run the world.
In closing, although I do feel the world will be different, I do not see drastic changes ahead. Probably bringing people closer together and making countries and peoples interdependent, is what will contribute to peace.
Literature Used:
-
Dr. Branislav Sinadinoski – “Lebanon’s crossroads in past and today” or(“Libanskite krstopati nekogas i denes”)
- P.Mangoski – “International Relations” or (“Medjunarodni odnosi”).
- Google (Internet).
- Aleksandar Hristov – “Middle East” or (“Sredni Istok”).