|
 Lebanon’s
foreign policy was the objective of as much attention by Bashir as its
internal policy. In fact, it would be correct to state that many of
his attitudes on domestic policy were dictated by considerations of
foreign policy, of which he had a vast knowledge. One of his
celebrated cries of anguish was : “ All the world forces are settling
their scores on our ground !” This expressed two things : the Lebanese
Cause has deep-rooted universal origins and ramifications, and the
Lebanese people have become an instrument in the hands of other powers
to solve their own problems at the expense of Lebanon, land and
people. Bashir’s awareness of this fact led him to oppose any State
that attempted to promote its own interests at the expense of
Lebanon’s. He invited all the Lebanese to take stock of the situation,
and to realize an immutable principle in international politics, to
the effect that : “ International boundaries are those of world
interests in the Middle-East. Whereas we want our own borders to
translate the interests of our people and their welfare only.” This
statement by Bashir is merely a corollary to his previous cry of : “
Every damn foreigner is fighting his battles on our ground!” , and it
defines the context, the nature, and the aims of international
politics, and at the same time, explains his own outlook as a pioneer
of the Lebanese Cause and its chief defender. Thus, the Lebanese
question, in spite of its intrinsically Lebanese character, spills
into the winder context of the Middle-East question, which, in its
turn, forms part of a much wider framework at world level : the
struggle of the Titans, viz. the superpower or the rivalry between
East and West. Bashir expressed his attitude towards the Middle-East
question in these words : “We will not have the problems of the
Middle-East settled over our dead bodies, nor the settlement of these
problems drawn on the map of our country !” He further defined his
standpoint with relation to East-West rivalry as follows : “The West
should understand that Lebanon is not a bridge towards the oil
civilization, and the East should realize that Lebanon is not a
gateway to the civilization of opulence...”
This is
insofar as the context of international politics is concerned. As for
the inherent character of violence of these struggles, of which the
Lebanese war is merely one manifestation of the policy of violence in
the world at large and in the Middle-East in particular, this is what
he had to say: “Israel is bombing us because we are a Palestinian
base. The Palestinians are shelling us because they believe that we
are an Israeli base. Syria is firing its big guns at us because it
alleges we are an imperialistic base. The Arab conservative States
have washed their hands of us because they consider that we have
fallen into the Soviet orbit... and the radical hard-line Arab regimes
allied to Moscow and with its blessing sing “Praise Allah and pass the
ammunition!” And all these nice guys are perched on the trees, waiting
for the stench of carrion...
Lebanon
therefore is a victim of the international policy of violence. Bashir
however, in his argumentative logic, does not exclude another aspect
which characterizes international politics : that of détente. He
warned his people about this, saying : “We do not want to be victims
on the altar of East-West détente... and it is not logical that the
region of the Middle-East should be the theatre of an exchange of
peaceful settlements, while Lebanon, alone, bears the brunt of the
military settlement!”
Domestic
Affairs and Foreign Policy :
As Bashir
explained on several occasions, the objectives of international
politics take nothing into consideration but their own interests.
Thus, no State will undertake any action or abstain from doing so,
unless this is in their obvious interests.
It is
therefore up the the Lebanese to promote Lebanon’s interests alone,
because, as Bashir said “The beginning of the end will come if we are
divided upon ourselves. We should overstep all petty considerations.
The enemy’s only weapon consists in breaking our ranks and pitting us
against each other... Let us rise above selfishness and partisan
politics, and be one single united party, the party of Lebanon.”
Bashir then
defined the conditions required to enable the Lebanese people to
realize their goals and
safeguard their interests. The first of these was for the Lebanese to
assert their existence as Lebanese, for, as he said “If we are not
consequent with ourselves, and cannot assert our presence, then nobody
will be with us...”. The second of these conditions was that the
Lebanese should know what they wanted, “otherwise, he said, we cannot
go out into the world and tell people : This is what we want”... But
if the Lebanese first assert their existence, it would be a simple
matter for them to go anywhere and express their wishes chiefly among
these to demand the restoration of their violated rights. There should
be a clear and frank understanding between them about the constituent
elements of the Lebanese existence, “so that the decision should be
one; we must agree with each other on our Lebanese identity, and on
what should be done in order to retrieve our soil...”. Bashir
summarized his own ideas and his concept of the contents of Lebanese
identity. The cornerstone of this was the sole and undivided
allegiance to Lebanon. And he repeated what he had said at a previous
meeting : “None of us should try to have a foreign ‘outlet’ of cast a
look across the borders, for this would cast doubts on his national
loyalty and allegiance to Lebanon...”.
And he
assorted allegiance to Lebanon with two other principles, the first
being the preservation of the country’s unity and territorial
integrity, and the second precluding the domination of one section of
the Lebanese by another.
He expressed
these principles clearly, saying : “We are against any form of
partition of Lebanon, and against any combination that might grant one
party domination over another... for the essence of the Lebanese
question is that every person in the Orient suffering from persecution
should find a haven of security and freedom in this country.”
 Bashir was not unmindful
of the values which should constitute the starting point for all
Lebanese in their quest for the fulfillment of their aspirations. He
also specified the means to attain these, after he had defined the
principle of Lebanese identity. It was up to the Lebanese to be frank
and open with each other, bearing in mind that nations are built on
principles. And honorable principles should be proclaimed publicly and
openly, not hidden under a bushel... A clear outlook combined with
frankness, wisdom and truthfulness would pave the way for the Lebanese
to their national objectives. These values led Sheikh Bashir to say :
“We have always been accustomed to proclaim what we want loudly, and
to take the straight path towards the clear objectives that we seek to
attain. Let us shun the crooked path and devious methods, and not look
for noon at sunset. Especially in view of the fact that our actions
and our behavior contain nothing that we should be ashamed about, and
should therefore not arouse suspicion in others. We have always spoken
the plain unvarnished truth, and avoided prevarication and deceit.”
It is clear
that the presence in Lebanon of citizens who believe in this country,
whose absolute allegiance to it is undoubted and undivided, who know
their national duties and aims, and who pursue these aims honorably,
is an asset , and constitutes a basis for their dealings with each
other. Such qualities in the Lebanese citizen also forms a basis for
their dealings with other countries, and with groups concerned by the
Lebanese question. Such a desirable position would enable us, alone,
to “save Philip Habib from the quagmire in which he has been wallowing
for so long,” said Bashir. “Indeed, said Bashir, it would also save
Israel, Syria, Palestinians, the Lebanese Muslim, the Christians, and
all those involved in this crisis from the pitfalls into which they
have fallen. Only we can save ourselves and others from the
quicksand's that engulf them here...”
Thus, it is
true to say that many of Sheikh Bashir Gemayel’s attitudes in domestic
affairs can better be understood when correlated with some factors of
foreign policy of which he was fully cognizant. But it would similarly
be correct to say, by juxtaposition, that many of his attitudes in
foreign policy were inspired by Lebanon’s internal situation... for in
this matter did Bashir elaborate his principles of foreign policy, to
form an extension of domestic affairs and events occurring on the
local scene. In this, he also contrived to defend his internal policy
through his contacts abroad, and to put across the true picture of
events in Lebanon. Bashir wanted Lebanon to remain united. But he
realized that those who wanted to solve the Middle-East problem at the
expense of Lebanon were doing their level best to partition it. So he
fought partition by unification. In this connection, he expressed his
views frankly, saying : “We are in a position today - and I say we,
alone - to proclaim a separate State. This is a fond hope entertained
by others, in order to justify their establishment of a ‘settlement
state’ within our borders... but this hope has been dashed to the
ground. We shall not make such a move, not today, not tomorrow, not
ever.”
Bashir
further realized that the provocation of sectarian strife could be one
of the means used by the enemy, in fact, the only means, to partition
Lebanon by creating ‘mini sectarian states’ on part of its soil. To
forestall this, he called on all the Lebanese to ensure and safeguard
the basic right to existence of every citizen on Lebanese soil,
regardless of his denominational identity or creed.
And first and
foremost, the right to exist means that no Lebanese should attack
another Lebanese just because he belongs to a different religion than
his own. Expressing this principle in clear terms, Bashir said :
“Lebanon belongs to the Muslims and to the Christians equally, but
within the framework of the Constitution, and this should prevent the
recurrence of sectarian massacres such as those we have already
endured.”
Expounding
his views on Lebanon’s internal problems, on the basis of the above
principle, Bashir added a brief review of the situation of religious
minorities in other countries surrounding Lebanon : “Whenever the
Copts are persecuted in Egypt, the Shi’ites in Iraq, the Sunnites in
Iran, and the Christians generally in the Orient, we can say that the
model Lebanese formula has failed in those countries.”
In this
context, Bashir’s logic rested on the following considerations :
Firstly : There exists a problem in the Middle-East, which is the
Palestinian question. In the opinion of some people, the solution to
this questions lies in the partition of Lebanon.
Secondly :
According to others, the partition of Lebanon cannot be achieved
unless this country is disintegrated into small ethnical and sectarian
entities.
Thirdly :
According to Sheikh Bashir, the only effective means of countering the
nefarious aims of the others, is to eradicate religious persecution in
Lebanon and elsewhere.
Fourthly :
The salvation of Lebanon and the preservation of its unity can only be
achieved by separating the Lebanese question from the Palestinian
problem, and by giving it the highest priority on the agenda of all
the problems of the Middle-East.
This
standpoint was proclaimed to a vast local and international audience
at a Conference held in Beit-Mery on April 2, 1982. The International
Conference for Solidarity with Lebanon.
At this
conference, Bashir assured his guests that peace and security in the
Middle-East could only start from Lebanon, by dissociating the
Lebanese question from the Palestinian problem in particular, and the
Middle-East problem in general.
Lebanon and
the Arab countries.
Many have
taxed Bashir Gemayel with having adopted a hostile attitude towards
the Arab Countries. Such suspicions stem from the fact that many of
those who believe this did not distinguish among the three levels of
Bashir’s policy related to Lebanon’s relations with the Arab States.
The first of these levels was based on a historical retrospective of
Lebanon’s relations with its environment in the past. This outlook can
be correlated to history and civilization, for Bashir considered that
Lebanese civilization was among the oldest in history, dating back six
thousand years. He said : “We Lebanese are six thousand years old; and
we are proud of our civilization and ancient heritage. We know what we
shall do to defend them and preserve them.”
One can
therefore conclude that Lebanon’s civilization is anterior to the
appearance of both Christianity and Islam, which followed much
later... And Bashir, as a Christian, cited facts in history that start
with the emergence of Christianity. Speaking of the persecution by the
Roman pagans of Christians, he said : “We, who are witnessing here
today for all the Christians of the world, confirm that it is logical
for us to die , as the early Christians died at the hands of the
Romans, witnessing for their Christian Faith and beliefs...”
Bashir was
not ignorant of the fact that Christians had been subjected to
religious persecution throughout history, and of the atrocities that
had been committed against them, especially during the Ottoman rule.
He therefore firmly believed that Lebanon should be a haven of peace
and a refuge against all forms of persecution. “A country, he said,
where we can live without bowing our heads to the ground, a place
where nobody can come and tell us : ‘Wear a turban or die’ as they did
during the rule by the Turks...”
The second
level at which Bashir considered relations with the Arab countries was
the legal level, governed by International Law, and by a set of
protocol clearly defining the relations of the Lebanese State with its
Arab neighbours. In this respect, one should not forget that Bashir
had legal training and a barrister’s background. Once, during an
interview with a reporter of a local newspaper, on June 23, 1981, he
was asked : “would you have liked to be another person?” with his
customary frankness he replied : “Yes, Bashir Gemayel the lawyer!”
The State is
defined as ‘a moral personality’, deriving its power from the
Legislature... It is, as men of Lay say in legal jargon, ‘The
institution of institutions, meaning by that of course that the State
is the higher authority which organizes the affairs of all the other
social institutions of the country. Among the State’s prerogatives as
an Institution are : unity and authority over its territory, and
sovereignty with regard to all other nations. Those are the three
attributes of an independent State : Unity (territorial integrity),
the exercise of authority, and national sovereignty. And upon these
basic principles, Bashir developed his
dealing with all other States, whether Arab or non-Arab. He rejected
all plans to splinter the State into mini-sectarian enclaves, and
adamantly refused to allow any other authority in Lebanon except that
of the Lebanese State itself, or to tolerate that any State should
flout Lebanon’s sovereignty or slight its dignity in any manner...
These were the immutable principles which guided all Bashir’s actions
and policies. He enlarged upon them in a speech on the occasion of the
celebration of the forty-fifth anniversary of the foundation of the
Kataeb Party, in which he stated :
“The
restoration of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity over
all its land, and the re-instatement of the State’s complete and
inalienable authority over every inch of that territory, and finally,
the creation of circumstances that will enable the State to exercise
that authority in a stable, decisive and absolute manner henceforth
constitute the essential factors and prerequisites to any solution of
the Lebanese crisis”.
Within the
context of this outlook, and contrarily to what many people believed,
Bashir assured everybody of “Lebanon’s integration into its
environment and the affiliation of the Lebanese State to the League of
Arab Nations”... ( of which it was one of the founding members).
Bashir did
not stop at that: in a speech delivered on August 27, 1981, he assured
his audience of Lebanon’s opening on to the Arab World, and its close
links with it.
Now, what are
the issues that formed the bone of the contention between Bashir and
the Arabs? In his dealing with the Arabs, Bashir flatly rejected any
intervention in Lebanon’s internal affairs. He declared : “we have
never interfered in anybody’s affairs, whereas everybody is
interfering in ours!” ... similarly, he was very sensitive about the
State’s dignity and authority, and hated any country -Arab or
otherwise - that committed an affront to that dignity ; he stated :
“The whole of Lebanon’s territory is included in the principles of
sovereignty, unity and independence.” And naturally, he energetically
rejected any form of trusteeship or guardianship over Lebanon from
whatever quarter it might come. “We insist on being really independent
in our own country, he said, and that means that no foreign minister
of any Arab or non-Arab State can take the liberty of setting himself
up as our guardian or custodian...” (an allusion to Abdul-Halim
Khaddam, Syrian Foreign Minister, whose comings and goings were
notorious...).
As for the
third level at which Bashir conceived his policies, this was the
practical level, i.e., the level of practical and rational solutions.
In these, Bashir considered that the greater part of the remedies for
Lebanon’s ills existed. For during his long struggle Bashir had always
avoided nebulous forms of thought and fought political prevarication
and expediency. He used two weapons to combat these chronic vices : a
standpoint based on principles, and practical solutions. When he was
asked one day to define his ideology on the basis of a specific trend
of thought, he answered : “I am not a thinker, I can describe myself
as a practical man of action. I feel close to the human outlook on
life... to the individualistic philosophy, which distinguishes a
dignified and upright person.” If we give preference to the rule of
practicality in Bashir’s statements, rather than to that of
principles, we will see that in practice, he effectively tried to
realize the humane aspects of man and his dignity on the basis of a
moral criterion : the criterion of righteousness. This is a fact that
many people have not grasped in Bashir, especially those who accused
him of hostility, because they wished to foster their own interests at
the expense of Lebanon’s interests, and in disparagement of the
dignity of its people. They consequently accused Bashir of being ‘a
valet of imperialism’, a ‘stipendiary of such and such a power’, and
many other similarly ridiculous charges. It was common knowledge that
Bashir was the promoter of a Cause, the defender of his country’s
dignity, and a man of principles; as such, he could never have been a
‘valet’ or a ‘stipendiary’ to anybody, as all his actions were
dictated by the interests of Lebanon, and Lebanon alone. He proclaimed
this principled standpoint more than once, and with utter frankness,
in and address on June 27, 1980 :
“We are not
anybody’s agents or valets. We are Lebanese, and the path we follow,
and the actions we undertake will be solely dictated by our national
interests. We are not inhibited by any complexes, and we fear nobody.
We are Lebanese, and as such, we shall seek to foster our interests.”
Here, it
should be specified that Sheikh Bashir never antagonized anyone just
for the sake of making an enemy, but on the other hand, he was quick
at seeking confrontation with anybody who threatened the country’s
interests, whether consciously, or inadvertently. In his opinion,
those who harmed Lebanon consciously were dastardly knaves, and those
who did it unawares were bloody fools... and the former were as guilty
as the latter, of “crimes against the nation”.
His good
nature however made him quick at resuming friendly relations with
those had previously shown hostility, and had then come to their
senses and revised their attitude towards the Lebanese cause,
displaying sympathy and comprehension for it. This applies to the Arab
States, the Palestinian problem, Israel, the European States
(including France and the USSR), the States of the American Continent
and chiefly among these, the United States. Bashir’s attitudes of
cordiality and hostility were selective : they were dictated by the
extent to which such or such a group, party, or State had inflicted
harm on Lebanon or slighted its dignity. He therefore opposed all
those who were against Lebanon, and extended a friendly hand to those
who supported it, or, at worst, did nothing to harm it...
Lebanon and
the Palestinian Problem
Bashir’s
attitude towards the Palestinian question was not dictated by a spirit
of vengeance, or hatred. In this context, his logic was clear to all
those who face the facts honestly, squarely and courageously. Bashir
was well aware of the fact that Lebanese society was full of
contradictions, and that the presence of the Palestine Resistance in
Lebanon was likely to act as a detonator to those contradictions.
Furthermore,
he knew that the social structure of the country was formed along
sectarian lines, and that there was no ignoring the facts : Lebanon
was a melting-pot of ethnical and confessional groups.
Historians
and Social Researchers have established the fact that every ethnical
or religious group clings to its specific features and identity. Any
contrary assertion constitutes a falsification of the factual
sociological islamo-Christian realities.
Hence, the
racial and religious kaleidoscope could be equated to a keg of
gunpowder, ready to blow up at the first spark... And it became
obvious that the Palestinian armed presence in Lebanon was the factor
most likely to provide that spark !
Besides its
potential role as a detonator, the Palestinian presence was of a
nature to prevent any restructuration of Lebanese society along lines
of harmonious compatibility, rather than a pattern of latent hostility
and potential clashes between conflicting communities.
This is
mainly why Bashir adopted a hostile attitude to the Palestine
Resistance, for their exploitation of the internal contradictions to
their own ends. During the forty years of independence, the unique
Lebanese “Formula of ‘43’” had been unshakable, and had kept the
Lebanese of all races and sects living in harmony, in spite of a few
minor incidents of an isolated nature... and now the Philistines had
come to tear it apart, and with it, the whole country!
If we follow
Sheikh Bashir’s policy towards the Palestine Resistance, we will find
that it describes and ascending curve. At first, he had invited them
as guests in Lebanon, asking them to organize their presence in a
disciplined and orderly manner, and to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty
and the authority of the State. Bashir gives a brief outline of these
events, in chronological sequence :
“The
Palestinians are guests here, and they should behave as guests, not as
masters, or as a state within a State, and an army above their host’s
Army...”. Again, on the forty-fifth anniversary of the Kataeb Party,
he called for “order and discipline in the ranks of the Palestine
Liberation Organization and its various splinter-groups, and respect
for Lebanon’s complete sovereignty. “He appealed to the P.L.O. to heed
his call, so that relations between the Lebanese and the Palestinians
might move from the stage of chronic hostility to one of trust and
respect, in keeping with the requirements of the phased Palestinian
presence in Lebanon. Sheikh Bashir particularly called attention to
his use of the world “phased presence”, because what was originally to
be a temporary halt in the host country had later turned out to be a
permanent settlement or squatting of an unwanted rabble. Bashir
reiterated his hospitality towards the “guests” and the absence of any
feelings of enmity, saying that all he was concerned with was the
Lebanese cause. He added : “ We have no desire to throw these people
into the sea, or to annihilate them. All we ask of them is to start
looking for another land to settle on , outside the Lebanese
territory.”
Bashir
therefore called upon the PLO to remove... “all the signs of
implantation that had so far been achieved on Lebanese soil, and which
the PLO had carefully tried to hide from local public opinion, as well
as from Arab and international opinion, through their mendacious
declarations, denying everything, and making statements that were in
flagrant contradiction with the patent facts.”
Bashir
reflected upon the immediate consequences of an eventual Palestinian
settlement in the areas occupied by their armed forces, and came to
the conclusion that this would inevitably lead to a partition of
Lebanon. He used the “stick and the carrot” alternately : “Be smart,”
he told them, “if the outer world notes your inclination to settle in
this area, all those who were actively lobbying for your cause will
become lukewarm and conclude that they need no longer bother to seek a
homeland for the Palestinians, since these have chosen implantation on
Lebanese soil...”
Sheikh Bashir
therefore held the PLO leaders responsible for any consequences that
might result from their policy aiming at linking the fate of South
Lebanon with that of the West Bank. He asked them - and his question
turned out to be a prophecy - “If a point of no-return is reached,
then a call to Israel for help might become urgent, and a critical
situation would develop. But who will be responsible for that ? The
PLO leadership alone shall bear the responsibility and nobody else.
Therefore, get out of Lebanon while the going’s good”
Lebanon &
Syria
Bashir’s
fears of Syria were due to several causes. First and foremost among
these came Syria’s overt wish to annex Lebanon, or, at best, to make
it resolve in the Syrian orbit, if it did not succeed in annexing it.
Bashir clarified this point further by outlining the fact that all the
textbooks in Syria’s schools describe Lebanon as “a district of
Greater Syria”. And this was something that Bashir rejected outright
“because the Lebanese simply won’t hear of a Grater Syria at the
expense of Lebanon.”
As for the
entry of Syrian troops into Lebanese territory, Bashir summarized the
objectives which Syria had proclaimed, to justify its action, and the
presence of its forces on Lebanese soil, as follows :
-Firstly :
“To put an end to the massacres being perpetrated in the mountains and
the fighting among Lebanese...”
-Secondly :
“To help the Lebanese State in restoring law and order in the
country...”
-Thirdly :
“To restrain the PLO’s activities in Lebanon, in order to facilitate
the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict...”
Yet, rather
than pursue the three objectives mentioned above, the Syrian State
sought to dominate Lebanon, and instead of reconciling the conflicting
Lebanese groups with each other - one if its declared aims - it drove
a wedge between them by adding fuel to the flames, and intensifying
the hostility existing between the Lebanese Muslims and Christians...
Furthermore, instead of backing the Lebanese State, it merely imposed
its will on the Army, the Security Forces, and all the State’s
Institutions... In addition to which, it turned Lebanon into a
battlefield for a “fight to the finish” between Egypt with its
peaceful solution, and Syria, with its rejection of any separate peace
moves...”
Not only did
Syria never fulfil any of the three main objectives it had defined, to
justify its entry into Lebanon, but its armed presence in the country,
with that of its Palestinian allies, constituted a serious danger to
Lebanon’s unity and territorial integrity, because it became a “de
facto” party to the conflict between the two Arab occupants and
Israel. Thus Syria alleged that the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon was a
strategic zone upon which its security depended, whereas Israel also
considered that valley as being vital to its own security.
 Sheikh
Bashir considered that if Lebanon assumed the sole responsibility of
security in the Bekaa Valley, this would calm everybody’s fears and
set their minds as rest, besides the fact that it would consolidate
the unity of Lebanon. It would also restore Lebanon’s sovereignty over
its territory. Furthermore, strong sovereign Lebanon would be the only
factor capable of safeguarding its neighbours’ borders. In line with
this outlook, Bashir declared himself in favour of undertaking any
talk with the Syrian State that might be conducive to the welfare of
both parties and lead to a better understanding between them. These
contacts however, should be based on the following principles : No
special agreements with Syria; no security, political, military or
economic accords whatsoever. This attitude, Bashir explained was
dictated by considerations of Lebanese sovereignty : Syria was an
independent State, andso was Lebanon, and relations between them
should be conducted on a basis of equal to equal. Lebanon has similar
relations of mutual respect with all the Arab and non-Arab States, and
does not see any point in granting especial privileges to any one
State in particular, as this would make Lebanon a party to inter-state
rivalries and political struggles in which it has no interest to be
involved. Therefore, what is required is to establish relations with
Syria exactly like those that exist with any other Arab or world
State... And for its part, Lebanon would undertake to abide by the
following principles:
-Firstly :
Non-interference in Syria’s internal affairs or involvement of any
kind in the struggles going on in that country.
-Not to
become a security hazard to Syria, whether this be through the
activities of Syrians formerly persecuted in their own country, and
now living as political refugees in Lebanon, or through military
dangers threating its borders.
As a
counterpart, Syria should relinquish any plans of annexation of parts
of Lebanese territory, and withdraw its troops from Lebanon.
Lebanon and
Israel.
Sheikh Bashir
defined his attitude towards Israel clearly : “This is our answer with
regard to our relations or our dealings with Israel : We are not
anybody’s agents or lackeys, we are Lebanese. As for the Israeli arms
present in the country, this can be explained by the fact that some
villages might have felt themselves threatened, and were cornered into
getting supplies from anywhere that might be convenient including
Israel. When a person feels threatened by danger, he will accept help
from the devil...! A very critical situation would develop if we were
forced to turn towards Israel for help...”
As for his
attachment to the South of Lebanon, Bashir expressed this by appealing
to all “to work for the preservation of the Lebanese identity in the
South. This can best be done by a State initiative to provide them
this neglected region with the basic social services, education, and
development, all of which are sorely lacking, and to ask the State to
restore its full sovereignty over the South, in all its forms.”
Concerning
the Syro-Palestino-Israeli conflict on the battlefields of Lebanon, it
was obvious that the three belligerents were fighting to impose the
solution that would best serve their interests, exploiting the
Lebanese situation in the process. Whereas what Bashir was concerned
with, first and foremost, was to find solutions that would enable the
Lebanese to recover their land and save the people from their present
tribulations. In this connection he said : “It is now a matter of
competition, a race between Syrian moves, Palestinian moves and
Israeli action, and the one who wins the race will be able to solve
the Lebanese problem radically. As for us, we have taken a decision :
we want to recover our territorial integrity, our national sovereignty
and the freedom of our people.”
Before the
Israeli incursion into Lebanon, Bashir invited the Lebanese to solve
their problems through dialogue : “We want to reach a satisfactory
outcome of our crisis through dialogue, because if we attain a
solution through coercion, it will mean nothing...” He advised the
Lebanese people not to put too much store on the arrival of the
Israeli army to settle their problems, because they may come, just as
they may not... And if they do come, then maybe their presence might
be contrary to our interests... there is nothing to guarantee that
their coming might be consistent with our own outlook...”
When the
Israelis decided on invading Lebanon, Bashir called the people’s
attention, saying : “We should all realize that the Israeli operation
was carried out at the time and place chosen by them... if Israel has
entered our country, it is not to save us, but to further its own
interests, and for purely Israeli considerations. We mean absolutely
nothing to them, it is their security that comes first.” Just before
the Israeli incursion, Bashir defined his standpoint thus : “We have
decided to rally around President Sarkis, and to place all our
possibilities at his service ; we shall cooperate with him, and avoid
all political or military involvement...”
And after the
Israeli invasion, he said : “Israel’s battle is not our own : the
Israelis have come to settle their own scores not ours.” When he was
asked his opinion about the signature of a peace treaty with Israel,
he explained his views on the matter in conjunction with the following
interrelated factors :
-Firstly : No
unilateral decision has been taken in this matter.
-Secondly : A
strong Lebanese Government should be in power, one that is capable of
dealing with this subject.
-Thirdly :
There should be a prior understanding among all the Lebanese
concerning this.
-Fourthly :
We should reach an understanding with all friendly Arab states about
it
-Fifthly : An
understanding with all other friendly governments is also necessary.
Bashir
explained that two basic principles would have to govern any action of
this kind :
-Firstly :
Not one inch of Lebanese territory should be ceded in the peace
process to any party whatsoever.
-Secondly :
The armed presence of the Israeli forces would still be considered as
a foreign occupation, because such a presence, along with that of
other armed foreign forces on Lebanese soil would be undesirable, and
should cease. An end must be put to all alien presence in our country,
and the sooner, the better.”
Lebanon and
the United States of America:
The relations
between Lebanon and the United States had a high priority rating on
Sheikh Bashir’s agenda, and occupied a sizeable portion of his time
and efforts. At one stage of the Lebanese crisis, Bashir openly
accused the United States of working towards the partition of Lebanon.
This charge was leveled at the USA in a reply which he gave to those
who were accusing him of seeking the partition of Lebanon on a
sectarian basis. With the utmost frankness he declared :
“There are
some wicked tongues and people of bad faith who have branded me as the
champion of partition. When we took control of the eastern zone of
Beirut, they explained this as ‘partition’.... and said that the
Americans will be happy, because they could now slice the cake, and
give a piece to all the jolly jokers who where waiting for their
share, : a slice to the Palestinians (thus taking them off the backs
of the Jews...),a
slice to the
Syrians (to woo them away from the Kremlin...), and a slice to the
Israelis (to win over the Jewish lobby in the States...). And then we
would be bundled into the ‘ghetto’ of the Kesrouan, or forced to
emigrate...”
In the
context of Lebanon’s partition, Bashir had much to say, and he did so
on several occasion. In fact, some of his views on this crucial
subject were noteworthy, particularly when he denounced Henry
Kissinger’s plan to solve the Middle-East problems. He vituperated :
“If Henry Kissinger is so fond of the Palestinians, he can give them
one of his 50 States ! But certainly has no right to decide the fate
of a people to which he does not belong, or to be generous with a land
that is not his own!”
Bashir’s
accusations against the United States were not restricted to matters
of partition only, but encompassed other issues as well, some aimed at
solving the Palestine problem, others detrimental to the interests of
Lebanon, and all, in bulk, savouring of a clean-cut policy to uproot
the Lebanese from their land... He charged the State Department with
shortsightedness and duplicity : “They have given priority to
everybody’s problems but ours : to solve the Palestine problem, they
want to give Syria a slice of Lebanon to make up for the Golan Heights
: Israel would get its fair share too. And the Christians would end up
between the Metn and the Kesrouan districts... and if anybody
does'nt’t like it, he can clear out, and immigrate with his family to
California, like the Vietnamese boat-people!”
In addition
to this, Bashir was convinced that the Americans considered the
Lebanese as a backward underdeveloped people who are in need of a
guardian to exercise some form of trusteeship over them. He stated : -
“Ther are many who brand us as ‘isolationists’... others call us
feeble-minded imbeciles, arguing that we do not deserve self-rule and
are incapable of handling our own affairs.... Some voices, even if the
USA were heard to express these opinion.”
Bashir
positively states that a certain stage of the crisis, the USA had
adopted a policy favouring the aggressions against the Lebanese
Christians in their predominantly Christian regions, and denied them
the basic right to defend themselves.
He complained
: “When our Christian district of Ashrafieh was being shelled night
and day, when our people were being slaughtered and our families had
to spend days and weeks in bomb-shelters, with women and children
going hungry and thirsty and lacking the basic essentials of life, the
USA was condemning our resistance and denouncing our steadfastness.
This is tantamount to condoning the aggression against us...”. In this
connection, Bashir considered that the Lebanese Resistance was, in a
way, a form of resistance against American policies which tented to
empel the Lebanese, willy-nilly, to acquiesce to its plans for the
area : “We are now also confronting America which is out for our blood
: It wants to sacrifice us on the altar of the Middle-East question,
in order to implement its plans over our dead bodies...” And to the
resistance fighters he said : “Train well, and fight hard, for the
Americans want to partition our land, and all the west is conspiring
against us, to carve up our country...”
This was the
negative aspect of Lebanon’s relations with the United States. It now
remains to be seen how these negative relations developed into
positive and friendly contacts later on.
The
harmonization of views between the United States and Lebanon (or, more
specifically, the State Department and Sheikh Bashir Gemayel), is due
to a radical transformation in U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis the
Lebanese question, taken as an incidence of the more global
Middle-East problem. At first, the United States had considered the
Lebanese question as part of the broader Middle-East problem, and
therefore felt that the latter should have precedence over the former.
Whereas Sheikh Bashir considered that the solution of the Lebanese
question was the key to the settlement of the more global Middle-East
issue. Longing the solution of the former to the latter would
therefore relegate the solution of the Lebanese question ad infinitum.
And this, in turn, would expose Lebanon to numerous dangers, the most
imminent being the quest for a solution to the Middle-East at the
expense of Lebanon. Furthermore, it had become obvious that the
Middle-East would not regain stability unless peace and stability were
first restored to Lebanon. This is how Bashir expressed it : “We are
the Saints and the demons of the Middle-East, we hold the olive-branch
in one hand and the sword in the other. We can wield the flame-thrower
just as skillfully as the extinguisher... The area is a keg of
gunpowder, and we hold the match in our hands.... If Lucifer wants to
breathe his flames on our necks, we can set the whole of Hades
ablaze.... So beware of any solution to the problem that does not take
historical facts and the peculiarities of the Lebanese war into
consideration.”
When
Alexander Haig, U.S. state secretary, subsequently declared that the
fact of restoring peace and security to Lebanon would achieve the same
result for all the countries of the region, Bashir wholeheartedly
agreed with him and supported the new policy of the United States
saying : “Mr. Alexander Haig is quite right in proclaiming this new
attitude loud and clear. In fact, that its exactly what we have been
saying for the past seven years!”
Bashir did
not minimize the role of the Lebanese communities in the USA : he
considered that his fellow-Lebanese living in the United States had an
important role to play, and distinguished two stages in this context :
the first stage, in which the Lebanese overseas communities would not
play any role at all, i.e. the passive stage; and a positive stage in
which they would promote the cause of their father land and lobby for
a modification in U.S. foreign policy dealing with Lebanon. He said :
“Two years ago, we were not present in the American Forum. The
Palestinians have their lobby, so do the Jews, the Kurds and the
Copts... As for us, whenever a representative of this country goes to
the States, it is usually to collect donations to fix the belfry of
such or such a Church, or to obtain a grant for some school or other
in a village... But when our presence there became larger, people
began to sit up and take interest in the Lebanese Cause...”
Bashir’s
approach was not limited to this alone : he called for an efficient
reorganiztion of the overseas Lebanese collectivities in the United
States because, according to his views, they represented a
non-negligible source of political and financial power. He suggested :
“There is a vital necessity to reorganize the groups of Lebanese
emigrants in a practical and modern manner, in order to create our own
lobby, to promote the cause of our country in America. We cannot
ignore the fact that the United States constitute the world’s center
of gravity and that their influence in the Middle-East conflict is
preponderant.” He stressed the importance of maintaining the best
relations with the United States, particularly in Lebanon itself
through the medium of U.S. Ambassador Philip Habib and the United
States’ Embassy in Beirut. No effort must be neglected to enlist the
active political support of the greatest nation in the world for the
Lebanese cause. Bashir was confident that such good relations existed
already:... “We entertain excellent relations with Philip Habib, with
the United States’ Embassy in Beirut, and with the State Department in
Washington through our offices abroad. We enjoy close relations with
all the centers of power and gravity throughout the world.”
With regard
to Ambassador Philip Habib’s mission in Lebanon, Bashir expressed the
wish to see these efforts continue : “I hope that Ambassador Habib’s
mission here will be pursued until we clear up all our problems with
his help. In our present predicament we Lebanese are in dire need of
friendship from abroad, to assist up in overcoming our difficulties
and help us stand on our feet again...”
Bashir’s
concern for the Lebanese problem did not prevent him for one instant
from feeling preoccupied about the general Middle-East issue, and
wishing to see it solved in a satisfactory manner. This was manifest
in his attitude to the Egypto-Israeli Camp David accords, which
“demonstrated that the people of this region are thirsting for peace,
and that its conclusion was in the interests of both parties”...
Lebanon and
the European States
Relations
between Lebanon and the European States deteriorated because the
latter also tried to solve the Middle-East problem at the expense of
Lebanon. In addition to this factor, many European countries had
adopted the obsequious policy of fawning on the Arab States in order
to secure their oil supplies. This was done, of course, at the expense
of the Christians, of their security, their very existence. Bashir
referred to both these factors in one of his speeches :
“Europe and
many other States are not able to digest the Christian presence in
this corner of the world, because it is a stumbling-block to most of
their ambitions in this area... The Americans and the West have not
yet assimilated the fact that we, the Christians of the Orient,
represent their last line of defense against a return to the dark
ages, against terror and blind fundamentalism, against those who seek
to annihilate all the values of civilization and of their culture...
Today, they want to ‘sell us down the river’ for a barrel of oil!”...
These two
factors led Bashir to condemn the West in these words : “The West,
today, is showing signs of decadence in its policies, in its morals,
in its economy.”
In his
tirade, Bashir did not omit France, and he frankly blamed it for the
servile attitude of its former Foreign Minister, Louis de Guiringaud.
“Periodically, we were fighting in self-defense here while De
Guiringaud and Mondale were criticizing us for standing firm and
calling us all sorts of names, alleging that we were a band of outlaws
who deserved to be punished...” Yet, in spite of all this, Bashir
reaffirmed Lebanon’s affiliation to the Western democracies : “We are
a part of the Free World”, he said, and he declared that he was
attached to the maintenance of good relations between Lebanon and
France, because these were based on a sentimental background of
intimate friendship and common interests between the two peoples,
going far back in history.
For
centuries past, these relations have been characterized by harmony and
sincerity, and Lebanon has always shared France’s moral principles of
“Fraternity-Liberty-Equality”. Another European State that drew
Bashir’s attention was West-Germany ; he considered that this country
was likely to consolidate Lebanon’s independence and participate in
its development, while supporting its territorial integrity and
national sovereignty. Furthermore, he discovered, in the policies of
the German Christian-Democrats, several analogies with his own
personal views on liberty, justice, dignity humanity, democracy,
plurality and social security.
In the
context of Lebanon’s relations with the Soviet Union, Bashir outlined
the positive possibilities that could exist in the nature of these
relations. He emphasized the ideological aspects in the links that
could be established between the two States, and the ideological
difference existing between Lebanon and the Soviet Union, specifying
however, that this should not prevent Russia from playing a positive
role in solving the Lebanese crisis, especially as the Soviets seem to
be intent on having role in Lebanon. And they can certainly play this
role, together with the Americans, bearing in mind however that
Lebanon is nobody’s picnic-ground, nor is it an administrative
department of either of the superpowers, whether Soviet or American...
And despite
the fact that an eventual Sovieto-American role in solving the
Lebanese crisis was of major importance with regard to the
Middle-East, Bashir was not so inclined to leave the matter to these
two powers alone, or to any other power by itself : he entertained
hopes for an international solution to the Lebanese question. In line
with this outlook, he invited all parties and States having direct or
indirect link with events in Lebanon - and first and foremost among
these, Syria, the Arab States, the USA, the Soviet Union, the other
great powers, and the United Nations, to guarantee Lebanon’s political
existence.
When Sheikh
Bashir Gemayel, the lawyer, left his barrister’s office in Hamra
street in April 1975, he had a feeling that he was to become the
staunch pillar of a nation confronted with all sorts of challenges
from without, and intolerable excesses committed by foreigners within
its borders. But what Bashir was unaware of at the time, was that Fate
had chosen him to become, one day, the leader of the Lebanese people
in their long march throuthout the most critical crisis of their
history.
In fact, the
lengthy war, on that tiny battleground assumed divers forms, and the
burden fell on him, at every stage, to think, to take decisions, and
to act on them. For he was the popular leader in whom all hopes had
been placed, and dreams had been built on his own ambitions. But he
was careful to ensure that every step taken should be effective and
produce the desired result. It was therefore necessary for him to be
thoroughly acquainted with all the constituent elements of Lebanon,
whether social, economic political, or cultural ; he would have to
study their nature, and analyze their content. Then, he would strive
to correct their course, to amend their deficiencies, and eliminate
their imperfections.... and these reforms would be applied as a cure
for Lebanon’s numerous ills. Bashir’s task was by no means an easy
one, particularly when one considers the confused and involved nature
of the relations between the various Lebanese individuals and
communities ever since the proclamation of the National Charter in
1943 (just after Independence). In fact, it was this same muddled
confusion that ignited the first sparks of war, and threatened to
obliterate the country’s entity. What Bashir had to tackle, in short,
was a complex political, social and geographical jigsaw puzzle, under
which a lighted fuse was burning... It was first of all necessary to
identify the multifarious elements, to diagnose their ailments, to
reject the rotten parts, and to strengthen the sound ones, developing
them into useful and productive components of a diseased whole. Bashir
further considered it necessary to propose a restructuration of the
relations between the disparate elements of Lebanese society, based on
the factorial appurtenance of its constituents. Briefly, a
redistribution of the political cards, and a remodeling of the
demographic blend that would endure the test of time and at worst, be
crisis-proof.
These new
relations between the individuals and the collectivities forming the
Lebanese nation should, in Bashir’s view, be clear in their
characteristic traits, well-defined in their aims, unified in their
affiliation, and capable of ensuring the success of the Lebanese wager
and its perennity.
In addition
to the numerous answers furnished by the Resistance on various matters
of the hour, Bashir was also called upon to provide answers to the
most sensitive and delicate questions which troubled the minds of most
people. A good many Lebanese were outspoken, and aired their anxiety
openly : Was there really one single Lebanese society? What is the
Christian Lebanese community? What is the Muslim Lebanese community?
How should these two behave with each other? What is the role of the
State and the individual in this context?
In the
following lines, we shall strive to discover the elements that Bashir
considered appropriate for Lebanese society, basing our study on his
own statements and the positions he adopted since the outbreak of the
war in 1975, and right until the summer of 1982, when hope was kindled
a new in the hearts of the Lebanese people. A review of these
attitudes provides us with a clear picture of this leader, whose task
was not only to defend Lebanon’s dignity and honor, but went much
farther, to the reconstruction of a new nation, a stronger nation with
a greater capacity to resist perils and difficulties.
© Copyright 1998 Bashir
Gemayel Foundation
|
