Eliminate Syrian, Israeli Influence

By Peter J. Tanous

The fresh outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon is yet another testimony to the complexity and frustration surrounding any solution to the problems of this beleaguered country. The Christian leader, General Aoun, brought matters to a head following his successful attempt to consolidate power in East Beirut by bringing the Lebanese Forces militia and ports under his effective control. Following this move, General Aoun blockaded illegal ports in West Beirut, claiming that they too must be brought under legitimate authority, and that started the shelling which has since caused 300 deaths, the destruction of countless homes, and intolerable living conditions for those who remain trapped in these unbearable circumstances.

Since then, Lebanese communities in countries all over the world have raised their voices to enlist help against what they view as Syrian oppression and terrorism. The Lebanese are frustrated that the problem in Lebanon gets so little attention in the US media (although that has changed recently) and that the State Department seems to treat Lebanon with a diplomatic version of benign neglect. Questioners ask how the US can react so timidly to a possible confrontation with Syria, given that country's extreme hostility to the US.

The proffered answer is that the US has a secret plan afoot to resolve the entire Middle East conflict, and Syria is a major player in this scenario. To upset this elaborate plan just to save Lebanon would not make sense.

While understanding how this sort of theory can gain credence, I, for one, do not believe it. I was one of several people to meet with President Bush at the White House on April 21. At that meeting, the president expressed genuine and heartfelt concern for Lebanon and the Lebanese, and sought from us our opinions on how the US might help. Lebanese Ambassador to the US Abdallah Bouhabib asked the president for strong US support of the Arab League peace effort currently underway and, failing that initiative, a determined action at the United Nations. I told the president that many Lebanese fear they would be compromised by an overall peace initiative in the region. That day President Bush issued a new statement reaffirming the US commitment to a "free and sovereign" Lebanon. But the question remains: now what?

If there is going to be a solution to the Lebanese problem any time soon, we must start with three elements that most Lebanese can agree upon. First, the Lebanese believe that all foreign forces, principally Syria and Israel, must leave the country and not exert pressure on its leaders. Second, the Lebanese agree that constitutional reform is a necessary condition to reunification. Finally, the Lebanese believe that, left alone, they could solve their problems.

If all this is true, what prevents this rosy scenario from unfolding? In a word: timing. Christians would like the Syrians to leave before any negotiations take place, fearing that the Syrians will exert undue influence in the negotiating process over their Muslim clients. Many Muslims, on the other hand, fear that Syrian withdrawal would leave a vacuum which could lead to anarchy and lawlessness. On constitutional reform, Christians generally believe that a new president should be elected, one who is committed to constitutional reform, and then proceed with the reform process. Muslims prefer that reforms be agreed to prior to the election of a new leader.

To trained observers, these problems seem resolvable. But here is where the superpowers must play a role. The key issue is to allow the Lebanese to negotiate a solution to their problems without outside interference of any kind. The US has no interest in dictating what a new Lebanese constitution should look like, but we should have an interest in the process.

The role of the US should be to insure that the negotiations among Lebanese occur without Syrian or Israeli influence. If that means Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon (or at least Beirut), then so be it. Those who fear a vacuum should Syrian troops withdraw must have their concerns allayed by the interim substitution of more neutral forces, perhaps from the Arab League.

Now is a crucial time for the US to act on Lebanon's behalf. No US troops need be sent. We need to send a message instead. Syria must be convinced of US resolve to help Lebanon and ensure its freedom and sovereignty. Mild statements from the State Department will not do.

The US can show its resolve by backing the Arab League peace effort and reacting immediately should signs of intransigence develop. The next measure should include US sponsorship of a UN Security Council resolution and bilateral discussions with the USSR to provide joint pressure on Syria and Israel to withdraw permanently from Lebanon. If we must trust in one thing, let it be this: the Lebanese of all religions and beliefs are capable of resolving their problems and returning Lebanon to its shining example of democracy and peaceful coexistence if only we, as Americans, give them the chance.

Peter J Tanous is executive vice president and director of Bank Audi (USA) He serves as chairman of the American Task Force for Lebanon, an independent, nonsectarian organization of Americans of Lebanese descent.