Lebanon and Syria, and the future challenges of Arab states integration

It has become clear that Lebanon after its civil war is still incapable of functioning as an independent country and as a democracy. The reason for that is not the presence of foreign troops on Lebanese soil but rather the sheer incompetence of the Lebanese in understanding and practicing civics and democracy.

Lebanon is having a difficult time finding presidential candidates for its upcoming presidential elections. Since Lebanon is undergoing tremendous internal changes as it continues to come out of its civil war and is into its reconstruction process, Lebanon is not yet capable of providing for its own security in a real sense, be it internal or external.

Syria, invited into Lebanon by the Lebanese, has assumed much needed responsibility into bringing stability into Lebanon. Without stability, there is no hope of political or economic progress. Lebanon without Syria continues to be extremely vulnerable to internal strife, and external threats and pressures from Israel, which occupies part of south Lebanon and supports a renegade militia group called the South Lebanon Army.

Lebanon's internal vulnerability stems from many factors. While it was a Christian president with support from the Christian minority in Lebanon that called for Syrian intervention to save their forces during the civil war when Muslim militia groups where making rapid advances on their sectarian enclaves, the Christians currently harbor resentment against Syria that is not expressed publicly. The Lebanese Christians' feelings stem from the moral support the Lebanese in general have given to the Lebanese resistance (mostly Moslem) against Israel and the Israeli-supported renegade militia group in the south (mostly Christian), and from the lack of the political control that the Christians have been accustomed to exercising in the past.

Without clarifying that Lebanon endured a brutal and long lasting civil war where the Lebanese excelled at butchering each other in ways Genghis Khan would have been proud of, nothing we say here will make sense. The details of the brutality with which different religious and political sects dealt with each other is too gruesome to detail here. But cutting off ears and genitalia and placing them in the mouth of the innocent victim simply because they happen to have had a Christian or Muslim name does not begin to tell the story of the hate the Lebanese people expressed toward each other during the civil war. This from a Lebanon that has given the world so much from its Phoenician alphabet to Gibran Khalil Gibran to the beautiful mosaic of its religions groups and mini-cultures that at times of peace resembled the best in all of us.

Can the terrible past repeat itself? The answer is a definite yes. The same forces that existed in the past are still there in their completeness and complexities.

But one merely need focus on the greatest external threat of all: Israel. Israel desires instability in Lebanon for many reasons that have been explored on our pages, and we will not recite them beyond saying that they are many and strategic at the Lebanese level and the regional level. Israel would be very capable of playing the sectarian cards effectively without a Syrian presence in Lebanon, and without an effective Lebanese government and without he Lebanese people recognizing themselves as Lebanese first and not subject to religious and sectarian powers next.

But religion is a very personal matter, and many Lebanese view it as more important than loyalty to and love of country. This fact, strengthened by lack of civic education and practice, is the weakness in the construct of Lebanese tribal politics that has in the past and will continue to allow forces, foreign or domestic to destabilize Lebanon.

Without the Lebanese realizing that their fate is lumped together and their duty is to support the integrity and well-being of their country together, not much can be hoped for in building strong public and civic institutions that will allow Lebanon and the Lebanese independence and democracy as well as the freedom and economic benefits derived from them.

This means that all Lebanese should join to participate in expelling Israel from their territories and calling on the renegade militia group to surrender itself to the government. Due to past circumstances as a result of the civil war, exceptional measures may be considered in resolving the issue of the South Lebanon Army, and that is a subject for the Lebanese to determine, but a solution to this problem must be found that will express two fundamental points: that all of the Lebanese will be of one mind that treason is not allowed and that mercy can be expressed.

Also, all Lebanese leadership at every level must develop an understanding that can be communicated to citizens that their own protection and the protection of those who are in a minority status will not be successfully achieved through sectarianism and enshrining sectarianism in the constitution and in their daily practices. Political assignments based on religious affiliation should have no place in law. This may be inappropriate at this time of great turbulence, but there is no other long-term solution other than having the government run by competent individuals elected by the populous in general, regardless of their religious affiliation.

The government's function is to treat all equally. Strong protections in the constitution for individuals and the protection of people and minorities -- all minorities, without any enumeration is the only guarantee of protection for one and all. As long as religion is a factor in the functioning of Lebanon's government, religion will be a factor in Lebanese politics, thus dividing the Lebanese people along sectarian lines, instead of having them act in a civic manner.

When governments treat and respect all of their citizens in the same way, all of the citizens feel allegiance to the government that governs them; otherwise, resentment, factionalization and instability are only some of the negative consequences of a government that is biased according to religion. Arab states are mostly Moslem in population, and it was Islam that freed the slaves and spoke of equality and tolerance.

A presidential candidate is best if he has demonstrated qualities that he can implement such policies and institute such reforms. It is clear that the presidential candidates have to be approved by Syria, the most influential political power in Lebanon. Syria has paid a high price to bring stability to Lebanon. But there is more to Lebanon and Syria than mere two Arab states that are neighbors. Historically, the two states were one. Culturally, the two states are very similar. But the two countries have very different political and economic systems. Syria and Lebanon typify the problems that will be faced by many Arab states in the future as they inevitably start to integrate, first regionally, and then on a more comprehensive regional level.

Already, the Gulf states are on their way to economic integration, there is talk of Maghreb countries integration, and most recently Sudan expressing talk of integration with Egypt.

Though helped by a high standard of living and a peaceful environment, the Gulf Cooperation Council states are harmonizing their economic and Judicial institutions and bringing more political integration to some decisions. Political integration is always the hardest, and the least relevant at the beginning as every state feels a great threat to surrender some of its sovereignty even while knowing that there can be greater rewards.

But similarly, leaving political integration out preserves to each state its own way of life and local decision-making capabilities that is appropriate for its history and culture. Economic integration eventually leads to more harmonization of political integration. That is the case with Europe where the past problems of France, England and Germany are well known, yet they were able to move beyond them.

But with Syria and Lebanon, stronger coordination and integration face an additional challenge that will be faced by Arab states in general as they integrate their economies. The problem has to do with the fact that Lebanon has a free enterprise and capitalistic system, while major sectors of the Syrian economy are state-run. This is not a question of what is bad or what is good, but rather of how these two systems can more closely join together for the benefit of both states in such a manner that the best in each system survives, so that both countries will not end up with the worst parts of each of their respective systems.

Assume that there are two factories, one in Syria and one in Lebanon producing similar products. Does the Lebanese entrepreneur lose his factory because he cannot compete against a state-supported factory? Similarly, does a Syrian factory close down and its employees lose their jobs if a Lebanese factory is more efficient then its Syrian counterpart? How two economic systems integrate and transition is a matter that needs to be handled to the benefit of both countries, so that each side can see the benefits for itself. This task is not easy.

Greater economic integration is necessary between Lebanon and Syria as both countries will benefit from the greater markets, greater efficiency of production, higher standards of living and greater political clout that come with that, allowing for more political and social stability.

This matter calls for the best minds in both states to get together to see how this can be done.

Political integration falls on two levels, internal and external. External political integration is a given, as Lebanon and Syria's interests coincide for the most part and their security is effected by one another. Though Lebanon may have contemplated the benefit of some expediency in the past in dealing with Israel, Lebanon has learned that dealing with Israel is like dealing with the weather, as it changes its actions from day to day, and that only a long-term solution to Lebanon's problem is viable.

Internal integration is a more difficult task due to the different political systems in Syria and Lebanon. Syria is run by a ruling party system while Lebanon is an election-based system. Though Lebanon has claimed democracy as its system, its democracy has been corrupt, as elections have frequently been bought and arranged as is normal in all countries in their early stages of political development. Nonetheless, it is a foundation to build upon, and this inefficient political system in Lebanon has had the side benefit that the government has left the people alone to run their private schools and businesses, which produced a fairly robust business environment and a good educational system. The mismatch between the two states' internal political systems would prevent the much-needed openness that can be more readily achieved between Syria and Lebanon.

Lastly, there is the issue that even when the economic systems are similar, there may be different standards of living between the two states, as would be the case when Arab integration as a whole is considered.

There is very strong kinship and attachment between Lebanon and Syria that, like so many other countries in the area, were separated into pieces by the colonial powers in order to "divide and conquer" and to prevent sea-waterway access to the bigger and stronger part as in Syria and Iraq. But statehood is a fact of life today, and military invasions are not and should not be an acceptable solutions to integration.

Two countries can unify effectively only when both peoples want such a unity; otherwise, it is a recipe for disaster, and forcing the issue may have the opposite effect. This wide look at this subject of integration gives a hint of how to proceed. As Europe has done successfully after many wars they fought between them, they started out with economic integration that was continuously increased with harmonization of economic laws and judicial laws. Countries with lower Per Capita incomes received economic assistance. Then, free movement of labor, and then monetary union. Political union is being left for last, and will develop naturally and gradually as a result of the economic interests that will develop.

The tasks facing Lebanon and Syria in this regard and the decisions to be made now that effect future relations will demand the utmost skills to put theory and ideology into practice. Many will be watching this experiment and its development to see if Arab integration with all its difficulty is a task that can be accomplished with grace. Arab integration in the past has been an ideological exercise that was at the whim of whoever was in power, and very much a decision between two leaders.

It was political ideology undisciplined by economics, and a tool for internal and sometimes external politics. Politics undisciplined by economics is a very dangerous thing as it plays to the emotions of the masses without providing real and long-term solutions to problems. But politics disciplined by economics are no less easy, but necessary, as it requires explaining to the population in general what the government is doing and why. This takes considerable skill, and in less-developed economies where the education level is low, and practice and understanding of economics and its effects are not common, this task becomes more difficult and the leaders vulnerable to the "easy answers" that others choose to give, to gain political support, or to destabilize a country.

Integration is an option that many Arab states will be facing and will have to confront if they are to have developed economies that allow for internal and external stability as they face regional economic and political blocs. The benefits of such integration are considerable if done scientifically, and done to the benefit of all and with the consent of all. Whether and how things develop in this regard is the task ahead that face all people in position of leadership, but much experience is available for experts to learn from, and the past has shown that the Arabs were masters at learning from others and then innovating and adapting the innovations locally. The problems facing many in the Arab states were faced by many countries in their early development stage. Though some nations may benefit from a lack of long history, which can free that nation from traditions that may slow its development and adoption of new ideas, this same long history can be a tool for empowerment as well.

The Arab states laid witness to the greatest civilizations on earth and gave so much to world civilizations. They have proven in the past that they are capable of learning, building and contributing to the world.