Hazem Saghiyeh

From time to time, a Lebanese tune appears. Perhaps it comes from March 8, and perhaps it comes from March 14. The tune is this: We do not interfere in Syria’s affairs.
This kind of stance betrays a consciousness uniting a narrow-minded provincialism (which appears absurd in an intensely interlinked, globalized world) with a laughable self-identification with political authorities and their diplomatic dictionary. Because of this self-identification, the one making this argument – no matter who he is – behaves as if he is a foreign minister, forgetting that he is a human before he is Lebanese; a human who sympathizes with humans in their trials and tragedies.
One could say: We reject interference so that the Syrian regime does not interfere in our affairs, especially since we have already tasted the bitterness of such interference.

However, this argument is extremely foolish, not only because this regime has interfered and interferes without asking for permission, and regardless of the stances that the Lebanese take, but also because Syrian affairs have imposed themselves as a Lebanese issue. This is what we see in Wadi Khaled and likewise in the formation – or rather, non-formation – of Mikati’s cabinet. But we see it too in the attack of the Syrian regime’s henchmen on our liberties and right to free expression. There is no need to mention the clumsy accusations against Lebanese MPs, alleging that they play basic roles in the Syrian uprising, or the laughable claim that the Future Movement (and you having no idea of Future Movement’s combat power!) is shelling Tal Kalakh.

Whoever wants to be sure of this tremendous negative influence on our liberties should look at the repression of the Bristol Hotel conference, or before that the repression of the small gathering to light candles on Hamra Street in sympathy with Daraa and its victims. (How can one reconcile the parliamentarism of some Lebanese parties with their performance of such coarse militia roles?)

Taken together, these reasons and facts place us – for the thousandth time – face-to-face with the greatest truth: The Lebanese regime cannot be stable, despite its small amount of democracy, without the establishment of another Syrian regime that has at least a minimal amount of democracy. Let us remember that Syria encircles us from the north and east, and that our land crossings to the world, and the world’s crossings to us, are controlled by Syria.

So let us stop this provincial and merciless absurdity at once, not to mention its inflated self-image. Let us stop this and think about achieving two neighboring countries united in mutual respect based on two regimes, each taking its own people seriously, and then – and only then – taking its neighbor into consideration. As for the road to this, it begins with voices raised in solidarity with our Syria neighbors’ pain and yearning for liberty.