Showing posts with label Nicolas Sehnaoui. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nicolas Sehnaoui. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Innocent Syrians pay the price for Aounists' bigotry

[Originally posted at NOW]

“I personally made the plan to encircle Tel az-Zaatar and liberate it […] The siege lasted 52 days, I think, and the Palestinians weren’t leaving […] Eventually, it was getting boring and irritating so they removed the camp. There might have been some transgressions […]”

That was General Michel Aoun’s casual description, as recounted to Al Jazeera, of his role in the famous 1976 siege of the Tel az-Zaatar refugee camp, the end result of which, David Hirst writes in Beware of Small States, was some 3,500 Palestinian men, women and children killed; “between 1,000 and 2,000 of them after the camp had fallen, crushed under bulldozers, shot and hacked to death, or finished off by militiamen.”

It’s the kind of anecdote that casts a perpetually ironic shadow over Aoun’s 2006 Memorandum of Understanding with Hezbollah, and is always worth recalling when you hear the MoU described as some kind of enlightened breakthrough for communal harmony – a “remarkable” example of “Christian[s] and Muslims working together for a united Lebanon,” as a hopelessly hoodwinked Terry Waite put it not long ago.

Indeed, while it’s by no means straightforward to identify Lebanon’s most sectarian Christian party – recall that the dreadful Orthodox Gathering electoral law proposal had enthusiastic, bipartisan Christian support – the Aounists have certainly contended harder than most for the title in recent years (as even the likes of Asaad AbuKhalil are beginning to notice).

As if to seal the deal, on Sunday former telecoms minister Nicolas Sehnaoui and his comrade Ziad Abs – both of whom are often touted even by March 14ers as exemplifying the polished, respectable face of the Free Patriotic Movement – took to the mic to declare the era of playing nice with the Syrian refugees over for good.

Picking up where their colleague, the new Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil last left off (“Syrians already in Lebanon should be deported […] What is happening [is a plot] to change the demography of the country”), Sehnaoui and Abs explained that the refugees’ already-alarming designs on Lebanon had overstepped the final frontier of tolerability. From the “barracks” of their sodden tents, the job-stealing, gun-toting invaders have at last arrived, with their veiled wives and daughters, to – quelle horreur! – the doorsteps of Ashrafieh itself. His proposed solution, reports as-Safir, involves sealing the border, enforcing an 8pm curfew for all Syrians in the area, and creating a nightly security patrol force, “especially in the places Syrians gather."

It’s obviously pointless to note that no evidence exists linking the refugee influx with higher crime, or that the only major act of violence to have occurred in Ashrafieh since the outbreak of the Syrian crisis was the car bombing of the March 14 ally, Wissam al-Hassan – a brazen murder of a senior policemen for which Sehnaoui held no indignant press conference at the time.

Indeed, the tragic thing about this kind of crude incitement is it really works with the constituents (don’t be surprised if, feeling the squeeze, a March 14 Christian tries to one-up Sehnaoui’s act next weekend). But it ought to go without saying it’s also abhorrently inhumane. It isn’t just that sealing the border would be, as rights groups are often forced to repeat, a violation of international law. Innocent Syrians in Lebanon have already suffered far too many unprovoked physical assaults, fuelled by precisely the bigotry and misinformation peddled by Sehnaoui and Abs on Sunday. (Recall, for example, the torching of a camp in December after false allegations of rape, or the secret beatings in October 2012 of Syrian labourers by the army in Ashrafieh itself, as I witnessed with my own eyes while crouching next to NOW’s Raphael Thelen, who first broke the story.) It’s only a matter of time before more xenophobic violence occurs, and when it does, Sehnaoui and his friends will bear a part of the responsibility.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Sehnaoui, philosopher-minister, pens rebuttal to British ambassador

[Originally posted at NOW]

The best argument I’ve yet heard in favor of Telecoms Minister Nicolas Sehnaoui was an interesting one in several respects, not least of which was that it came from a card-carrying member of a party that is no friend of the March 8 coalition. After a handful of drinks, over which we discussed lighter topics, my friend turned quite grave at Sehnaoui’s mention.

“You have to understand something,” he began. “As a Lebanese minister, you don’t have to do anything. You can stay home seven days a week, rake in the money, and nobody will hold you to account. Yet this guy actually tries to improve the telecoms network here. It’s astonishing.”

This came to mind when last night Minister Sehnaoui again went beyond the call of duty, penning a 600-word rebuttal to a blog post by the British ambassador to Lebanon, Tom Fletcher.

Fletcher’s post, aptly titled ‘Beirutopia’, imagined a radically transformed Lebanon in 2020, in which offshore gas revenues rival Qatar’s, there is full peace with both Israel and post-Assad Syria, citizens enjoy not just round-the-clock electricity but a city train, and the March 8/14 divide and even sectarianism itself have both been transcended.

Sehnaoui “really appreciated” Fletcher’s effort, being “a strong believer in the power of imagination” himself, but was feeling “a little devious” and wanted to propose some amendments. First, Fletcher should “acknowledge” that the “resistance paradigm” (i.e. Hizbullah’s weapons) has to stay until the Lebanese army has the means to face up to Israel itself. Second, Fletcher should “acknowledge” that Lebanon cannot give citizenship to “450 thousand Palestinians” (Fletcher didn’t say it should), who would be better off either back in Palestine or the “much wealthier” Gulf states. Other injunctions included “acknowledge the rights of the Christians” to retain the Presidency, while yet working toward “secular democracy”.

And then there was the question of Syria, where Sehnaoui turned cryptic. “I am sure the Western countries love Lebanon at least as much as Syria. So whatever they are doing to show their love to Syria please help make sure they don’t assassinate Lebanon along the way by mistake.”

Fletcher was quick to reply on Twitter: “Powerful arguments, Minister. Let’s keep debating”.

Yet this is not, of course, a “debate” in the sense of a disinterested discussion of Lebanon’s national interests. The two men, lest we forget, are not professional scholars or intellectuals but politicians, paid to advance the rather narrower interests of their leaders. Their exchange is interesting, therefore, only insofar as it reveals something about the politics of the British government and the Free Patriotic Movement, respectively.

In the former case, perhaps the most intriguing line, amid the generic pro-democracy, pro-business rhetoric, is the one about Israel. By envisaging the Lebanese-Israeli peace treaty happening a year before the establishment of Palestine, Fletcher suggests British policy is for each Arab country to negotiate with Israel bilaterally, rather than unite to push through a single, comprehensive agreement. Though Lebanon is of course free to pursue such a course if it wants to, Western encouragement of it involves a weakening of Arab leverage over Israel that ultimately forestalls, rather than precipitates, a just settlement for all involved (and primarily Palestinians).

Sehnaoui’s reply, on the other hand, is a fascinating example of the cognitive dissonance required to be at once the servant of an Islamist militia and a crusader for Christian sectarianism. The “resistance” talk is naturally pure lip service, as anyone familiar with FPM leader Michel Aoun’s pre-2006 position knows well. Yet even when affecting anti-Zionism, Sehnaoui can’t quite get it right: his idea of transferring Palestinian refugees to the Gulf is one that Netanyahu himself would be proud of.

As for the Syria comment, if it’s to be understood as a criticism of Downing Street’s rhetorical support for the opposition, one can only say that no mere Cameron speech could hope to match the “love to Syria” evinced by Aoun’s patron in Damascus.