BY Elias Chamoun, Can the Lebanese Christians be granted their own independent state by partitioning Lebanon between them and the Lebanese Muslims under international law?
On the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, lies a small country that many used to refer to as being the jewel of the Mediterranean. A country that was once considered to be the Switzerland of the East, and whose capital, Beirut, used to be called the Paris of the East. That country is Lebanon. There, was a model government and society of how Jews, Christians, and Muslims could all cooperate and peacefully coexist together. When taking a closer look at Lebanon one can notice something very different from all the other Near Eastern countries; the presence of a large Christian community (in proportion to the population) in a country surrounded by a sea of Islam. Descendent from the Phoenicians, the Christian ethnic group is the oldest community in Lebanon and compromises almost half of the country
With the signing of the Arab brokered Taif Accord, which put an end in 1990 to a 15 year long war with the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), Syrians, and various Lebanese Muslim factions, “the Lebanese Christians saw their power attenuating rapidly away in a new political milieu dominated by US, Saudi and Syrian interests”. Today there are about 2 million Christians in Lebanon versus some 2.3 million Muslims. But with the Palestinian refugees (about 400,000), hundreds of thousands of illegally naturalized Syrian and Palestinian citizens, and a countless amount of illegal Muslim Arab immigrants (mostly Syrian), the Christians are now vastly outnumbered in their own homeland. How did this ancient community that has survived for millennias reach the point where it is today, and how will it be able to preserve its political power and most of all its existence in modern day Lebanon? There are many solutions to this problem. Though by far, the best solution found was geographical portioning, the creation of a Lebanese Christian state by partitioning Lebanon between Christians and Muslims. Thus the following question arises, can the Lebanese Christians be granted their own independent state by partitioning Lebanon between them and the Lebanese Muslims, and would it be legal by international law standards? What follows will be an attempt to answer that question.
The perils facing the Lebanese Christians today:
Wide arrays of difficulties are facing the Lebanese Christians today in their fight for political and demographic survival. If no immediate action is taken to counter them, the Lebanese Christians are going to be in dire straits.
In pre-technological times, Lebanon’s mountains were a natural refuge for persecuted minorities fleeing oppression due to its inaccessible terrain. However, the devastating technologies of modern warfare, not to mention the long list of hostile neighbors and foreign meddlers, broke down the natural protective. The Lebanese Christians not only bore the full brunt of the prolonged assault that began in 1975, but also found they had to contend with a series of negative stereotypes about them. These distorting stereotypes, generated and popularized mainly by a host of Western journalists, were quickly internalized by many in the West and did irreparable damage to the image of a community that was fighting for its ultimate survival.
During the Lebanese War of 1975-1990, the targeting of Christians was in most cases deliberate, with the purpose of terrorizing the community and precipitating massive population dislocations, particularly from the outlying Christian and mixed villages in the country. A responsible investigation of the matter conducted by German scholar Theodor Hanf revealed that eight out of ten massacre victims throughout the entire Lebanese War of 1975-1990 were Christian, thus refuting the general belief that Lebanon’s Christians were behind the horrific sectarian atrocities and massacres.
The Christians of Lebanon have had to labor against tremendous odds. Oil money, Western neglect joined with Western appeasement of Islam, erroneous and often tendentious media depictions, the absence of a strong and reliable external ally, the multiplicity of fierce external foes, and the demographic problem, are sadly all part of the picture. Even the finest leadership in these circumstances would buckle under the combined weight of such staggering negatives.
Lebanon’s Maronite Patriarch, Nasrallah Boutrous Sfeir, the country’s leading Christian spiritual and ecclesiastical figure, has for some time now been outspoken on human-rights abuses and the curtailing of freedoms perpetrated by the pro-Arab Lebanese government specifically targeting the Christian community. The Patriarch’s courage to speak out has restored the respect and historical-national stature of Bkerke, the patriarchal seat of Lebanon’s Maronite church and the traditional vanguard of defense for the Christians of the country and the region.
Lebanon is being steadily and irreversibly Islamized due to its present stagnant state. The policies of the Saudi-backed Hariri parliament, cabinet, and business blocks, which purchases vast real-estate properties from needy Christians and sells it to Arab Muslim investors, and staffs government and civil-service appointments exclusively with Muslims; and the growing power of the militant Iran-inspired fundamentalist organization Hezbollah, whose leaders openly state that they are working for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Lebanon; are all part of this Islamization process. Islamization directly threatens the free Christian presence in Lebanon.
Another problem is the continued delay in the completion of the Middle East peace process. The longer it takes to arrive at actual peace treaties between Lebanon and Israel, the worse it will be for Lebanon’s Christians. Whenever one of Lebanon’s two borders is closed, the country automatically becomes a virtual hostage to the other open border. When the borders with Israel open, unchecked Arab-Islamic hegemony is bound to be diluted.
Arabization, a major threat to the Lebanese Christians’ Phoenician identity. This policy is being applied especially through the educational system, aimed at Arabizing the Christian youth. Even in America this Arabization policy continues. “A coalition of seven Assyrian and Maronite organizations had previously sent an official letter to the Arab American Institute asking it to stop identifying Assyrians and Maronites as Arabs, which it had been deliberately doing”.
Demography and emigration. Perhaps the greatest single danger facing Lebanon’s Christians in the coming years is depletion through emigration and declining birth rates. It is estimated that throughout the long war years, close to 900,000 people—the vast majority of them Christians—left Lebanon. Only a fraction has since returned. Furthermore, the Naturalization Decree introduced by the pro-Syrian regime in 1994 granted citizenship to some 400,000 mostly Syrians and Palestinians (80% of them Muslims) whilst denying the Lebanese Diaspora (who are mostly Christian) their citizenship right. This illegal decree increased Lebanon’s population by around 10% virtually overnight. If naturalization of the remaining Palestinians in the country—who are overwhelmingly Muslim—goes through as part of an overall Mid-East peace settlement, then the Christians of Lebanon will certainly be doomed. Reliable statistics are infernally hard to come by in a place like Lebanon due to the delicate situation, but the best and most optimistic estimates place the Christians today at around 40 percent of the Lebanese population. What’s ironic though is the fact that almost 15 million people of Lebanese descent live outside of Lebanon compared to the estimated 3.8 million who live in it. Of those 15 million, about 12 million are Christian.
The Christian entity is being dismantled, slice by slice. Today Lebanon is ruled by a power, politically pro-Syrian, ideologically Arabist, and spiritually Islamist. The Arab-brokered Taif accord eliminated the last ethno-political claim of the Christian resistance and established a new Muslim dominated regime in Lebanon.
Geographical Partitioning:
Many obstacles, such as Syrian, Lebanese Muslim, and general Arab-Islamic opposition, stand in the way of the Lebanese Christians and their right to self-determination. Geographical partitioning would ensue in Lebanon being carved up into two countries, one with a strong Christian majority and the other with a strong Muslim majority with population transfers if necessary, thus granting the Lebanese Christians their own state.
Geographical partitioning might be a dangerous undertaking, and could possibly lead to an “Israel scenario”. The partitioning of the country might need enforcing against likely military action by Lebanese Muslims, Hezbollah, Syria, and perhaps other Arab countries. The support of the international community, in terms of diplomacy, military aid, military intervention or some combination of these would be required for realizing the geographical partitioning. A number of factors taken together suggest that now may be a good time to try to instantiate this model.
As can be seen from the cases of Bosnia and Kosovo, the international community is relatively well disposed today to militarily enforcing partitions along religious lines. In addition, the current American government has already showed sympathy to the Lebanese cause, as obvious by its recent efforts and actions (along with other countries, namely France) that recently brought about an end to Syrian occupation and hegemony. While the current Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has been quite enthusiastic about giving military support to Lebanese Christians in the past, the current Israeli government is likely to feel today that peace with the Arab countries is in any case simply impossible, despite the recent breakthroughs in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In that case, there is nothing to lose by taking the side of the Lebanese Christians. Of neighboring Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan are clearly bent upon avoiding military confrontations, which would jeopardize their status as ‘moderate’ Arab countries. It is likely that Syria would be the only Arab country, which would attempt to actively resist a partition of Lebanon, be it political or military resistance.
Geographical partitioning is the best solution for the Lebanese Christians in that it guarantees them the freedom and right to determine their own destiny, and preserve their religious faith, heritage, and ethno-cultural identity.
The legality of geographical partitioning under international law:
When it comes to international law it is always hard to find a universally accepted notion of what is legal or what is not. Thus the legality of geographical partitioning might be found viewed as legal by some parties and illegal by others, depending on their interpretation of international law and their political agenda and stance. But regardless of the several debates on the legality of geographical partitioning if it occurs, there is one irrefutable and incontestable right that international law guarantees to freedom aspiring nations: Article 1.1 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966.
Article 1.1 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 states that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. Although the principle of national self-determination, like all abstract political terms, has in the course of time undergone changes in meaning and connotation, its core meaning remains the same: “the belief that each nation has a right to constitute an independent state and determine its own government”. International law appears to recognize the right to national self-determination unreservedly. Thus, the Lebanese Christians can legalize geographical partitioning under international law using almost solely Article 1.1 since it is widely accepted and uncontested under international law.
“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states”. The opponents of geographical partitioning might claim that the Lebanese Christians do not have the ability to fulfill those four requirements for statehood under international law. That claim is simply baseless and false. The Lebanese Christians certainly fulfill the first qualification, a permanent population. Nearly half of the people living in Lebanon are Christian, and those Christians share the same culture, language, heritage and ethnicity. Not to mention the presence of a large Lebanese Christian Diaspora that could reduce the Muslims’ status in Lebanon from majority to tiny minority if it decides to return to its homeland.
The second qualification, a defined territory, is also fulfilled by the Lebanese Christians. After the end of the 1975-1990 war, Lebanon became clearly divided along religious lines, with very few areas where religious diversity and intermixing actually exists. Mount Lebanon, the historical Lebanese Christian hinterland and stronghold, certainly grants the Lebanese Christians a defined territory with its overwhelming Christian presence. Thus fulfilling the second requirement of statehood, that of a defined territory.
When it comes to the third and fourth requirements, respectively those of government and capacity to enter into relations with the other states, it is hard to ascertain whether the Lebanese Christians fulfill them or not since they don’t have their own state yet. But one could look back to 1975-1990 Lebanese War, and notice that during that war the Lebanese Christians established a free and self-ruled zone in Mount Lebanon called the Free Zone, while the Muslim areas where in total chaos and under Syrian and Palestinian occupation. In Free Zone, the Christians maintained a relatively peaceful environment compared to that of the Muslim areas, preserved a functioning infrastructure and sustained the essential services such as hospitals and schools. The Free Zone was militarily protected by the Christian Lebanese Forces militia, and was politically run by the Lebanese Front which compromised several prominent Christian leaders at that time. The Lebanese Front also conducted foreign policy with several states like the U.S, Israel (a close ally of the Christians during the war), and various other European, Soviet, and Arab states at that time, on behalf of the Free Zone. Several pacts, agreements, and/or verbal treaties were created between the Lebanese Front and several countries, outside of the national Lebanese government and Muslim factions’ knowledge and/or agreement. Thus, it is clear that the Lebanese Christians during the 1975-1990 war proved that they could fulfill the third and fourth requirements of statehood as apparent by the existence of the Free Zone and its government, the Lebanese Front, which conducted foreign relations on behalf of the Free Zone and the Lebanese Christians in general.
If geographical partitioning occurs, and the Lebanese Christians are granted their own separate state, then there is no doubt that that state would fulfill all the requirements for statehood. The Lebanese Christians certainly have the population and territory, and as evident by their actions and experience in the Free Zone during the 1975-1990 war, they certainly have the ability to form their own government and conduct foreign relations. Hence the argument that the Lebanese Christians cannot have their own state because they don’t fulfill all the requirements for statehood is thus null and void.
Conclusion:
“The appeal of the principle of national self-determination is simple, for it is surely better that nations should determine their own destinies than that someone else should do it for them. The concept of national self-determination appears to express the idea of democracy, according to which the people are presumed to be best qualified to govern themselves”. After years of hardships and suffering, it is about time the Lebanese Christians finally regained their stolen freedoms and right to self determination. The survival of an entire culture and ethnic group that is fighting for its ultimate existence in its own land is at stake if no immediate is taken. The best option the Lebanese Christians have today is geographical partitioning. It is a dangerous option that will demand a lot of work on the part of the Lebanese Christians, and a lot of support from the international community and Lebanese Christian Diaspora. Article 1.1 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 legally guarantees the Lebanese Christians their own homeland under international law. Furthermore, the Lebanese Christians have shown that they fulfill the four requirements for statehood under international law. They have the population, they have the territory, and they have the ability to form a democratically elected government with the ability of conducting foreign policy.
Freedom is a feeling deeply embedded in the human mind and spirit. Every person yearns for freedom and resists whenever it is taken away. The Lebanese Christians have been resisting for centuries to regain their beloved denied freedom. It is time for their struggle to be over and their thirst for freedom be quenched!
[1] http://www.zindamagazine.com/html/archives/2003/4.21.03/index.php
[1] http://www.lebanese-forces.org/media/articles/malek/forgotten.htm
[1] http://www.lebanese-forces.org/media/articles/malek/forgotten.htm
[1] http://www.lebanese-forces.org/media/articles/malek/forgotten.htm
[1] http://www.lebanese-forces.org/media/articles/malek/forgotten.htm
[1] http://www.lebanese-forces.org/media/articles/malek/forgotten.htm
[1] http://www.lebanese-forces.org/media/articles/malek/forgotten.htm
[1] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695095/posts
[1] http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/lebanon_&_christian_marginalization.htm
[1] http://www.lebanese-forces.org/media/articles/malek/forgotten.htm
[1] http://freelebanon.org/articles/a115.htm
[1] http://freelebanon.org/articles/a115.htm
[1] http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/index.htm
[1] http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/index.htm
[1]http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:NuA1V6mDgygJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State+criteria+for+statehood+under+international+law&hl=en
[1] http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/index.htm
