This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
Lebanon: Riviera or Citadel
Riviera vs Citadel: the battle for Lebanon
Nadim Shehadi
22 - 8 - 2006
Nadim Shehadi
22 - 8 - 2006
Read: Open Democracy, http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/riviera_citadel_3841.jspThe historic contest between two visions of what Lebanon is and should be will shape the country's direction after Hizbollah's war with Israel, says Nadim Shehadi.
The United Nations Security Council resolution 1701 agreed in New York on 11 August 2006 was instrumental in facilitating the ceasefire between Israel and Hizbollah that came into effect on the morning of 14 August, ending the war that had lasted thirty-three days. It is a real, but limited, achievement: the resolution ignores the regional and international aspects of the conflict, and assumes that the solution to the problem of Hizbollah's arsenal of weaponry within Lebanon can be a political rather than a military one.
(....)
Two projects
For the past two decades, since the latter years of the 1975-90 civil war, two competing projects have been running in parallel in Lebanon. One aims at building a Riviera, a Monaco of the eastern Mediterranean; the other a Citadel or bunker, at the frontline of confrontation with Israel and the United States.
Each of these projects has both a local and a regional dimension, drawing a different lesson from the civil war while connecting Lebanon to one or other of its neighbours in particular ways. Each has adherents from all strands of Lebanese society, and neither is purely sectarian. Each has a different vision of how to rebuild the state and ensure the security and prosperity of the citizen. In the regional aspect, Saudi Arabia has been the main investor in the Riviera, and Iran the principal stakeholder in the Citadel.
The Riviera wants to revive the model of pre-war Lebanon, centred on Beirut as a cosmopolitan open society which relies for its prosperity on trade and services. This is protected by its alliance with the west and by being on the side of international legality. Investment, mainly in infrastructure, is sufficient to sustain the role that the country was destined to play, making the army and a military role for the country superfluous. On this basis of commerce plus tolerance, the rest takes care of itself.
(....)
Howdy, Stranger!