International Affairs Journal at UC Davis - Lebanon, the History of a Failed State

Home

IAJ International Update

August 2006

Lebanon, the History of a Failed State

Written by Allison Leung

Tuesday, 29 August 2006

            Throughout its entire history, Lebanon has been overrun by foreign influences, and been struggling to find sovereignty in its fractured identity. Previous to the current political crises plaguing Lebanon, the county was ravished by a fifteen year civil war. That war destroyed not only the economy, but also the potential for the political stability to keep Lebanon out of further confrontations.
            Conflicting groups started the civil war in 1975 for several reasons. At the root it was a fight between Christians and Muslims, both of whom felt that their current government was no longer properly representing their interests. However, though the fighting started out as a civil war, soon neighboring countries used the conflict in order to push their own agenda. Syria and Israel both intervened in the war and remained present in the country for more then ten years after its conclusion. The difficulty that Lebanon has had in defining itself as a state in addition to it’s long history of foreign intervention have all worked to challenge Lebanon’s sovereignty.
            Sovereignty is an organic idea which is difficult to pinpoint as its definition is far from conclusive or definite. At its most basic level, sovereignty is the idea that a country controls its own territory. If the government does not have control or authority over its territory then it is not sovereign. In this case it is a failed state; one that cannot perform its basic functions as a state, such as having a working government. This is the case in Lebanon, where though it had been granted independence in 1943, by 1975, with the outbreak of the civil war, it had lost it’s sovereignty and had become a failed state.
            Prior to 1975, Lebanon had been recognized for being the Middle East’s only stable democratic government, as well as for having the most metropolitan culture of all of the countries in that region. Beirut, Lebanon’s capital, was often called “the Paris of the Middle East” citing not only Lebanon’s strong western ties, but also its affinity for the cosmopolitan. Lebanon’s wealth was also greater than in other Middle Eastern countries. Lebanon’s per capita income was one of the highest in all of Asia. The bountiful success of the Lebanese was, some would argue, further bolstered by their confessional government. In a country that contains eighteen separate religions, it was obvious in 1943 when Lebanon received independence from France, that whatever system of government was set into place, would have to attempt to properly represent the vast diversity of the country. Thus, it was agreed that the government would be spilt along religious lines. The president was to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of the parliament a Shi’i Muslim. Further dividing the government, in an unwritten agreement created among powerful Maronite and Sunni families, the distribution in parliament was skewed, setting representation to a fixed ratio of 6:5, in the Christian’s advantage. Also, because the government was split along religious lines, other cultural groups who were present, such as the Palestinians, did not have representation in the government.
            The Palestinians, who took refuge in Lebanon in 1967, became a pivotal part of the civil war. The refugee camps that the Lebanese and the UN set up were placed on any available land, and forced the refugees to live in squalid conditions. Living in houses that had no doors and leaky roofs, the refugees were often undernourished and sickly. The conflict between the refugees and the Christians began when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) began to have an increased presence in Lebanon by moving their headquarters to Beirut in 1970. The Palestinians and their neighbors, the Israelis, were engaging in skirmishes in southern Lebanon that had the Maronites, who were anxious to avoid an invasion by Israel, worried. By 1975, the tension had reached a head. On April 13th, 1975 there was a massacre in the Beirut suburb, Ai-el-Roumaneh, where a group of Phalangist, a major Maronite political party, attacked and killed 27 Palestinians. This event is often cited as the start of the civil war.
            From there, the civil war absorbed many of the other underlying conflicts in Lebanon. While it is often called a war between Christians and Muslims, this is not wholly the case. Though the foundation of the war was attributed to this struggle, it involved many other complicated relationships aside from just pure religion. There was the issue of a poor-rich divide, where the Maronites tended to be wealthier then the Shi’i, Lebanon’s largest Muslim group. Along these lines, because of the unequal representation in the government, the Muslims felt that they were unfairly represented and the Palestinians not represented at all. What complicated matters still more was the foreign intervention that manipulated and confused the Lebanese identity further. Syria’s influence started in 1976 when they originally backed the PLO. However, as the war progressed Syria’s loyalties altered and they sent military help to which ever faction they felt would further Syria’s plan of control over Lebanon. Israel also used Lebanon’s civil war for its own ends. Invading for the first time in 1982, Israel used its military presence to deter Syria and as a sign of strength to the PLO.
            During the civil war, because all of the factions felt that the government was no longer representing them properly, many groups no longer had attachment to the state. If a state is defined as a united community, then Lebanon was a failed state. Their government could no longer perform its basic function for its citizens, and therefore had no jurisdiction or control over the country.
            To add to this already nonfunctioning government, the increased presence of Israel and Syria challenged Lebanon’s sovereignty further. Israel had claimed part of Southern Lebanon as its own, fighting Lebanon both to control that border zone and to ward off the rise of the Hezbollah, a Shi’ite Muslim group who has been threatening Israel for years. Without a clearly defined border prior to 2000, it had been impossible for the government to control their territory. The border zone, the hegemony of which has been fought over since 1983, became an area of confusion and violence; the civilians of the area had no solid government to look towards while both the Lebanese government and the Israeli government were fighting for sovereignty over the zone. Eventually in 2000, with pressure from the United Nations, the Israelis were forced to withdraw their forces and a permanent border was established based on a line of demarcation established by colonial France (AP, 200). Syria, however, has inflicted even more damage upon Lebanon’s sovereignty. Syria has been present in nearly all of Lebanon’s political movements and agreements since they first intervened in the civil war in 1976. But since 1990, Syria has been directly influential in Lebanon’s political process. They had been successful in lessening the influence of other countries, such as Israel and America, as well as gaining control over Lebanon’s foreign policy. Through persuasion and military force, Syria has been able to elect pro-Syrian politicians into the government and even forced an amendment to the Lebanese constitution that allowed a pro-Syrian president, Emile Lahoud, to stay in office three years after his term limit (Seelye, 2005). The government became more like a puppet for Syrian interests; the state was not a machine of the Lebanese people, it was not working for their betterment, and they did not want to live under the control of such a government. In 2005, sparked by the suspicious death of an anti-Syrian former Prime Minster Rafiq Hariri, massive demonstrations brought attention to the issue of Syrian occupation. Through United States, French and the UN pressure and sanctions, Syria left Lebanon after nearly thirty years.
            Right after Syria left, it seems Lebanon was heading down the path towards the prosperity it once had. Lebanon even had its first Syrian-free elections since 1972. But it was not enough. The problem remains to be that Lebanon must struggle to ensure that all eighteen religious groups are properly represented. Without such unification, the country once again dissolved into warring factions, all working against each other to establish their own stronghold. The rising powers of the Hezbollah had contributed greatly to this. The group, considered a terrorist organization by the United States, won all 23 Parliamentary seats in Southern Lebanon in the 2005 election (AP, 2005). Because they have pro-Syrian and anti-Israeli leanings, their political dominance of the area stirred up issues most Lebanese had hoped to put to rest. The country is now just as unstable as it was 30 years ago. All of the progress that was being made towards regaining sovereignty after the Syrian withdraw was destroyed only a year later and as of now, there only thing Lebanon can fight for is existence.

Sources:

1) “A Primer on Lebanon’s System of Government.” All Things Considered [Radio

program] NPR. 8 March 2005.
2) Associated Press. (May, 2005). Chronology of Events. Retrieved June 1st, 2005 from

www.cnn.com
3) Associated Press. (June, 2005). Hezbollah Wins South Lebanon Poll. Retrieved on

June 6th, 2005 from www.cnn.com.
4) Associated Press. (May, 2005). Lebanon Readies for Syria-free Vote. Retrieved on

June 5th, 2005 from www.cnn.com.
5) Associated Press. (June, 2000). Lebanon Says U.N. Wrong about Israeli Withdrawal.

Retrieved on May 31st, 2005 from www.cnn.com.
6) Gilmore, D. (1984). Lebanon: The Fractured Country. Great Britain: Sphere Books

Limited.
7) Harris, W. (1985). Syria in Lebanon. MERIP Reports: 9-14. Retrieved June 3rd, 2005

from Jstor.
8) Israel’s View of the Lebanon Crisis. (1975). Journal of Palestine Studies: 190-191.

Retrieved May 31st, 2005 from Jstor.
9) Lansing, R. (1907). Notes on Sovereignty in a State. The American Journal of

International Law: 105-128. Retrieved June 3rd , 2005 from Jstor
10) Perthes, V. (1997). Syria’s Involvement in Lebanon. Middle East Report: 18.

Retrieved May 31st, 2005 from Jstor.
11) Russell, T. (1985). A Lebanon Primer. MERIP Reports: 17-19. Retrieved May 24th,

2005 from Jstor.
12) Sadler, B; Kessel, J. (2000). Israel Ends Occupation of Lebanon. Retrieved May

31st, 2005 from www.cnn.com
13) Seelye, K. (May, 2005). Dispatches from a Small Planet. Lebanon/Syria, May

2005. PBS. Retrieved May, 31st 2005 from www.pbs.org
14) Wright, Q. (1936). National Sovereignty and Collective Security. Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science: 94-104. Retrieved March

28th, 2005 from Jstor
15) Wenger, M; Denney, J. (1990). Lebanon’s Fifteen Year War 1975-1990. Middle

East Report: 23-25. Retrieved May 24th, 2005 from Jstor.

Add as favourites (0) |

Quote this article on your site | Views: 1731

Be first to comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Search

Search

Get Involved

Support the Journal

Resources