Paradise postponed: 10 years since the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon, yet still no sovereignty?

Today marks the 10th memory of the day that was supposed to mark the end of the Syrian guardianship over Lebanon. With the last Syrian soldier leaving Lebanon, a new sense of independence was given to a great many Lebanese citizens. Yet given today's escalation of political divisions and clashes since 2005, shouldn't the Lebanese sovereignty and independence come into question once again?

The divisions have taken different forms. Going back to 2005, Lebanon was split into two main political schools. On one hand, Sayed Nasrallah's "Grateful to Syria" speech on the 8th of March of that year marked the attendees of this demonstration as supporters to the Syrian army and Al Assad's regime. On the other, the attendees to the counter demonstration that was followed by almost a week from the first marked the second group of Lebanon: those condemning the guardianship of the Syrian regime over several decades.

8th of March and their allies, namely the Iranian regime and 14th of March and their allies in particular Saudi Arabia and the US marked the beginning of what seems to be a never-ending struggle for any of these groups to take power over the country.

If anything the past 10 years can be marked by hatred, insecurity, instability and perhaps an obscurity of an ongoing civil war. The events seem to persist on escalating; from the 2006 Israeli war to a series of riots over the years, to the internal clashes between 8th and 14th of march and to most recently to the external clashes between those groups played out on battlfield in other countries.

Bit what are the implications of the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon a decade back and have we come to hinder our sovereignty through our internal divisions?

"Slight increase in decision-making does not imply that Lebanon has achieved its sovereignty", argues Dr. Michel Nehme, a professor at the Notre Dame University in the faculty of Law and Political Science:
When asked whether or not the current situation in Lebanon would have changed had the Syrian army remained in Lebanon, Dr. Nehme added: "Internal security might have been more stable and secure in the presence of the Syrian Army. However, the Lebanese foreign relations would have been nearly absent had we remained under the Syrian control."

Regarding the status of Lebanese Sovereignty, Dr. Nehme stated that "Lebanese sovereignty was not at any point fully attained. Whether under the Syrian guardianship or not, Lebanon like many other countries remains reliant on external intervention to insure its continuity. Once a country remains that reliant on foreign intervention, it becomes weak at taking its own internal and external decisions illuminating by that its chances of sovereignty. Though our sovereignty has been nearly inexistent over the years, it is correct to say it has slightly increased with the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon.

The Lebanese economic reliance on Iranian and Arab capital over the years forced an internal division. Those benefiting from Iran had to adopt the Iranian agenda in fear of not getting similar military and economic support. On the other hand, those benefiting from the Arab Gulf will have to adopt this agenda for continuous support. With time, this had led to clear divisions in the Lebanese political realm that could only be fixed when Iran and the Arab Gulf choose to reconcile."

When asked who is to take the blame for the current situation in Lebanon, Dr. Nehme replied: "Both take the blame; the Lebanese people who tend to re-elect the same MPs disregarding their performance over and over again, and those that have taken granted of their power and allowed for the distortion of the country."

There seems to be a scholarly agreement on the situation in Lebanon had the Syrian army remained present in the past decade. More so, there is an academic conformity on who is to take the blame for the ongoing deterioration of the political and economic situation in Lebanon.

Dr. Rabee'h El Debs, a professor in socio-political studies doesn't believe "that a significant change could have happened, because the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Harriri revealed the perpendicular division of the national texture. After 2005, Lebanon gave a new proof that it was not a State, but rather puzzle of paradoxes organized on a sectarian, confessional basis" the academic lamented to An Nahar.

"The withdrawal of the Syrian army showed that the security network which safeguarded Lebanon for several years was a Syrian not a Lebanese one. It was very clear that had it not been for the Syrian leading authority in Lebanon, the Lebanese factions would have been unable to agree on something vital for the country. They would probably declare inability to elect a parliament, to form a cabinet, or to elect a president to the "republic". Unfortunately, we cannot consider Lebanon a sovereign independent state since officials of a high rank do not feel insulted when they declare from the Presidential Palace: "Long Live the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia".

"In fact, sovereignty springs from a national stand, national culture, national will, rather than from claims and mottoes. Independence itself is not a flag winking at balconies, but a total political, economic, and media independence. Otherwise the country would be a total heteronomy. Those who are to be blamed are both: the traditional followers of men in power, especially when politicians enlist their followers for a fake cause. It is the responsibility of citizens not only to hold their leaders liable for strategic errors, but rather to hold themselves also accountable for the waste of time, money, and efforts."