What happened with General Michel Aoun? A former Commander-in-Chief of the Lebanese Army who was trapped by the Syrians during the war in his Baabda bunker, he was exfiltrated by French agents. Hailed as the “Occulted Mahdi” due to the exceptional circumstances of this “departure from the territory,” Michel Aoun spent fifteen years in exile near Paris, from where he regularly intervened in Lebanese political life. A strange character, his constant discourse on “independence, integrity, and sovereignty of Lebanon,” words frozen in time after his departure, earned him, amid the whirlwind of oft-changing Lebanese opinions, the esteem and respect of even some of his detractors. It also secured him a discreet yet real sympathy among many Muslims opposed to the Syrian presence, who appreciated his unwavering call for withdrawal. Thanks to his initiative, bolstered by effective lobbying, the US Congress adopted the Syrian Accountability Act in 2003, a law aimed at tightening the noose on the Damascus regime. Then came the time of return in May 2005 facilitated by the consequences of Rafic Hariri’s assassination and the departure of Syrian forces.
Amidst the political upheaval, General Aoun chose as his electoral allies for the first free legislative elections those who remained the closest collaborators of the former occupiers. With his “new partners” from Hezbollah, he even signed, to everyone’s surprise, a “memorandum of understanding” on February 6, 2006, which he explained as necessary to “cushion the shock and avoid internal explosion.” This publication of his “interviews” with a Middle East specialist journalist promised to shed light on the twists and turns of his political journey. However, it leaves one unsatisfied. Despite numerous questions—and interventions—by Frédéric Domont, General Michel Aoun seems torn, possibly trapped by his personal history, between two “visions” of Lebanon: the confessional one he did not hesitate to use to get his deputies elected to the new Parliament, and the more modern, “secular” one, where the president could one day be “elected by direct universal suffrage.” It’s indeed challenging not to get lost in the reflection of the Free Patriotic Movement’s leader, who, on one hand, advocates for forming an efficient government “freed from the sectarian system” but, on the other hand, labels the current majority as “sectarian” because not all religious components are represented. How can one still follow him when he claims that the “wall of fear over Hezbollah” has fallen and that the Party of God’s weapons “only serve to defend Lebanon”? This would be to ignore the physical threats made against Human Rights Watch officials, which led them to cancel a press conference on “war crimes summer 2006,” incriminating the Shiite militia. Moreover, how can it be explained that no security institution, including the army, dares confront Hezbollah supporters to stop their illegal occupation of downtown, which is paralyzing economic activity at the very heart of the Lebanese capital? The partial legislative election in Metn in August 2007, won deceptively—the general’s candidate won, but the FPM lost up to 20% of its traditional support—seems to have led Hezbollah to less enthusiastically support someone whose “genuine obsession,” according to some of his supporters, remains the question of the presidential election. Its resolution through coordinated involvement of the major powers, who officially prohibit “any foreign interference,” could significantly reduce the political hopes of the former officer. His great merit will certainly have been to fight hard for Lebanon’s independence, but it may ultimately be achieved without him, much like the Hegelian “idea” whose triumph can only occur with the disappearance of its author.
Readers wanting to take stock of the Lebanese situation may find it useful to refer to the Maghreb-Machrek journal, whose summer issue deals with the “rise of perils” in Lebanon. Among a wide variety of contributions, special note can be taken of the article by Philippe Droz-Vincent, a political science lecturer who offers an approach as documented as it is enlightening on Lebanon’s democratization process, which he attributes to being hindered by sectarianism. It is also worth noting Joseph Faddoul’s article on “the difficult but necessary Arabness of the Maronites,” while regretting that the author devotes most of his interesting reflection to the historical dimension and neglects to emphasize the modern correlation of Arabness with the Islamization of Lebanese society.
General Aoun, “A Certain Vision of Lebanon,” Interviews with Frédéric Dumont, Fayard Editions, 2007, 238 pages, 18 euros.
“Lebanon, the Rise of Perils,” Maghreb-Machrek Journal, No. 192, Summer 2007, Choiseul Editions, 132 pages, 20 euros.
