Geagea Is To Be Applauded For the Example He Has Set
In a week that began with reports of 10,000 Syrian troops massing on Lebanon’s northern border and one that will see President Michel Sleiman, mindful of Damascene sensitivities, head to Washington with an underpowered delegation, it is worthwhile revisiting Sunday’s mass gathering in the Northern suburb of Jounieh, where the spirit of March 14 – that of freedom, sovereignty, and independence – was found to be alive and well.
Samir Geagea has never failed to inspire assessment. Like that of many Lebanese politicians, Lebanon’s political history has been extremely testing and has not provided a political environment to extract national glory, but since his release from prison on July 26, 2005, Geagea has been an unbending supporter of the core values of March 14, and on many occasions a surprisingly articulate voice of reason in the maelstrom that is Lebanese politics.
On Sunday, at a huge rally to commemorate those members of the Lebanese forces killed during the 15-year civil war, he took the brave step of apologizing for any possible errors carried out by his party during that conflict. Geagea is the second leader, after the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, to have entered into recent reconciliation. Pessimists consider it a game, along with the larger national dialogue initiative, that many observers have also described as nothing more than a cynical stalling process, buying time before key regional and international dates, most notably the United States presidential elections and, to a lesser degree, maneuverings in Israel, but what makes Geagea’s public contrition interesting is not that it happened, but that it came at no cost to his principles.
Geagea has made it clear that reconciliation should not necessarily be about accepting the Resistance and a joint defense strategy. It should not necessarily be tied to containing – rather than solving – Lebanon’s volatile and often violent political crisis. He sees it as a crucial step to magnetize his supporters on the idea that in the 2009 elections their choice will determine Lebanon’s future. The choice is simple. They can take Lebanon into a regional alliance that will set it on a hair-trigger primed for conflict or they can vote for democracy, self-determination, prosperity and a country that will take its place among the wider global community.
Geagea’s strident tenor may not always be palatable to those Lebanese who have an aversion to the Lebanese Forces’ brand of über-sectarianism and his blatant electioneering to unite the Christians under a flaming banner of religious identity, one sold on common interests and common history, but in an atmosphere in which many political groupings are prepared to stomach Hezbollah as they jockey for position in the run up to the elections, Geagea is to be applauded for the example he has set and the goals of which he has not lost sight.