Don't use Geagea to divide the Christians

Beirut

The murder of George Hawi, the former secretary of the Communist Party, forced television stations to trawl through their archives. One of the more intriguing bits of footage shown was of a postwar meeting between Hawi and Samir Geagea, once bitter rivals, in the home of the Lebanese Forces leader. As Geagea now contemplates liberty, it is worth considering the symbolism of that atypical reunion, recalling what Geagea stood for, and asking what his release means for Lebanon's future.

The Geagea-Hawi meeting illustrated how quickly postwar Lebanon could forget its dead. Unlike other militia leaders, though, Geagea saw the inside of a cell. Whether 11 years in prison constitute fair retribution for what he did is a moot point; it was for political reasons, not justice, that he was accused of crimes he either certainly didn't commit (the Zouq church bombing), probably didn't commit (the murder of Dany Chamoun and his family), or committed, though probably in collaboration with others (the assassination of Rashid Karami). From the moment he was declared innocent of the postwar church bombing, Geagea was entitled to continued protection, under the general amnesty law, for his wartime crimes. Lebanon's manipulated judiciary ignored that essential caveat.

Even as one admits Geagea was unfairly treated compared to others in the wartime confederacy of murderers, advice is in order. Many Lebanese Forces' supporters were mere tadpoles - indeed were not born - when their paragon was helping provoke bloody mayhem in the Chouf in 1983, in the villages east of Sidon in 1985, and in the heart of the "eastern areas" in 1988-90. They have a duty, as do aficionados of all other militia leaders, past and present, to read up on the sordid history before joining the herd.

Geagea's release closes one of the last chapters of the civil war, but it also poses an inevitable question: Have 15 years of postwar life really just led us back to Geagea and Michel Aoun in the Christian areas, Walid Jumblatt in the Chouf and Aley, and Hassan Nasrallah and Nabih Berri in the South and Beirut's southern suburbs? There is no doubt that Lebanon has, historically, preferred demoralizing but predictable continuity to invigorating but volatile change. But when men anchored to the past are seen as vectors of change, it's best to tread carefully.

In that context, it was expected that Shiites from the southern suburbs would clash with Christians from Ain al-Rummaneh on Monday night, in the aftermath of the vote on Geagea's release. At the level of the street, neither the discourse for which Geagea was appreciated nor that peddled by Hizbullah offers more than divisiveness. The Lebanese Forces adhere to a narrow version of Christian nationalism, while Hizbullah has protected its weapons by perilously heightening sectarian Shiite fears that disarmament threatens the community as a whole.

Then again, the Ain al-Rummaneh incident was probably inevitable after Amal and Hizbullah celebrated Berri's triumph as Parliament speaker by raining bullets down on civilian neighborhoods. That was, paraphrasing a leading member of a leftist party, a patent act of intimidation - one that the Lebanese state showed no willingness to sanction, or even address.

The adversaries of Michel Aoun, particularly Jumblatt and his Qornet Shehwan allies, are today hoping that Geagea, once back from his recuperative European sojourn, will act as counterweight to the general. Ironically, they had earlier thought that keeping the Lebanese Forces leader in prison would discredit Aoun among Christians, by showing how friendly he was with President Emile Lahoud while Geagea further decomposed in captivity. That kind of scheming is now ludicrous, coming in the shadow of escalating Syrian nastiness. More dangerously, it exacerbates Christian suspicions at a moment when Lebanon should be on the verge of shaping a new social and communal contract.

Geagea's release poses a basic question of what lies in store for the Christians, particularly the Maronites. Beyond the Geagea-Aoun rivalry, itself a sinister echo of the past, it's time for Christians to fully reintegrate into political life, now that two leading obstacles to that effort - Geagea's imprisonment and Aoun's exile - have been removed. By the same token, it's time for those who benefited from the system throughout the 15 years of postwar Syrian hegemony to assist in the effort. A marginalized Maronite community (no less than an over-armed Shiite community) can only damage Lebanon's newfound freedom.

As the formation of a new government on Tuesday again confirmed, the response has been dismal: Saad Hariri and Prime Minister-elect Fouad al-Siniora, by denying Aoun representation and expanding President Emile Lahoud's share, have sent inconsistent signals as to whether they consider Aoun important. Yet for better or worse, he represents the largest share of independent Christians; his being sidelined in the new power structure means he will encourage many of his coreligionists to embrace debilitating isolation and antagonism. If the expectation is that Geagea will reverse the trend, then someone needs a reality check, starting with an examination of recent parliamentary election results.

Grand change will only come to Lebanon when the system considers, consensually, political deconfessionalism. Since Christians must invariably pay the highest price in that endeavor, it makes sense to begin engaging, and reassuring, them today. Geagea's release and Aoun's return are good starts. But it's also worth bearing in mind, if the intention is to play both men off against each other, what destruction they wreaked when they were divided. For Lebanon to avoid a new calamity, non-Christian leaders must ensure that Aoun and Geagea remain in agreement. That means giving them a shared stake in the system, and guaranteeing that Christians won't regard the new Lebanon in as hostile a way as they did the old.

Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.