March 21, 2002

The Daily Star

Following are excerpts from the official transcript of a speech delivered by Universite St. Joseph’s rector, Father Selim Abou, on the occasion of St. Joseph’s Day, March 19

The Wrath of the University

The tragedy which took place in the heart of New York on Sept. 11, 2001, suddenly brought to an end two contradictory interpretations of the globalization process. The two interpretations had until then marked a clear divide in the opinion of American political scientists on the basis of the two rival watershed books, The End of History by Francis Fukuyama, and The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington, which appeared in French in 1997.
The end of history would be the end of regional and international antagonisms which are its engine, and the advent of perpetual peace which is its finality, thanks to the global expansion of the principles of liberal democracy. The clash of civilizations would be the confrontation, on a global level, of sets formed by cultures which are generally close, and which deployed over seven or eight large rival civilizations, the most antagonistic among which being Islam and the West …
The two contradictory visions meet on one point. Whether it represents the compulsory destiny of all other civilizations or whether it stands in conflict with them, Western civilization perceives itself and is perceived as the site par excellence of modernity. One must understand presently globalized terrorism as a massive reaction against the values of modernity.
The idea is obviously not new. Already in 1986, I had written the following: “The deadly policy that Third World fundamentalists adopt toward the West is at the same time a suicidal policy. They can claim a radical renewal, but the subversion they practice is essentially regressive. It is the same return to the most jaded traditions and the same rejection of the values of modernity which all the Islamists of the Middle East advocate, whether they limit themselves to illustrating their discourse with Koranic themes or whether they don it with the garb of a type of Western leftism … There remains that the agony can last a long time and cause much mayhem.” …
If I have entitled this talk “the wrath of the university,” it is
to express the repeated indignation of so many students, teachers and citizens before Lebanon’s inertia: its absence on the international scene, at a time when its cultural legacy and national experience should allow it to enlighten, to the benefit of Arabs, the complex relationship between modernity and religion; its helplessness on the national scene, at a time when the world situation compels it to build a state in conformity with the demands of modernity; its submissiveness to the dominant state, which prevents it from
fulfilling the conditions of a modern state and forces it
into regression. These are the three themes which I propose for your reflection …
In official speeches, there is constant reference to “the rule of law and institutions.” One does not know whether the formula, which is constantly reiterated, constitutes a declaration of intent which expresses the wish to fulfill the conditions of a state ruled by law, or whether it is a statement of fact which suggests that these conditions have already been fulfilled.
In truth, both hypotheses have little meaning: The state of fact is far from any rule of law, and the intent to meet the needed conditions is contradicted by the political behavior of the regime …
We are told in the higher spheres that we cannot compare Lebanon to civilized countries, that it must be compared to our neighbors, that it is a Third World country, and that its army cannot be touched … “We must compare ourselves to the neighbors” means that Syria is the model to follow, starting by the militarization of the regime. To affirm that “the army cannot be touched” is to authorize it to violate the Constitution by violating freedom, democracy and human rights.
Being master of domestic Lebanese politics, Syria leaves no initiative to its protege in foreign affairs. Thus can one sense its unease because of the international prestige of the Lebanese prime minister. As for official Lebanon, it has no other strategy but Syria’s, with one small difference in that it is content to hold a basic and prudent political discourse and leaves to its occasional Hizbullah allies the utterance of incendiary speeches, against the decisions and the recommendations of international decision-makers. No one can deny the victory of the resistance against the Israeli occupier, but one remembers the embarrassment of both dominant and satellite states when Israel announced its decision to withdraw from south Lebanon: Syria lost in this way its card of pressure against the enemy.
Then came the invention of the Shebaa farms, to legitimize the continuation of hostilities. Syria remained silent, while the Lebanese state defied international instances, sometimes with Quixotian emphasis, by refusing to send the army to the South and by postponing the Shebaa issue to later negotiations. One could even bet that if Israel were to withdraw from that region, some square meters would be found at the border to continue bearing arms.
Meanwhile, and while the Lebanese state and Hizbullah camp on a distinction between resistance and terrorism, Damascus declares its unqualified support to the world alliance against terrorism and even invites the United States to “take advantage of the successful track record of Syria” in this field, in an allusion to the bloody repression of the Muslim Brotherhood at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s. In the context of current negotiations between the United States and Syria, it may well be that Damascus commits to control Hizbullah and gets in return the acceptance of a permanent presence in Lebanon. That would after all be only a re-editing of the bargaining carried out during the Gulf War …
It is time to overcome communitarian resistances with a national call, and engage in a real national resistance, democratic and consensual, that seeks to free Lebanon from all vassalage. On March 19, 2001, I was happy to underline the consensus which was anticipated by such outstanding personalities representing the large historic communities ? Patriarch Sfeir, Walid Jumblatt, Alia Solh, Imam (Mohammed Mehdi) Shamseddine ? as well as courageous citizens from these communities. Today that consensus has reached the political arena and is expressed in political movements such as the meetings of Qornet Shehwan, the Democratic Forum, the Democratic Renewal, in which the Muslim component remains timid, at a time when Muslims ? we know it and hear it in private ? bear with at least as much pain Syrian control over economic and political life in Lebanon …
To intellectual terrorism are joined various threats and maneuvers to intimidate. Pressure is exercised and promises made to some members of the Qornet Shehwan group, student leaders are threatened with jail sentences, with physical aggression, with car accidents, or with the dismissal of their fathers from their jobs in the civil service. Tracts are distributed in some Muslim neighborhoods which call for sectarian hatred directed at Christians, who are made guilty of crimes against the protectorate.
Finally, and without fear of ridicule, is organized the emergence near some mosques of hooded groups, armed with clubs, kitchen knives and hatchets. In an article on “the hatchets of dialogue,” Issa Ghorayeb writes appropriately that “we will have put in the same bag those who request the opening of a nonviolent and salutary dialogue, with a view to bringing some balance to the Syrian-Lebanese relations, and those who seek recourse in the ? armed ? threat to prevent any dialogue.” Should one add that if the beatings at the Justice Palace had an objective, it was to force into oblivion the historic reconciliation between Druze and Maronites, which was sealed by the triumphant visit of Patriarch Sfeir to the Chouf, and to block the national dialogue that it augured. It is the head of the Baath Party, known for his courtesy, who summarized the infamous campaign: “They can die if they want, Syria will not leave Lebanon so long as General Emile Lahoud remains president of the republic.”
Three conditions seem necessary for the movements forming the opposition to turn into a real national resistance against Syrian occupation. The first is to widen their base by including an ever larger number of Muslims. The second is to establish among themselves a tighter coordination by conceiving together a comprehensive and sustained plan for action. The third is to let a common voice be heard by Western countries which can put pressure on Syria, so that it operates a real redeployment of its troops in anticipation of their full withdrawal, and not a make-believe one as the one which gave false hopes last June, and which had no other apparent objective than the goodwill of France on the eve of the official visit of the Syrian head of state to Paris. It is not enough to request the phased withdrawal of Syrian troops and their intelligence services. The opposition, which I wilfully call resistance, has the right to request the departure of the Syrian “high commissioner” and his followers, as well as an exchange of ambassadors between the two countries.

Testy response to cleric’s appeal

Following are excerpts from a statement released on Wednesday by the army in response to a speech made the night before by Father Selim Abou, the rector of Universite Saint Joseph:

“The Lebanese Army was and will always be the protector of freedoms and democracy; it is fulfilling its security role based on the law and in execution of the decisions of the political authorities and judicial orders according to the rules in force …
“Coordination between the Lebanese and Syrian intelligence services has resulted in establishing security and stability, thwarting significant attempts aimed at destabilizing the country, exposing crimes that targeted the fundamental bases of the country and dangerous spy rings, and thwarting attempts to undermine the stability and economy of the country and people’s interests.
“The relationship between the Lebanese and Syrian Arab armies is based on mutual respect, cooperation and coordination, which are necessary to face the common Zionist enemy. The Syrian Arab Army can take credit for rebuilding the Lebanese Army, which was divided by the painful events, unifying it and equipping it with weapons and tanks free of charge …
“The Army Command is surprised that such a provocative speech … was delivered by a prominent academic and urges Father Abou to exercise precision and objectivity before airing such opinions, which cause despair and mislead students and young people, rather than teaching national consciousness and respect for the patriotic role of the army.”

Copyright © The Daily Star