The following article appeared Jan. 30 on pslweb.org.
A highly effective general strike demanding the formation of a new national government and rejecting the imperialist-dictated austerity for the country brought Lebanon to a standstill on Jan. 23. The success of the strike, coupled with the intransigence of the increasingly isolated Lebanese government, has accelerated the deepening crisis in the country.
A broad coalition of forces formed into the March 8 Alliance—named for a massive 2005 anti-imperialist demonstration and led by the mainly Shia Hezbollah Party—supported the General Confederation of Labor (CGT) in staging the strike, which closed most business activity and major roads throughout the country. The coalition is not limited to the Shia community—the largest population group in Lebanon—but also includes important forces from the Christian, Druse, Sunni and other communities as well as leftist and other secular parties.
Lebanon is one of the most diverse countries in the Middle East. There are at least 18 religious/ethnic groups officially recognized in a country of just 4 million people. In the 2005 parliamentary election, the Hezbollah-led alliance that swept all 23 seats it contested included two Maronite Catholic candidates, two Greek Catholics, a Greek Orthodox and a Druze, as well as 14 Shia Muslims and three Sunni Muslims. In addition, there are more than 400,000 Palestinians in the country, half of them living in impoverished refugee camps.
Three people were killed when reactionary forces attacked protesters during the strike. Four more were killed the following day when a confrontation at the Lebanese Arab University spread to the surrounding neighborhood of the country’s capital, Beirut. Hundreds more were wounded in the two days. Most of the casualties were suffered by the Hezbollah-led alliance. In order to keep the conflict from possibly flaring into civil war, the Hezbollah leadership called its supporters off the streets.
The general strike came two days before an “international donors” conference held in Paris. The conference of 40 countries and international organizations was put together by the French and U.S. governments, which, along with their NATO allies, are strongly backing the government of Lebanese prime minister Fuad Siniora.
It was no coincidence that the conference was organized by France and the United States. France is the former colonial ruler of Lebanon and Syria. Today, Washington is seeking to assert its control over the entire region.
Headed for a showdown
Since Dec. 1, 2006, the March 8 Alliance has been conducting a non-stop sit-in outside the government center in downtown Beirut. The central demand has been for a new government that more equitably reflects the population of Lebanon.
The present government has 24 ministers. Only six are from the opposition, despite the fact that today it represents a majority of the population. If the opposition held one-third of the cabinet posts, it would have effective veto power over government decisions.
As evidence of the popular support enjoyed by the opposition, at least 1.5 million people—nearly 40 percent of the entire population—joined a massive March 8 Alliance demonstration in mid-December to demand a new government. The scope of the protest was unprecedented in Lebanese history. It followed by just two weeks a similar demonstration of nearly the same size.
Despite these massive outpourings, which have been highly disciplined, the U.S. and French governments have echoed the Siniora regime in accusing the March 8 Alliance of being “undemocratic” and “seeking a coup.”
For the past two and one-half years, the United States, France, Britain, Israel and other allies have been seeking to assert control over Lebanon and bring about regime change in neighboring Syria.
The U.S.-Israeli war in the summer of 2006 was a key element of this drive. To the shock of Washington and Tel Aviv, the Hezbollah-led Lebanese resistance inflicted heavy losses on the Israeli army, forcing the United States and Israel to seek a ceasefire after 34 days. Israeli bombing inflicted enormous damage on Lebanon’s infrastructure, which had just been rebuilt following a civil war that lasted from 1975-90.
The Jan. 25 “international donors” conference was to raise funds for reconstruction of war-damaged areas and facilities. It was also meant to be a show of support for the Siniora government. The conference raised, at least on paper, $7.6 billion dollars in “aid” for the rebuilding of Lebanon.
But despite all the posturing about generosity and support, the “donations” were not really all donations. Much of the “aid” took the form of loans—in other words, a new opportunity for the international banks to extract billions of dollars in additional interest payments from a devastated country and people. Lebanon is already saddled with a national debt of more than $40 billion, making it one of the world’s most indebted countries on a per capita basis.
In her speech pledging $770 million in loans and grants—equal to about two days of Iraq war expenditures—U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said: “The reconstruction effort would not be possible without the help of the private sector. American businesses are delivering on their promise to support the Lebanese people. … A key part of this public-private partnership is the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. This government agency has partnered with Citibank to extend up to $120 million in new financing, through Lebanese banks, for loans to support Lebanese businesses and homeowners.”
The U.S. government’s outright grant—apart from loans—is $230 million in military aid, aimed at turning the relatively weak Lebanese army into an effective instrument of repression.
As a requirement for receiving this so-called aid, the Lebanese government is required to cut social programs and enact new taxes and fees on the population.
It was in opposition to this austerity program—typical of the structural adjustment programs inflicted on poorer countries by the World Bank—that the CGT launched its general strike. The March 8 Alliance called for the rejection of the Paris plan as well, stating that it would only lead to colonial subjugation.
The stakes in Lebanon are very high. The conflict in Lebanon is inextricably linked with the anti-imperialist struggles in Iraq, Palestine and throughout the region.
Today, a situation of dual power exists in Lebanon. On one side is the March 8 Alliance, which commands the loyalty of most of the working class, the small farmers and the poor of the country in general. It is supported by Syria and Iran.
On the other side are most of the capitalists and the numerous middle class, with the indispensable backing of the major imperialist powers. Without that backing, the Siniora government would be history by now.
Dual power is inherently unstable. One side or the other must prevail. The outcome will have a major impact not only on the lives of the Lebanese people but also on the struggle raging throughout the region.
Beirut protest calling for the resignation of Lebanon’s prime minister, Dec. 10, 2006.
Photo: AFP Photo/Ramzi Hadar
