From Moscow to the Vatican, talk is repeated about the great fear of establishing another regime in Lebanon under various pretexts.
A few days ago (6/12/2021), the head of the Socialist Party, former MP Walid Jumblatt, gave a statement to the electronic newspaper "Al-Anbaa" issued by the Progressive Socialist Party, in which he repeated a set of previous positions, before concluding with a question saying: "Have we reached a conviction, as Lebanese, That the old system failed? And quickly, he answered himself on behalf of the Lebanese, saying: "We have reached this conviction, and it is time to produce a new political system."
The position of the head of the "Socialist", who was and still is the cornerstone of what he describes as the "failed old regime", has gone unnoticed, but the examination of the diplomatic cables shows that Jumblatt's intended leaks must be dealt with more seriously, as private information confirms to "Al-Mayadeen" that During his recent visit to Moscow, the Lebanese Foreign Minister, Abdullah Bouhabib, was surprised by his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, saying, verbatim what I translated: “We are concerned in Moscow that there may be an intention to cancel the Taif Agreement, which established parity between Christians and Muslims, and to establish another regime that will On the basis of a triangular federation, it can lead to problems for all."
Lavrov did not refer to a specific party that fuels Russian anxiety, but his statement came directly after his criticism of the "exaggerated" Saudi reaction, he said. From Moscow to the Vatican, the official hosts repeated their words about the great fear of establishing "another regime under various pretexts."
In his speech on October 18, 2021, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, confirmed that Hezbollah is not with the triad, explaining that changing the system from its current status, in which equality is the basis, to another regime in which triangulation is the basis, It is an idea that "the French proposed to the Iranians in the days of President Jacques Chirac, and the Iranians transferred it to the party that rejected it as a result of its belief that Lebanon's interest lies in equilibrium."
Here, the ideas must be arranged clearly:
1. The French have presented, years ago, the principle of changing the Lebanese regime, and no response has been issued from them to the words of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, despite the French ambassador to Lebanon's activity in leaking and declaring.
2. Russia's foreign minister tells his Lebanese counterpart, in front of fourteen people, that Moscow is concerned about the intention of (Saudi Arabia, without naming it) to replace the half-parity system with a triangular system.
3. Former MP Walid Jumblatt declares that a new regime must be produced, coinciding with his attack on "Iranian hegemony" and saying everything necessary to appease the Saudis.
4. The Saudi-funded media focus on federal trends, which say that the experience of “living together” was not successful, with parrot repetition of the phrase administrative decentralization who cannot present a single municipal model that encourages the increase in the powers of decentralization.
All of this coincides with the escalation of French-Saudi talk about "necessary reforms" as a main condition for helping Lebanon. Which opens the door to a very serious and legitimate question:
Do these people, in their continuous talk of reforms, mean those administrative, judicial and financial reforms that many Lebanese aspire to, or do they mean something else completely different and related to the regime in Lebanon? With all that this implies in terms of complications, interactions, and new attempts to modify the system without the balance of power that allows it. The regime, which was established by France and supported by all the might of Saudi Arabia after the Taif Agreement, is no longer valid in the eyes of Walid Jumblatt and other beneficiaries of decades of its shortcomings, when the balance of local power shifted. It is therefore necessary to stop the innocent interaction with the Saudi-French talk about expected reforms, because they were asked clearly what they mean by these reforms: reforms similar to what was described as reforms also in Taif on the eve of amending the constitution, or reforms such as those that the Lebanese people aspire to and oppose with every possible force The allies of France and Saudi Arabia, from Jumblatt to the Future Movement to the Lebanese Forces, which are always useful to remind the reformists that they chair the Administration and Justice Committee in the House of Representatives.
Therefore, after the dangerous official Russian speech: When it comes to financial policy, do France and Saudi Arabia, when they talk about reform, mean a full and unconditional criminal audit, with all that this requires of stopping the hand of the Governor of the Banque du Liban, Riad Salameh, until the investigation ends, And announcing its results transparently to public opinion? Does the reform, which Paris has been repeatedly talking about, include lifting banking and real estate secrecy in Europe from the properties of all Lebanese who dealt with public affairs in Lebanon, including friends of French intelligence, current and former ministers, representatives and general managers?
In electricity, do Paris and Riyadh mean, when they talk about reform, to compel their Lebanese friends to accept Gibran Bassil’s successive plans to build factories for the production of electric power, with all that this would cause damage to oil importing and distribution companies, and the generator networks of Riyadh and Paris’s allies in Lebanon?
Judicially, do you mean, when talking about reform, that the performance of the Supreme Judicial Council, with its president, who is very, very close to the French, Suhail Abboud, needs a change, or do they want to give his hand more and more?
On the security front, do Riyadh and Paris feel that there is corruption in the Lebanese security services, from the information branch, to the internal security forces, to the army’s intelligence and the army command, and there is a need for a comprehensive revolt and reform that can be fixed, or what exactly?
Administratively, in public administrations brimming with employees affiliated with their allies in all key positions: Do you want reform and change as demanded by Walid Jumblatt, who rejects any harm to an employee affiliated with him, or what exactly?
Economically, is there a French-Saudi feeling that the franchisees, their friends’ cartels, and the French-Lebanese companies that monopolize foodstuffs, medicines and all kinds of raw materials, are an essential part of the Lebanese economic crisis, and all of them must be overthrown as a major reform step, knowing that the Lebanese partnership The French in this sector is a precedent for Lebanon’s independence. Do the Saudis and the French think about reforming the way civil society works, for example, like France and Saudi Arabia, so that these associations are organized under a clear law roof, and submit on clear and specific dates documented financial reports stating all the money they have received and how they are spent, and how, when, where and why? And he who claims that he does not want to achieve a special benefit is prevented from seeking parliamentary and ministerial chairs and money?
Is this the reform that the statements of Saudi Arabia and France are talking about, or do they mean another reform that has nothing to do with all of the above? Because the foregoing is the basis of the French-Saudi influence in Lebanon.
What the Russian Foreign Minister says, combined with what Jumblatt says, combined with the declared Vatican concern, and what the Secretary-General of Hezbollah referred to quickly in his speech after the Tayouneh ambush, should open the eyes well to what Saudi Arabia is preparing with Jumblatt and the Lebanese Forces and with other parties.
After al-Ta’if, who, in spite of all its shortcomings, has dedicated parity, there are those who intend to go further, as indicated by the information of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which requires the highest degree of caution and caution, especially since there are those who are skilled at naming things by other than their names, describing “reforms” as their intentions. It has nothing to do with reform, near or far.
