Kuwaiti national Samira Abdullah mocked via Twitter what was said by Syria's representative to the United Nations when he compared what was happening in his country to what happened in Britain. She said: “For God's sake, let me finish my fasting.” As for Osama Naqli, he sarcastically wrote on Twitter: “Whoever dubs the membership of an Arab country in the Security Council as “Arab representation” must look at Lebanon's position vis-à-vis the Syrian events and how it goes against the Arab stand and that of the Arab League.” Another Twitter user called Muhammad wondered for his part: “Did the Lebanese agree among themselves before agreeing with the Arabs?” while Abdullah al-Almi assured “We should not wait for Lebanon's position since it has become the state of a party rather than that of a people.” On June 20, I wrote an article headlined “The Security Council and us” in which I briefly tackled the history and positions of the Council's 15 permanent and non-permanent member states. I mentioned that Lebanon's membership as an Arab state was “useless” to the Arabs, considering it is a small republic which has “frail” institutions and is governed by sectarianism. Moreover, it suffered a bloody civil war and is based on a denominational democracy that is of no use in the building of a state, but rather obstructs the institutions of the state. In that article, I also assured that the position of the Lebanese representative to the Council reflected a clear image of his country, as he was stern toward the Libyan situation but retreated at the level of the Syrian situation, although the demonstrators in both countries presented the same demands and although the humanitarian situation requires the same treatment. Two weeks ago, specifically on August 13, the Security Council condemned what it referred to as being “a bloody oppression campaign” being launched by the Syrian government against the demonstrators, calling for holding those responsible for it “accountable.” The statement of the Council's chairmanship also added that the condemnation statement was agreed on after weeks of tough negotiations and that the Council “condemns the human rights violations and the use of force against the civilians by the Syrian authorities.” But Lebanon eluded the statement, and Caroline Ziade – Deputy Permanent Representative of Lebanon in the Council – announced during the session that her country considered that the statement “does not help in addressing the current situation in Syria and we therefore dissociate ourselves from it.” This Lebanese position and the dodging of the responsibility did not surprise the observers, considering that this position is expected from a country that is affiliated with Syria at the level of its policies and actions, has no decision-making powers and is afraid of Hezbollah's arms and Syria's mouthpieces. On the other hand, the Security Council is still deferring the issuance of a binding decision that would contain the Syrian regime's killing crave, prevent it from using excessive force against the civilians and from blockading the cities with tanks and helicopters. After five months of bloodiness - and at a time when the number of victims is increasing by the day and Hama witnessed another horrendous massacre - the Security Council's action is still boring and unable to contain the practices of Al-Assad and his regime's thugs. Lebanon should have taken sides with the Syrian people to register a courageous position in its UN record. But in reality, Lebanon's dodging of its responsibility does not represent the Arabs who do not need a state that is marred by disappointing positions, that is remaining silent toward brutal practices and is without any human values. When Lebanon was elected as a non-permanent member state at the Security Council for two years starting at the beginning of 2010, the Arabs congratulated themselves on its victory thinking it will support its brothers and neighbors. But after Hezbollah toppled Al-Hariri's government and after Mikati's government came to power, Adnan Mansour (Amal movement) was appointed as foreign minister, thus pushing Lebanese politics to revolve in the circle of the Iran-Hezbollah-Syria trio. And clearly, Lebanon's representation at the Security Council is now that of Iran and its allies, not that of the Arab people's wishes, interests and demands. Why did Lebanon's representative to the Council – i.e. Nawaf Salam – elude the responsibility and assign his deputy Caroline Ziade to reject the condemnation? Did Salam do that upon orders or was he forced into it under the usual pressures exerted on those who occupy consensual posts? Lebanon's “feeble” position four months before the expiry of its non-permanent membership at the Security Council means – as some are saying – that the Syrian regime and its allies in Lebanon are trying to delay the inevitable in a lousy way, and that those controlling Lebanon's foreign policy do not care how their country's membership will end, even if it is in a dishonorable way. Therefore, I say to all those who wonder about the Lebanese representation and whether or not it concerns or represents the Arabs: Quite simply, it neither represents all the Lebanese nor all the Arabs – just the Iranian team. And what was mentioned by the Kuwaiti As-Seyassah daily last week is the biggest proof of this, as the majority of the Arab countries informed the UN General Secretariat and the representatives of the countries participating in the Security Council that Lebanon which “dissociated itself” from the statement issued by the Council to condemn the practices of the Syrian regime against its people, did not represent the Arab countries and was not binding to any state in the Arab group.
