The Lebanon Crisis – War Commentary (1943)

From ‘War Commentary: For Anarchism’, Vol. 5, No. 3. December, 1943

The involved political manoeuvres of the French generals and the politicians who follow in their train have long made it obvious, as we have pointed out time and again in War Commentary, that these gentry have no intention of setting up anything other than an authoritarian regime of class rule as soon as France is “freed” from their German rivals. Their actions in North Africa and the petty struggles for power between the rival factions of generals, supported respectively by England and America, have already demonstrated the hollowness of their pretence to be fighting for “democracy”. If any further confirmation of this were required, it would be found in their recent action in the Lebanon.

To recapitulate the series of events, on the 8th November the Parliament of Lebanon passed an act modifying the constitution in order to give them greater independence from the suzereignty of the French authorities. In doing this they were merely putting into action what had already been promised them by General Catroux in 1941. The French National Committee opposed the amendment of the Constitution ostensibly on the grounds that it must await the formal terminations of the League mandate and the formation of a French Government. Naturally, the Lebanese did not wish to wait for the League to rise from the grave in order to end the mandate, and they refused to withdraw the amendment. The French authorities then invented a fantasy of a “plot against France” (meaning French imperialism), and proceeded to assert the argument of brute force by arresting the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet and 48 out of 80 members of the Lebanese Parliament. They also proclaimed martial law and imposed a curfew throughout the country, dissolved the Chamber of Deputies and put one of their puppets in the place of the imprisoned Prime Minister.

The people of Lebanon did not accept this ruthless display of power without active protests. There were demonstrations in the principal towns and in many of the villages. Even the native police, who are usually ready to co-operate with the winning side, refused to help the French authorities, who had to use Senegalese troops in order to quell the demonstrators.

The situation has excited anger in a number of quarters where vested interests in Near East politics are concerned. The British Government has protested against such an action being taken without consulting the British representatives. It is obvious that the British Government is not concerned with the freedom of the Lebanese. Its own imperial record is enough to prove that. But it is concerned for its imperialist domination of the Levant, and regards with distrust an imperialist manifestation in the same quarter by a puppet government which it has itself given the shadow of power. A petty and nominally independent state in the Lebanon is better than a French dependency which at a later time might be used to undermine British influence. So General de Gaulle must be put in his place.

The Arab ruling class throughout the Near East are also alarmed at the course of events, which appear to threaten their own hopes of domination and exploitation. King Farouk and Nahas Pasha, the Prime Minister of Egypt, have protested and threaten to withdraw recognition of the French National Committee. The bourgeois Nationalist leaders of the Arabs of Palestine have urged a day’s stoppage of work in protest. The Mohamedan and Christian religious leaders of the Lebanon have taken the side of the Lebanese Nationalists. It seems likely that there will be further manifestations of alarm among the Islamite ruling class of the Near East. In this connection it can be seen how the British Government is trying to sell another Lawrence trick to the Arabs by pretending to support their desire for independence in order to gain their assistance in establishing its hegemony. The Arab bourgeois leaders will no doubt be willing to co-operate with the British, as they have done in the past. Whether the Arab workers will decide to trust the British any more than the French is another matter.

We do not discuss this matter in order to vindicate the claims of Lebanese Nationalist politicians, who merely wish to gain domination for themselves, and who, in the event of their gaining independence, will be no less exacting and corrupt than French overlords. We bring it forward as*a further instance of the insincerity of the French politicians and generals in Algiers who claim to be fighting for freedom.

The salvation of the people of Lebanon does not lie in the hands of British, French or native political leaders. These will always betray them, as the French have already done. The only way by which the Lebanese workers can free themselves is by ejecting their foreign masters, while declining to accept rulers of their own race. If they act in this way they will not find themselves alone in the Near East. Already there are reported to have been demonstrations of sympathy in Damascus and other Syrian towns. The Arab workers of Palestine have not yet accepted British rule, nor are the Druse tribesmen of the Syrian mountains reconciled to alien domination. A revolutionary movement among the people of the Lebanon might well be the beginning of a widespread rising of the oppressed Arabs which could put an end to the games of power politics that have ravaged the Levant for many centuries.