Layla Ammasha
More than twenty-four hours have passed, yet the “sovereignty meter” in Lebanon hasn’t registered even the slightest tremor- despite the blatant shock caused by the US ambassador in Beirut, Michel Issa. Behind the scenes, there’s talk that this “meter” may be rigged: it simply doesn’t record anything coming from the United States or its envoys, no matter how strongly it strikes at Lebanon’s sovereignty, dignity, and national honor. Others suggest that the failure to register anything is due to the repetition of similar incidents- so frequent that they’ve come to be seen as normal, even routine, within Lebanon’s so-called “sovereign” trajectory.
In reality, what Ambassador Issa said from the pulpit in Bkerki is less an insult to those he told to leave Lebanon and find another country, and more an insult to those who claim to defend sovereignty and national dignity. His remark that Netanyahu is “not a boogeyman,” while dismissive of Lebanese people who see him as an enemy responsible for killing them and destroying their villages, is also an affront to much of humanity across races, religions, and nations. That “not a boogeyman” is, quite simply, a war criminal-one many countries refuse to receive or meet, and some would even detain if he passed through their territory.
By diplomatic norms and standards, Issa’s remarks amount to a violation of sovereignty that should warrant accountability- even expulsion. At the very least, he should be summoned to the Foreign Ministry, warned against repeating such statements, or formally notified that he is “persona non grata” in Lebanon. That hasn’t happened, largely because the ministry is headed by a figure [belonging to the Lebanese Forces] whose political affiliations blur the line between governmental duty and partisan activism.
In the end, the Foreign Ministry- like others who champion “sovereignty”- swallowed the insult directed at the country. They avoided addressing it, or even justifying it, having learned from a previous incident involving US envoy Tom Barrack, who described the Lebanese as “animalistic.” Back then, they rushed to soften or reinterpret the remark. One even went so far as to deny what people had clearly heard- until Barrack himself repeated and clarified his words.
Before Issa and Barrack, the same “sovereignty advocates” stayed silent when US envoy Morgan Ortagus stood at Baabda Palace and thanked “Israel” for attacking a segment of the Lebanese population. If we were to list, chronologically, the violations committed by American “diplomacy” against Lebanese sovereignty, we’d need pages upon pages. Such violations seem to be a standard practice- especially in countries where local pro-American figures excel at producing hollow sovereignty slogans.
What Issa did, then, fits squarely within the pattern of American-style diplomacy—despite the fact that he lacks experience in the field and holds no academic or professional qualifications even for a junior diplomatic role. His only “qualification” for becoming U.S. ambassador to Lebanon appears to be the will of “the fool in the White House.” And fools, as the saying goes, tend to appoint people who resemble them. In this sense, Trump’s global team can be seen as variations of the same kind of foolishness, with Issa being one of its recurring and competing versions- each striving to please Trump and fully comply with his impulses.
From all this, one might conclude that American-style diplomacy requires neither knowledge nor respect for protocol. It’s merely a polished façade through which the United States exercises its arrogance, dominance, and the recklessness of its leader who is residing in the White House.
American diplomacy is merely a fake title to a truth that contradicts diplomacy work. Likewise, “sovereignty” in Lebanon is reduced to a hollow slogan- masking dependency, submission, and subservience to the US and its proxies. Those who weren’t even stirred by the occupation of Lebanese land, the killing and displacement of its people, are the same ones who now posture as defenders of sovereignty. Not only did they remain silent in the face of ongoing massacres, they went so far as to applaud the killer and grant him the right to continue- while criticizing him only if he appeared unable to do so. Yet on TV screens and social media, they are the loudest voices lecturing about sovereignty.
Lebanese people initially reacted to Issa’s remarks- seen as a representative of Trump-era arrogance in Beirut- with shock, which quickly turned into a wave of dark humor. Some treated the situation comically, mocking the audacity of a “guest” telling the inhabitants of a home to leave their own house. Others scrutinized Issa himself, portraying him as an émigré frozen in time since his departure- returning with a mix of arrogance, control, and a deep misunderstanding of the country’s nature and balance.
In the same context, many activists raised a hypothetical question: what if the Iranian ambassador had said, from a Lebanese or social media platform, that a segment of Lebanese society should leave the country and find another place to live? How would Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry have reacted to such a “sovereignty quake”? What kind of outrage would have flooded the streets and social media? What words would have sufficed for those aligned with the U.S. to express their anger and rejection of such blatant interference?
In short, there’s no real shock in the remarks made by Issa [Washington’s ambassador to Beirut and a representative of Trumpian foolishness in Lebanon-or in the silence of those who loudly but falsely claim to defend sovereignty, distorting its very meaning. Still, for the sake of history and memory, it is necessary to pause at this scene of submission. However often it repeats, it remains a condemnation- and a lasting stain of shame on all those who are complicit.
No comments:
Post a Comment