Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mideast Monitor: The Pivotal Role of Lebanon's Armenian Christians

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mideast Monitor: The Pivotal Role of Lebanon's Armenian Christians

    Mideast Monitor
    Vol. 4 No. 1 July-August 2009

    The Pivotal Role of Lebanon's Armenian Christians

    by Gary C. Gambill

    Lebanon's parliamentary elections demonstrated the growing political
    significance of the country's seventh largest ethno-sectarian community.
    Due to a number of political and historical factors, Armenian Christians
    lined up predominantly on the side of the opposition and helped propel
    it to victory in Lebanon's largest Christian district. The balance of
    power in the next election cycle may well hinge on whether they stay
    this course.

    Background

    Although small numbers of Armenians have lived in Lebanon for hundreds
    of years, most Lebanese Armenians are the descendents of refugees who
    fled Turkish persecution during World War I. A second wave of Armenian
    refugees came in 1939, after France ceded the Syrian territory of
    Alexandretta to Turkey. Lebanese Armenians are concentrated in three
    main areas: east Beirut; Bourj Hammoud, a suburb of the capital in the
    district of Metn; and the town of Anjar in the Beqaa Valley.

    The country's only significant non-Arab minority, the Armenian Christian
    community, not only preserved its distinctive ethnic and cultural
    identity, religion, and language over the years, but also functioned as
    the cultural and spiritual capital of the broader Armenian Diaspora.
    There are dozens of Armenian schools in Lebanon. Haigazian University in
    Beirut is the only Armenian institution of higher learning in the Diaspora.

    Most Lebanese Armenians feel strong solidarity with the Diaspora, but
    this conviction does not conflict significantly with their Lebanese
    identity and exerts little direct influence on their domestic politics
    today.[1] Armenians are somewhat unique among Lebanese confessional
    groups in having no landed notability or traditional political
    aristocracy, as destitution and forced migration proved to be a powerful
    social equalizer.

    The three main Armenian parties in Lebanon - Tashnag (by far the
    largest), Ramgavar, and Hunshak - are branches of larger Armenian
    Diaspora parties that pre-date Lebanon's independence and their
    ideological differences relate mainly to pan-Armenian issues. Tashnag's
    power derives in part from its organic relationship with the powerful
    Holy See of Cilicia, one of two Catholicosates that represent Armenian
    Orthodox around the globe. The Catholicosate left its original
    headquarters in Echmiadzin, Armenia in 1058 and settled in Cilicia.
    Although a new Catholicos was elected in Echmiadzin in 1441, the
    Catholicosate of Cilicia kept operating from Turkey until it was forced
    out in 1915 and settled in a suburb of Beirut. Armenian Catholicoi are
    usually elected by a mechanism that involves delegates representing the
    population, so Tashnag's influence throughout the Diaspora has filtered
    up into the ranks of the clergy, who in turn grant the party further
    legitimacy among the relatively conservative Armenian community.

    When the Soviet Union, with the endorsement of Hunshak and Ramgavar,
    gained effective control over the Echmiadzin Catholicosate and threw
    Tashnag officials out of Armenia, tensions among the rival parties led
    to violent altercations and even assassinations in Lebanon (and
    elsewhere in the Diaspora). Following the deaths of roughly a hundred
    Armenians in Lebanon's brief 1958 civil war, however, they began to
    exhibit more communal solidarity and intra-Armenian violence has since
    been relatively rare.

    Under Lebanon's communitarian democratic system, ethnic Armenians
    receive a fixed number of parliamentary seats, presently six out of 128.
    There is a widespread consensus that Armenians should vote as a bloc,
    and more often than not the three main political parties have agreed
    upon a common slate of candidates. They have tended to give electoral
    support to governing elites, particularly the president, in exchange for
    policies that advance Armenian communal interests. Prior to the outbreak
    of civil war in 1975, the Tashnag-led Armenian bloc aligned with Pierre
    Gemayel's predominantly Maronite Christian Phalange party.

    Armenian groups did not play an active role in the 1975-1990 Lebanon
    war, despite efforts by the Phalangists and later the predominantly
    Christian Lebanese Forces (LF) militia to pressure them into taking
    sides. Unfortunately, this lack of protection contributed to a flood of
    Armenian emigration that continued after the Syrians completed their
    occupation of Lebanon in 1990. By some estimates, more than half of the
    250,000-strong Armenian community left and never returned.

    During the 1990s, the three Armenian parties adopted much the same
    political strategy as they did before the war. In the 1992 and 1996
    elections, they reached agreement on a politically mixed, though
    Tashnag-dominated, slate of candidates and forged coalitions with the
    most powerful political barons in their respective districts. In Metn,
    they joined forces with Greek Orthodox Christian leader Michel Murr, an
    alliance that dates back half a century. They sided with late Prime
    Minister Rafiq Hariri in his electoral stronghold of Beirut. These
    alliances caused resentment among Christian opposition candidates who
    ran against the electoral coalitions of Hariri and Murr.

    Hariri had a falling out with Tashnag in 1998, when pro-Tashnag members
    of parliament gave their vote of confidence to a new prime minister
    favored by Hariri's archrival, newly elected President Emile Lahoud.[2]
    Consequently, prior to the 2000 elections Hariri demanded that Tashnag
    commit its candidates to vote in line with his parliamentary bloc (not
    the standard practice in Lebanon, where electoral coalitions are usually
    fleeting). When Tashnag rejected these terms, Hariri picked lesser-known
    Armenian candidates affiliated with Ramgavar and Hunshak, who pledged
    and subsequently practiced unswerving loyalty.

    In an effort to woo Armenian voters away from Tashnag, Hariri showered
    charitable contributions on the Armenian community, while his Future TV
    station began broadcasting a 15-minute Armenian language nightly
    newscast. Because Armenian neighborhoods in Beirut were split into
    different districts under the 2000 electoral law, Hariri was able to
    ensure the election of four Armenian members of parliament who the large
    majority of Armenians had voted against. Tashnag, which forged
    ineffective alliances with Hariri's enemies, captured only the Armenian
    seats in Metn and Zahleh.

    After the Syrian Withdrawal

    Tashnag faced a difficult situation after the withdrawal of Syrian
    forces from Lebanon in the spring of 2005, weeks ahead of parliamentary
    elections. Once again, the late Hariri's Future Movement swept the
    elections in Beirut, though Tashnag retained control of Armenian seats
    in Metn and Zahleh, held by Hagop Pakradounian and George Kasarji, by
    aligning with Murr and Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement (FPM).

    In August 2007, Tashnag again sided with Aoun and Murr in a
    parliamentary by-election in Metn, which pitted former President Amine
    Gemayel against Camille Khoury, a virtually unknown member of the FPM.
    Although the Ramgavar and Hunshak parties supported Gemayel, the roughly
    10,000 Armenian voters in the district cast their ballots for Khoury by
    a margin of more than five to one, enabling the FPM to narrowly win the
    majority Maronite district by 418 votes.[3]

    The FPM victory led to an eruption of anti-Armenian sentiment among
    March 14 politicians and press outlets. Minutes after the results were
    released, Gemayel declared that he, not Khoury, was "the true Christian
    representative," implying that Armenians were not true Christians.[4]
    "Armenians are outside the Lebanese will" and "are here to create a
    civil war," said Gabriel Murr on a popular Lebanese talk show
    program.[5] The pro-March 14 daily L'Orient Le Jour proclaimed the
    election result "a fake victory" in its headline the following day,[6]
    while Hariri's Al-Mustaqbal newspaper ran the headline "Two-thirds of
    Maronites vote for Gemayel, their seat goes to Aoun by 418 votes."[7]

    The Armenian community was deeply shaken by these slurs, which brought
    back memories of Phalangist intimidation during the civil war. "No one
    should allow himself to attack the honor of the Armenian community,"
    said Bishop Aram I Keshishian, head of the Cilicia Catholicosate. "We
    understand that some tense and sometimes harmful statements are
    delivered during and after electoral battles, [but] we do not accept
    unfounded accusations and offensive comments."[8] Tashnag leaders were
    less understanding, accusing Gemayel of bigotry and racism.[9] Although
    Gemayel was quick to proclaim his affection and respect for the Armenian
    community, his refusal to apologize for his election night rhetoric
    continues to irk many Armenians.

    The 2009 Elections

    In the aftermath of the Metn by-election, March 14 leaders made
    concerted attempts to woo the Armenian community away from Aoun, an
    effort that would have been futile had it not been for the defection of
    Michel Murr from the opposition in 2008. Last February, Murr formally
    announced that he and Gemayel were forming a joint ticket in Metn and
    hinted that he could persuade Tashnag to switch sides as well.

    Over the next two months, Tashnag conducted negotiations with both March
    14 and the opposition. While there were rumors of disagreement between
    Tashnag Secretary-General Hovig Mekhitarian and Pakradounian over which
    side to choose, it appears unlikely that a full-fledged defection by
    Tashnag was ever in the offing. Tashnag's goal is to build a unified
    Armenian parliamentary bloc on par with what existed before 2000. Keen
    on preserving his ties with Hunshak and Ramgavar, Saad Hariri insisted
    on being able to name most of the Armenian candidates in Beirut.[10]
    Aoun, on the other hand, was willing to give Tashnag the final say over
    the selection of Armenian candidates. In fact, during the March
    14-opposition talks that led to the May 2008 Doha Accord, he won
    enormous acclaim from Tashnag by pressing for the establishment of an
    all-Armenian electoral district in Beirut.[11]

    Tashnag urged Hunshak and Ramgavar to join it in a united Armenian
    front, but its rivals were squarely in the Hariri camp.[12] MP Serge
    Torsarkissian of the Ramgavar party warned that an Armenian
    parliamentary bloc dominated by Tashnag "would pose a danger to
    Lebanon."[13] In addition to patronizing Ramgavar and Hunshak, Hariri is
    widely believed to have financed the establishment of the Free Lebanese
    Armenian Movement (FLAM), led by Nareg Aprahamian, a retired army general.

    In late March, Tashnag officially announced that it would remain with
    the opposition, albeit with two minor caveats. In the 8-seat Metn
    district, Tashnag instructed its constituents to vote for Murr alone,
    but not for the other candidates on his list. In exchange, March 14 did
    not field a candidate for the district's Armenian seat, allowing an
    uncontested victory for Pakradounian. In addition, by prior arrangement,
    pro-Tashnag candidate Arthur Nazarian and Hunshak candidate Sebouh
    Kalbakian were elected uncontested in Beirut's second district, in
    conformity with the Doha Accord.

    It is not entirely clear what reasoning lay behind Tashnag's choice. It
    is difficult to justify the decision purely in terms of narrow electoral
    self-interest. Although two of its candidates won uncontested victories,
    the other three - Freij Saboungian and Krikor Calouste in Beirut's first
    district, and Kasarji in Zahleh - faced difficult electoral battles (and
    ultimately lost).[14] Had Tashnag aligned with March 14, it would have
    had a strong chance of winning four seats.

    Pakradounian called the decision to stick with Aoun "a response to the
    [March 14] policy of marginalizing Armenians,"[15] and it is probably
    true that Armenian resentment tipped the scales. Gemayel did not help
    matters by publicly warning the party that he would run a "closed list"
    in Metn (i.e. including an Armenian candidate), if an agreement could
    not be reached with Tashnag. Aoun smartly avoided so much as a hint of
    intimidation, and it paid off.

    The election was fiercely contested, with both coalitions spending a
    considerable amount of money on Armenian language media advertising. Due
    to the opposition's unexpected loss in Zahleh (alongside its expected
    loss in Beirut I), Tashnag ended up with just two seats, in Metn and
    Beirut II. Its support for Aoun was critical to the opposition's capture
    of six out of eight seats in Metn (Murr and Gemayel were the only March
    14 candidates elected), though its formidable confessional mobilization
    may have backfired in Zahleh by provoking Sunnis in the district to
    close ranks, resulting in an opposition loss there. Nevertheless, as a
    test of Tashnag's leverage over the Armenian community and ability to
    mobilize its supporters to adhere to delicate alliances, the election
    can be regarded as a success for the party.

    Not surprisingly, there was much grumbling about Tashnag among March 14
    Christian leaders after the vote. Murr lashed out at his former ally,
    accusing it of threatening his Armenian "friends" to prevent them from
    casting their votes in his favor and suggested that the "massive"
    Armenian turnout in Bourj Hammoud was the result of fraud.[16] Lebanese
    Forces MP Antoine Zahra denounced Tashnag and accused it of behaving as
    a "colony" in Lebanon, lacking "pure origin."[17] Such comments sparked
    rebukes within the March 14 coalition from Prime Minister Fouad
    Siniora[18] and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt.[19]

    Although formally part of Aoun's Change and Reform bloc, Tashnag's
    pre-election flirtations with Hariri and Gemayel suggest that it will
    keep its options open for a possible political repositioning. The party
    has always been open to alliances with different Lebanese parties on the
    condition that they acknowledge it as the major political representative
    of the Armenian community. With the rest of the Christian community more
    or less evenly divided, it will continue to play a critical swing role
    and competition for its allegiance is likely to be heated.

    Notes

    [1] The most notable exception is their nearly universal insistence
    that Lebanese government institutions officially condemn as genocide the
    Ottoman Empire's mass murder of Armenians nearly a century ago.
    [2] Pro-Hunshak MP Yeghig Jerejian and Ramgavar-backed MP Hagop
    Demirjian remained loyal.
    [3] Khoury won roughly 8,400 Armenian votes, while Gemayel received
    1,600. Al-Nahar (Beirut), 6 August 2007.
    [4] "Rival Lebanese leaders claim by-elections as 'victory'," The
    Daily Star (Beirut), 7 August 2007.
    [5] Quoted in The Metn Fallout, Nowlebanon.com, 14 August 2007.
    [6] L'Orient Le Jour (Beirut), 6 August 2007.
    [7] Al-Mustaqbal (Beirut), 6 August 2007. Italics added for emphasis.
    [8] National News Agency (Beirut), 6 August 2007. Translation by BBC
    Monitoring.
    [9] Ibid.
    [10] "Tashnaq rejects Hariri's proposal, confirms alliance with FPM
    and Skaff," Nowlebanon.com, 1 April 2009. In exchange, Hariri was
    reportedly willing to let Tashnag choose the Armenian representative(s)
    in the cabinet. See "Outcome of Metn polls may hinge on Armenians," The
    Daily Star (Beirut), 7 March 2009.
    [11] "Analysts say Tueni will beat Aoun's candidate in Beirut race,"
    The Daily Star (Beirut), 19 March 2009. Aoun eventually managed to press
    for an all-Christian district in Achrafieh featuring two Armenian seats
    and bargain for an uncontested distribution of two other Armenian seats
    in another district.
    [12] Tashnag called for "the reactivation of the Armenian bloc, which
    would include six deputies, one for each party, and the remaining three
    will be assigned after consensus." "Tashnaq rejects Hariri's proposal,
    confirms alliance with FPM and Skaff," Nowlebanon.com, 1 April 2009.
    [13] "Suleiman describes ties with Syria as 'excellent'," The Daily
    Star, 30 March 2009.
    [14] Ibid.
    [15] Lebanese Armenians and the 'Madness' of Political Alignment,
    Al-Sharq al-Awsat English, 18 April 2009.
    [16] Michel al-Murr, Nowlebanon.com, 17 July 2009.
    [17] Zahra: Tashnag Armenian Party Behaves as Colony in Lebanon,
    almanar.com.lb, 10 June 2009.
    [18] "We are hearing increasingly that so-and-so made it parliament
    because of the Sunni vote, or the Shia vote or the Armenian vote. What
    is this language we are using? Are the Sunnis, Shia and Armenians not
    Lebanese?" said Siniora on June 19. Nicholas Lowry, Armenians after the
    vote, Nowlebanon.com, 19 June 2009.
    [19] Jumblatt condemned those "who are describing the Armenians and
    the Tashnag party as outsiders." Quoted in "Sfeir: Poll result averted
    takeover by Iran, Syria," The Daily Star (Beirut), 12 June 2009.

    © 2009 Mideast Monitor. All rights reserved.

    Mideast Monitor is a quarterly 501(c)(3) nonprofit publication devoted
    to specialized analysis of political developments, issues, and
    personalities shaping the Middle East today. Established in 2006,
    Mideast Monitor is designed to fill a critical gap between media
    coverage of the Middle East and quarterly print journals - more in-depth
    than the former, less dated (because there is less lag time) than the
    latter. It does not offer policy recommendations, but special attention
    is given to policy relevant misconceptions about Middle East politics
    that often underlie misguided decisionmaking in government.
Working...
X