National sovereignty belongs to the nation. The people elect those who exercise it. This is an undisputed principal. National sovereignty is unrelinquishable because it belongs to the nation’s past, present and future. Thus no people can relinquish their national sovereignty, even if they were to unanimously agree to do so directly or through duly authorized representatives. No ruler has the right to renege on the history of his predecessors or confiscate the future of his successors, nor can he squander the rights of the people who elected him to preserve rather than squander these rights. And when forced by circumstance to give up something, that must be done in the context of reciprocity and not in the spirit of surrender or free concessions.

In such cases, the ruler must not cede more than what he hopes to get in return, and must ensure, as much as possible, that the exchange is fair and just. In the real world, authorities exercising national sovereignty come in three varieties: Compromising authorities that abandon and surrender their national sovereignty to others, protective authorities that defend and preserve their national sovereignty and encroaching authorities that transgress against the national sovereignty of others. Relinquishing a national sovereignty by a national authority may be visible in one or more ways, for example, the inability to make independent national decisions and the inability to defend against foreign intervention. When a national authority loses its ability to make national decisions or its ability to prevent foreign interventions, it is considered impotent and that necessitates its replacement with another authority that can preserve the national sovereignty.

Since 2005, Lebanon was put through a difficult sovereignty test in both theory and practice. It was claimed that a revolution, named “The Cedar Revolution” was launched to regain the Lebanese national sovereignty from an authority accused of having relinquished it and make an independent national decision based on the total inclusive popular will. For that purpose, a government claiming to be “The Independence Government” was established. In practice, this government’s sovereignty related actions raised suspicion and was dubious: - On the national decision level: It became clear that this government does not make its own decisions but carries out the American decisions: In public policies, the American decides. In determining authorities and Lebanon’s representatives to international events, the American decides. In appointing high level government officials, the American dictates. Then a series of non debatable decisions: The isolation of the President of the Republic, the promotion of the Prime Minister from his third spot in the government after the President and the Speaker of the Parliament, to the “Head of the State” rank, the disarming of the resistance, the shackling of the Lebanese judiciary to become an assistant to international law, the negation the right of resistance and the prohibition of any references to it, the insertion of foreign troops as watchdogs controlling the nation’s entrances and borders and the limitation of the human, diplomatic and border relations with Syria A government, for which decisions are made without regard to the constitutionality of these decisions, is a government incapable of preserving the national sovereignty.

– On the foreign intervention level: Did the government try to prevent foreign intervention in the national affairs? Alas, No. Because the government that sees its support as coming from America does not dare argue with its patron. It blindly obeys its US master’s dictates even though that leads to internal divisions, constitutional violations and additional financial burdens. But if the US does not care whether the true Christian representatives (The Free Patriotic Movement) are included in the government or not, or whether all the Shi’a representatives leave the government or not, or whether the Lebanese national debt is increased by the projected 7 to 10 billion dollars cost of the proposed international court or not, or whether Lebanon’s relationship with its only Arab neighbor, Syria worsens or not, or whether the Lebanese government’s institutions are crippled or not, or whether the Lebanese people spend their days and nights in public protest demanding freedom and national sovereignty. Did the current Lebanese government care about these issues enough to prevent them? No it did not. It allowed things to fester until the people saw its national sovereignty violated and came to protest against the government rejecting its behavior and withdrawing its confidence from it. Hence, it became the government of impotent sovereignty, lacking the support of the people. Since it is in America’s interest to have an authority in Lebanon that hears and obeys and prepares the conditions of the success for its Middle East policy, a policy whose failure is evidenced by the results of the July war in Lebanon and by the conclusions of the Baker Hamilton Committee, the US is now scrambling to compensate for the lack of popular support for this government with daily expressions of support and with routine visits to the center of a government rejected by its people and surrounded by demonstrators calling for its resignation.

The US forgets, or pretends to forget, that its actions violate the Lebanese national sovereignty from another aspect, namely the source of a national sovereignty. A government elected by and supported by its people is a national authority. But if the foreigner secured it in its position, it is a foreign authority. Because the true power is that of national authority. As authority is derived from the people that installed it, it continues as long as the people’s approval continues. But when the people reject its rule, there is no continuation for that governance.

Are there no lessons to be learned from the American or the French histories? Therefore, we say that the continuation of the Siniora government is impossible. It lost the support of its people because it has reneged on its history, threatened its future and relinquished its sovereignty. It will not continue after its power became dependant on foreign backing and on an internal minority partially motivated by promised or already paid cash. And while the minority inside Lebanon can not impose its will on its majority, the external support, no matter how strong, remains transient in nature and ineffective in content. This is in principal. What would the situation be when the source of the external support is itself subject to the whirlwind of change?

The Neo-Conservatives in the US, the sponsors of the “Cedar Revolution”, are falling…from Rumsfeld, to Bolton to John Abi Zeid. The new democratic majority in the US congress will say to Bush: Your Middle East policy is wrong. In contrast, we see a Lebanese popular majority movement standing as one cohesive body from which all sectarian, regional and class tendencies have been removed, appearing daily in the sit-in squares as a living example of the true national unity saying in one voice: We do not want this dependent government. Let a national government come.

– This government is benefiting from a transient external backing: Because the American currently holding the decision realizes that it is building an unconstitutional situation that can not continue in Lebanon, a country distinguished by a high degree of political awareness and sophistication. Therefore, the US calculations are based on the transitory nature of its actions and not on its permanence. This means that the US support for its local tools is conditional to their ability to serve its own interests.

Hence, the role of the current Lebanese government may be changed from a sword that the US wields in the face of its opponents to a shield which will absorb the shock of their counter attacks. Thus, the role played by the Lebanese government is as momentary as the US needs it to be. This is why Bush proclaims that he is proud of Siniora. Bush wants to encourage Siniora to stand firm for the longest time possible. But when the US senses that this tool is no longer effective or useful in protecting its interests, it will discard it as the worker discards a pair of dirty gloves.

The US knows that this government is crippled and is unable to deliver on its demands: No law it initiates is signed, no law it proposes is passed, no command it issues is obeyed. And what is worse for this government is the rising tempo of the popular rejection. Can this impotent government disarm the resistance? Can it move Lebanon completely into the US orbit? Can it sell the land to various parties to establish foreign military basis? Can it barter the national debt with the permanent settlement of the Palestinian refugees? Can it make Lebanon a springboard from which to attack Syria, change its regime or vanquish it? Or...or...till the end of the US list of demands? A government rejected by at least two thirds of its people can not do anything. This becomes especially true when we remember that the army in Lebanon is a national army and not government army. There is a big difference between a national army and an authoritarian government army.

An impotent government is destined to fall. The continuation of this government whose legality has been negated constitutionally, popularly and even internationally is logically impossible and practically incomprehensible. The pragmatic American policymakers will see the US interest in dumping this impotent government and starting a dialog with the winning side in Lebanon as they have already done with the other effective forces in the Middle East.

The US will have a dialog with the real sovereignty party which is being built in the popular sit-in squares of Beirut today to prepare for a government of true independent national decision, a government that will embrace the political reality and does not relinquish the national sovereignty nor does it shut itself inside closed doors. It is only a matter of the weeks that US needs to arrange negotiations here or there. At that time, the Lebanese will witness the birth pangs of their national authority that will build the independent state. Just as the Lebanese martyrs wanted. And just as the free Lebanese dream. And we ask: Will this unconstitutional government hasten its departure before the desertion of its international patrons force it to do so? This desertion is as sure to come as did the popular rejection.