Positions

American Lebanese Foundation

For Lebanon and the Lebanese American Community

Real Solutions Are Urgently Needed In Lebanon

11/20/2018

Historically and since Independence Lebanon has managed to survive many types of crises. Almost all were either due or contributed to by outside influences.

During the long period that Lebanon was part of the Ottoman Empire, its diverse population sometimes challenged the Turkish oppressive dominance. In return the Ottoman’s were said to intentionally interfere in the county’s semi-autonomous status to trigger clashes between Mount Lebanon’s Christian and Druze population.

When WW1 resulted in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Lebanon was liberated from its negative influence. A short episode of French semi-colonialism somewhat prepared the country for Independence, which was officially declared in the early 1940s. Since then Lebanon had to find some balance between Arab and, Western influence. When crises developed both helped in finding solutions. However, when the Palestinian refugee presence in the country became an “armed state within the state” Israeli interference became a major factor. It precipitated a civil war and culminated into armed intervention, aimed at forcing Lebanon to sign a peace treaty resembling Egypt and Jordan.

The civil war was ended by the Taef Accord which adjusted somewhat the division of power between Christians and Muslims. At the same time Syria gained some form of protectorate on independent Lebanon, with apparent tacit approval by Arab, European and American sponsors.

The Taef accord was selectively implemented, largely under Syrian government guidance, which used subtle power and diplomacy to control or contain any crisis that developed. The settlement of the civil war stipulated the disarming of all religious, ethnic or regional militias. The Shiite Hezbollah was excepted because of its role in fighting Israel. Consequently, it has since been recognized by the Lebanese government as resistance and not militia or terrorist group as referred to by the US and some other countries. This resulted in Iran, an ally of Syria and supporter/financier of Hezbollah, acquiring a growing influence in Lebanon. The assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, and the exit of the Syrian army from Lebanon, created a power vacuum which expanded the Iranian influence. An unfortunate result was increasing tension between the Sunni and Shiite communities in Lebanon which peaked as the destructive civil war started in Syria in 2011. While Lebanon’s government adopted a policy of distancing itself from the divisions in Syria, Hezbollah sent fighters to help the Assad regime and some Sunni leaders were suspected or accused of having a role in arming and financing the anti-regime forces.

While Lebanon managed to keep some degree of stability and relative calm, tensions between Sunnis and Shia continued to simmer, while Iran and Saudi Arabia seemed to be in constant competition for influence in Lebanon and the whole Middle East. These factors made it more and more difficult to form governments in Lebanon. The new electoral law resulted in increased confessional divisions instead of favoring their elimination. More than five months have now passed following the elections in May. There is still no progress yet that would indicate when the new government will see the light. Various discussions continue to question whether the obstructions are internal or external. Our answer is, all things considered, it should not matter. The solution would be the same, knowing that all Lebanese and their leaders stated their preference for a unity government.

The decision makers in Lebanon should be reminded that there is currently no outside entity with protectorate power to force any solution. The French, the Syrians, the Saudi, the Iranians, the Americans or the Russians have other problems or higher priority issues occupying them. No concerned outside power can help Lebanon overcome the obstructions that may be impeding government formation. It is much more likely that some, for their own interests, may be contributing to the obstructions.

At this time, considering local and global factors the Lebanese and their political leaders can only be effectively united around fighting terrorism and fighting corruption. The fight against terrorism can practically be considered won for now, considering the final victory of the Lebanese army over Isis and the Al Qaida affiliate pockets in the border mountains. The unity to fight corruption is very possible because even the dirtiest politicians will never dare openly defend corruption in a democracy. The lessons learned during the Presidency of General Fuad Chehab, the short Presidency of Bachir Gemayel and the early days in General Emile Lahoud Presidency could help inspire successful anti-corruption programs.

A rapid solution of government formation focused on fighting corruption should be facilitated by the presence of an anti-corruption “strong president,” elected as a consensus candidate per his own request. He had in his party of “change and reform” program proposed the separation of executive ministerial assignments from legislative parliamentary jobs. He should now reconsider insisting on the implementation of such option. It has highly needed economic implications in view of the “Cedars Initiative” for financial help to Lebanon which is said to be conditional on significant reforms. President Aoun has frequently asserted that he takes seriously the elimination of even any perception of corruption. The choice of ministers should be based on some record of integrity and courage to fight or resist any form of corruption. The appointment of ministers based on excessive wealth alone, with rumors of donations to individuals in power or their political parties would not help, no more than appointments based on possible directives from foreign intelligence services.

The Lebanese President who has appealed repeatedly for help to fight corruption should consider using his constitutional power and moral authority to eliminate or diminish the political fights over partisan shares for service ministries with large budgets. The term “Mouhasasa” with “flagrant desire to divide the cheese?” constitutes an antidote to genuine reforms. There is or there must be another discrete way for input from the various leaders in the choice of the best candidates that can serve the country in unity. The President can seek agreement and support from the Prime Minister designate and the Speaker of Parliament to reform the approach to government formation within the constitutional directives and geopolitical climate. The new approach should favor the choice of ministers based more on competence, integrity, the courage to fight corruption and the ability to improve Lebanon’s standing within the International Community. The American Lebanese Foundation (ALF) is a nonpartisan think tank organization. It does not interfere in internal politics, but it has within and outside its board individuals who can discuss, argue and convince all Lebanese and their leaders that the proposed timely solution will serve all without exception.

Most previous Lebanese crises were resolved on the principle of “No winner- No Loser”. The American Lebanese Foundation hopes President Aoun solves this crisis on the principle of separation of powers with “One Winner: Lebanon and One Loser: Corruption” He can then secure not only a genuine unity, but also great success for his term in office.

-back-