A Lebanese Abroad

The divergence in Aoun and Hezbollah

2006-12-10T14:20:00.000-08:00

The irony of the present “opposition” demonstrations is that the two so-called allied camps have divergent motives. The only thing they have in common is to overthrow Seniora’s government, but their motives for doing so are very different.

Hezbollah wants to control the direction of Lebanon and take us backward towards the dark ages with an agenda or war, belligerence, ideology and Iranian-like politics.

Aoun wants to become President, and he sees the overthrowing of Seniora’s government as a blow to anti-Syrian political forces with whom he couldn’t see eye to eye. He thinks that by weakening March 14th, he will emerge as a compromise candidate having the endorsement of his fellow Christians on one side and of Hezbollah on the other.

Regardless, they are both showing no respect for democracy. This isn’t unexpected from Hezbollah, a party who has a dictatorial management style. But for Aoun to show a dis-respect for democracy is shameful.

If they are the “opposition”, why couldn’t they do their jobs by arguing and debating issues in the Parliament in a civilized manner, just like any democracy does? And why couldn’t they just wait until the next elections to take their turn at governing if indeed they gain a majority.

Here’s a thought- if Lahoud is saying that the present government isn’t constitutional because it is currently excluding the Shites, why can’t Seniora appoint 5 other Shia ministers that aren’t pro-Hezbollah? Technically, it would solve the dilemma of the government’s diversification of religions requirement, and administer a blow to Hezbollah’s increasing madness.

Finally, let it be clear to Hezbollah that we reject their vision of Lebanon. Who are these people? Let them go home to the South and stop tainting the rest of Lebanon with their venoms. Let them stay there and form their own government if they want to, and let them attack Israel on their own such that Israel finally decides to destroy them like they should have in July.

Enough of this madness! We shall not let Lebanon fall victim to mad leaders (Nasrallah + Aoun). It’s enough already that we have been led by corrupt politicians, tribal mentalities, and archaic institutions.

It’s time to take Lebanon back!

Hezbollah Is The New Syria

2006-08-27T19:57:00.000-07:00

Hezbollah is the new Syria.

It’s obvious, especially after Nasrallah’s latest speech today.

Look at the similarities:

- no Lebanese politician in office is daring to criticize Hezbollah in public
- they have to be consulted before anything major is decided
- they are arrogant but can be charming when they want to (via Nasrallah, e.g. tonight’s speech)
- there isn’t a political conversation you can have about Lebanon without mentioning them
- they confuse the situation by playing both sides
- Lebanon’s future depends on their behavior
- they polarize the political scene: either you are with them, or against them
- they threaten, blackmail Lebanese politicians (and even perhaps killed some of them)
- they lie and can't be trusted
- etc…

You can name other similarities that come to your mind.

The next question is: 15 more years of this?

Can Hezbollah Fix Its Image Abroad?

2006-08-21T05:33:00.000-07:00

The Hezbollah reality is now every Lebanese’s problem. After the July war, Hezbollah succeeded in spreading the South Lebanon/Israel conflict into the rest of Lebanon, by making each one of us (via Israel’s attacks) feel it. They succeeded in influencing a larger segment of the population who was previously indifferent to them to take notice and to start feeling for them.

Assuming that the Hezbollah reality is with Lebanon to stay, there still remains a major issue facing Hezbollah: its “bad” image with the Western world (and to some degree- with Arab moderate governments). Here’s how Hezbollah is painted or seen by the West:
- a “terrorist” organization
- a powerful “state-within-a-state” that dwarfs the Lebanese government’s power
- an “Iranian-influenced” group, Iran’s proxy
- a “radical Islam/Islamic fundamentalist” party
- a group of “Shiite trouble-makers”
- a source of instability to the region
- a group that inspires trouble in the Palestinian Territories and doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist

Contrast the above list with the following messages that the late Hariri was promoting about Lebanon, and which the Seniora’s Lebanese government wishes they could just focus on:
- safe for investments
- booming economy
- construction renaissance
- excellent for tourism, world-class services and hospitality
- economic renewal
- banking and financial center for the middle-east
- a model democracy, multi-cultural, multi-confessional, open society

Let’s face it: Hezbollah’s image with the West is an anchor to Lebanon’s economic future because the above messages, when put together contradict themselves.

We should ask: What will Hezbollah do about it? Will they change their name or re-brand themselves? How will they shake-out their “bad boy” image”?

If Lebanon were to be at peace with Israel, (as it “almost” did from 2000 to 2006), would Hezbollah’s bad image just “go away”? Can they eventually become a normal political party that doesn’t endanger Lebanon’s future anymore? Can their military apparatus effectively integrate itself inside the Lebanese Army and become a deterrent force that’s controlled by the Lebanese State, and not by Iran or Syria?

If we, Lebanese are to “accept” and integrate Hezbollah into the Lebanese political system, we have to deal with Hezbollah’s external image issue. We have to ask them the tough questions:

What is Hezbollah’s vision for Lebanon? What is the “end-game”? What happens when Israel agrees to return the Shebaa farms and Lebanese prisoners? Will Hezbollah accept peace thereafter? Once more, how will Hezbollah get rid of its bad image with the West?

Hezbollah succeeded in making their agenda Lebanon’s agenda for 32 days. During the July war, “we were all Hezbollah” meant that we were all united in the fight for Lebanon’s survival, since we suddenly all became victims of the Israeli aggression. Going forward, can Lebanon find its own voice in the aftermath of this war, amidst the brouhaha of Hezbollah’s high octane agenda?

In today’s globalized world, interdependencies matter. We can’t just ignore what the Western world thinks about Lebanon and only focus on the fact that Iran and Syria love us for our resistance to Israel. Why does Lebanon have to be “more Catholic than the Pope” in the fight against Israel? If anything, the July war served a backlash to the Palestinians, since Israel slowed down their disengagement and withdrawal plans from the West Bank and Gaza.

Let’s get real. How will Hezbollah get rid of its bad image with the West?

(Note: Comments are moderated. This means that you will experience a delay between posting and publishing. Please do not post multiple times.)

Nasrallah and Assad Made Of The Same Fabric

2006-08-15T11:04:00.000-07:00

Do these two clowns know that we are living in the 21st century, or do they think that we are still in the Middle Ages?

I, like many other bloggers was shocked and dismayed at Nasrallah’s speech yesterday. His lecturing style was very condescending and insulting to the intelligence of anyone with an average IQ. Who was he talking to: morons? The Shia’s of Lebanon deserve a better leader that can lead them out of this quagmire.

Then, on top of that, Assad has the guts to make statements of interference in Lebanese politics as he criticized the March 14th movement calling them traitors. Who was he trying to impress: more morons? The Syrians too deserve a better leader than that.

What is still troubling is that no significant Lebanese political leader has rebutted Nasrallah’s comments in a way that starts to tip to the balance towards what UN Resolution 1701 is supposed to be achieving. Where is Seniora when we need him? And what sorts of machinations is Berry up to? The Lebanese are anxious to find out their fate, and it’s such a pity to find out that Hezbollah is calling the shots now.

This is very clear now to anyone who is not a moron: The Iranian-Hezbollah-Syria agenda has been totally exposed. It’s them against the West, being played in Lebanon. A scenario that has been weaved in Iran and baked in Syria.

This article, from Walid Phares explains exactly what could happen as a result of today’s situation in Lebanon. It’s a must read: Iran Poised to Be 'Mother of All World Threats'.

We must act now to save our country. At this point, it’s all in our hands. The international community’s last card was Resolution 1701, which if implemented, can save Lebanon. If it doesn’t get implemented properly,- the US, France and the UN will just be watching, as Israel delivers the coup de gras on Hezbollah, at which point, either it’s done by destroying more of Lebanon, or it’s done by dragging Syria and Iran into it. Either way, the outcome is not good.

Hezbollah’s perception of a military victory must not be translated into their further political advancement at the expense of Lebanon’s democracy. Amidst all the destruction which no one in their right mind likes to see, I really wish that Hezbollah would have been defeated more decisively. Is it too late?

Hezbollah Owes It To the Lebanese People To Disarm Now

2006-08-14T04:31:00.000-07:00

Hezbollah owes it to the Lebanese to start on the path of disarming its arsenal. Contrary to other beliefs that Hezbollah’s leader voiced regarding a ‘settlement of accounts’ with those that didn’t support them during the war, the entire Lebanese population has supported them and bore the brunt of destruction and deaths, just so that Hezbollah could continue to prove its military capabilities.

Had the Lebanese people and political factions revolted against Hezbollah earlier in this conflict, Hezbollah would have been weaker, Israel might have stopped their attacks earlier, and a lot less damage might have been inflicted on the country.

Now, the fighting is hopefully finished, and we could declare Hezbollah victorious. They won the war, but it’s Lebanon who must now win the peace. If Hezbollah is truly a Lebanese party, they should follow the wishes of the Lebanese people and its government whose majority did not want to be dragged into this war.

What is the worst thing that could happen if Hezbollah gave-up its arms, and became a civilian party that worked relentlessly at re-building South Lebanon? I can’t think of anything worse than what has already happened in the past 32 days. But I could think of several good things that will happen if Hezbollah finally disarms:

- the international community will applaud the move
- the entire Lebanese population will open their arms to the Lebanese Shiites
- more international aid and investments will flow towards Lebanon, especially to South Lebanon
- negotiations will start with Israel on the Shebaa Farms
- prisoners on both sides will be released
- Lebanon and the Lebanese will become more respected worldwide
- Arabs will continue to believe in Lebanon and contribute to its economic growth
- tourism and services will flourish again in Lebanon
- Iran and Syria will automatically be weakened
- Israel will accelerate a peaceful resolution with the Palestinians

One could give Hezbollah credit for their fighting bravery. But let’s not forget that the entire Lebanese population has also sacrificed a lot during the past 32 days so that Hezbollah could flex their muscles to the fullest.

Just like champions and sports heroes decide to retire at the height of their careers following a victory, this is a perfect time for Hezbollah to lay down their arms, while they are at the height of their popularity. Let them stop dreaming of that next fight because its outcome will be disastrous for all.

The only reason to keep Hezbollah’s arms is if one believes that these arms are a deterrent factor to imminent threats from Israel. But as Beirut Spring put it so succinctly, “a prosperous, multicultural Lebanon is a stronger foe than a militant Lebanon”. If one believes in eternal militancy, then it’s ok to keep these arms, but if one thinks that we could live in peace with our neighbors and grow the economy instead, then why keep these arms? The rewards of peace are much greater than the price of war.

Now is the time for Hezbollah to turn the page and begin its metamorphosis into a more commonly acceptable phase of its existence. If they could apply the strengths they have in discipline, organization, planning and strategic thinking towards civilian and economic goals solely, then- Lebanon will be a better country. If they dig their heels and don’t seem to care for the lessons of the July war of 2006, may God only help Lebanon.

What Israelis Don't Understand About Lebanon

2006-08-13T11:22:00.000-07:00

What Israel and the Israelis have grossly miscalculated is how Lebanon and the Lebanese would react to the aggression on Hezbollah and Lebanon. Israel thought that Lebanon would revolt against Hezbollah at the same time as Hezbollah would be pounded militarily by Israel.

Reading several blogs and online comments from the Israeli press point one to believe that Israel was really counting on the fact that the majority of the Lebanese population would align against Hezbollah in a way that would help precipitate their fall, after adding to the military pressure that Israel would inflict them.

Paraphrasing these comments sounds like this:
- while you were partying, Hezbollah was arming itself and infesting the South; it’s time that you pay for it, you deserve it
- why don’t you wake-up and get rid of this terrorist organization who is dragging you down?
- why don’t you get a better, stronger government, why are you so passive about it, we thought you were a democracy?
- Tel-Aviv is like Beirut, we have more in common than you think

The dilemma is that the above questions are correct in framing the issues, and they are the right ones to ask. But what differs between Israelis and Lebanese is the approach taken to solve them. Whereas Israel believes that military brute force action can shake things overnight, the Lebanese people are more in favor of a diplomatic, slow-paced, consensus driven solution. And the Lebanese people are a lot more tolerant than Israelis about co-existence even if one doesn’t approve of another party who is living next to you.

For many Lebanese, both Christians and Muslims, Hezbollah’s military and political rise was a big issue that they were trying to deal with. They knew that this hot potato had to be dealt with eventually, and they were buying time to try to resolve it while containing it, as much as possible. Take the analogy of the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel doesn’t like them, so it starts to attack them. The Lebanese didn’t like Hezbollah, but they weren’t attacking them, rather they were trying to work with them towards a longer term solution, starting by strengthening the Lebanese government itself to assert its authority over the entire territory. For many Lebanese, the Hezbollah issue was as grave as the Palestinian issue is for Israelis: people whose behavior you don’t like are living in your backyard.

Now, Israel has a bigger problem on their hand. Before the war, at least 40% of the Lebanese population was openly against Hezbollah. Now, polls show the majority of Lebanese (~80%) have sided with Hezbollah, not because they love Hezbollah,-- but because, of the 2 evils, Hezbollah is suddenly the lesser one. Many Lebanese Christians had warm feelings for Israel, but not warm enough to form bonds with Israel, especially after Israel started bombing Lebanese infrastructure and turning everyone’s life into chaos. In a nutshell, this war has affected every Lebanese person this time: by uprooting them, disrupting their businesses, personal lives, dreams, aspirations and plans one way or the other. Israel has in fact united the Lebanese far more than the Lebanese have ever been united in the recent past.

Going forward, we still have a “Hezbollah problem”, and we still have an “Israeli attitude problem”. Compound to this, we have a “Lebanese passivity problem”, a sort of laissez-faire attitude that allowed the country to thrive, despite of Hezbollah’s thorn in its side, but has prevented the country from being perfect at the same time.

What Israel did not understand is that the Lebanese people were more tolerant of the shortcomings of others, and that they worked around it, instead of facing it, i.e. if you ignore a problem long enough, it often goes away or becomes irrelevant.

If Hezbollah was the fly in the ointment, the Israelis approach has been to bring a magnifying glass into that small fly to make it look much bigger, then get the big sledge hammer and slam it, regardless of the collateral damage around it. The Lebanese people would have solved the same problem by filtering the oil slowly and allowing the fly to get trapped, and then deciding the fly’s fate after the oil was clean.

Of course, one can argue that Israel wanted to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, but the military approach is not the solution to a safer Israel. Rather, Israel must start to better understand their neighbors if it wants to live in peace with them in the future. This isn’t 1967, nor 1973. Israel may have military superiority, but crushing neighbors doesn’t solve its problems, but rather compounds them.

At the end of the day, we all want to live in peace, not war. Sure, Israel could win the war, but can they win the peace? It is time to seize this moment and revert to a “peaceful solution” that addresses all roots of the problem from all sides.

Lebanon: The Tipping Point

2006-08-12T08:49:00.000-07:00

Lebanon: The Tipping Point

30 days of a devastating war later, and we are now entering a critical phase where Lebanon is once again at the fork on the road. Two choices: 1) a once-in-a-lifetime chance to re-dress and get back in shape on the path to peace and progress, or 2) fall back into the abyss of a downward spiral, basically heralding the end of Lebanon, as we know it.

Let’s go back to pre-July 12th. Lebanon wasn’t perfect, but at least it was peaceful. However, deep inside, a number of factors were brewing, which reached what is commonly called the “tipping point”, and in this case, contributed to the “perfect storm”, a situation where all forces heighten their contribution towards a disaster.

Only a few weeks ago, I was thinking that wars were irrelevant in Western societies because they don’t accomplish anything. Much more is at stake from an economic point of view than anyone would be willing to give-up. But in Lebanon, this logic doesn’t seem to apply because we are being led to believe lies, such as,-- that war will achieve “liberation” objectives, or that the burden of the entire Middle-Eastern conflict in all its ramifications rests on the shoulders of Lebanon, or that Hezbollah is the ticket to defeating Israel, etc...

There is reason for worrying. I’m afraid that so far, it appears that Hezbollah has won the outcome of this war. Just by standing still and keeping their arms, they have been truly emboldened. Not a single Lebanese politician in the government has dared to challenge them, or even declare that Lebanon must turn the page now, and look forward to the future, instead of being dragged into the past. Only Jumblatt, Gemayel and Geagea are sounding the alarm bells on the dangers of letting Hezbollah dictate Lebanon’s future. Lebanon's Druze leader says Hezbollah agenda will lead to disaster, Gemayel here, and Geagea here.

The Hezbollah agenda is sending the country on the path of destruction and irrelevance. Israel is on a course to “teach Lebanon a lesson”, and they will not be deterred by the destruction that precedes reaching that objective. On the other hand, the more destruction Lebanon faces, the more Hezbollah will thrive, because it vindicates their raison d’etre.

The root of this whole problem, and its solution rest in having a STRONG LEBANESE GOVERNMENT that not only asserts its authority across the entire Lebanese territory, but also in being a truly functioning, highly effective, sharply coherent, and corruption-free government that leads Lebanon with the right vision while commanding the respect of the international community.

It’s very simple. Lebanon fell into the 1975 civil war when the Lebanese government was so weak, it allowed the Palestinian state-within-the-state phenomenon to become bigger that all of us and it created the tipping point for that perfect storm. Today, the same symptoms of Lebanese government bickering and inaptitude of the past few years have brought us to yet another tipping point: the Hezbollah state-within-the-state phenomenon, where the tail is wagging the dog and pushing the country to a disaster that is brewing.

We have a choice. We can learn from the lessons of history, or we can watch passively the country sink.

Is this too much to ask for? Wake-up Lebanese people! Let’s take our country back!

Or, they will take it from us.

(Note: I’m back to blogging. One year after I stopped. One year after I had given-up hope that independent voices like mine don’t matter in influencing the future of a better Lebanon for all Lebanese.)

3 Significant Events, 3 Bravos for Seniora

2005-08-11T04:49:00.000-07:00

Amidst the usually negative, absurd and typically depressing Lebanese political circus, 3 recent events took place which show some progress towards the future.

1- The cancellation of a 1993 law that imposed limits on political parties
2- Lebanon’s declining to attend the Syria-Iran “summit” (Lebanon would have been there in spades if Syria was still in control)
3- The formation of a new electoral law committee headed by the very respectable Fouad Boutros (putting this fragile law in the hands of (more honest) legislators and not politicians is a good thing)

These 3 events were seemingly minor in headline grabbing, but much more significant in setting precedents in confirming that Lebanon is taking control of its destiny, finally.

I do give full credit to Seniora’s government for pushing them forward. I am beginning to sense that Seniora is the anti-hype person, i.e. someone who under-promises and over-delivers. I think he knows that his Ministers aren’t all “A-rated", but he will get things done, despite of that. I am not putting words in his mouth, but my interpretation of his style would be close to the military cliché: “The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a while longer”.

These are the 3 significant events that point that Lebanon is headed in the right direction, slowly (but I wouldn’t say surely, yet).

While there is much work ahead, we must celebrate the small stuff as well!

Can Lebanese politicians learn how to 'really' work together?

2005-08-09T08:20:00.000-07:00

On the heels of Michael Young’s article with a shocking headline “Lebanon’s Christians must manage their decline”, Nayla Moawad made a precedent by attacking General Aoun on the ownership of March 14th. This marked the first serious bickering amongst Christians. She even indirectly took a shot at Geagea by saying that it was the March 14th gathering and the alliance with Hariri and Jumblatt that contributed to his release. I hope this is the last time Christian politicians attack each other in such a way.

While Moawad got her “15 minutes” of headlines, I am very disappointed by this cheap shot, designed to bring more attention to the Qornet Shahwan gathering rather than serve the national interest.

I am also disappointed by Aoun’s persistence in taking too much single handed credit for the Syrian’s departure and the March 14th demonstrations.

Why can’t we all acknowledge that this was a collective effort that all Lebanese people and parties proudly take ownership in, without lessening the role of the others?

An objective analysis will surely reveal that Syria’s departure and the re-birth of freedom in Lebanon was the result of several factors and circumstances that all coincided around the same time, the same place and were accelerated by the assassination of Hariri on February 14th.

We have to learn to work together and stop stabbing each other in the back with the mentality of always trying to make the other person look bad. Political differences aside, the Lebanese still have a lot to learn regarding how to ally themselves around issues that are of benefit to the whole country in an even, and unselfish way.

This is an important part of the secret sauce of nation-building.

Note: Re: Michael Young's article, I don't agree with the last paragraph "Michel Aoun made a mistake in segregating himself at a moment when Christians need to be more involved in policy matters. However, his decision to remain outside the governmental game, and the fact that the system is functioning normally despite this, demonstrates that Christians, or at least the more influential leaders of the community, are not as essential as they used to be."

Believing that the "system is functioning normally" takes a stretch of the imagination. The fact is, the system isn't functioning normally, and not because Aoun isn't part of it. However, Aoun seems to be the only one who is objectively critiquing the flaws in the system.

South Lebanon vs. South Africa

2005-07-31T22:35:00.000-07:00

In regards to the Lebanese SLA members still in exile in Israel, it’s interesting to note that when the Apartheid ended in South Africa, they set-up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a court-like process which basically decided whether to grant amnesty to those that committed crimes and tortures during that period on condition that they tell the whole truth, i.e. by fully disclosing what they knew and what they did in front of witnesses and families of the victims. Some were granted amnesty and some were not.

So, in defense of the ex-SLA members and in the spirit of complete and full reconciliation, I don’t see why Lebanon wouldn’t be able to adopt a conciliatory process to repatriate these Lebanese people to their homeland.

During the war, each group was acting according to their best convictions, namely that what they fought and believed in was the right thing. So, any and all groups are as guilty or innocent as the other, as long as the same rules apply to all.

Hezbullah’s arguments against the ex-SLA members do not hold water. These arguments may have some credence only under the assumption that peace with Israel will never be realized (something that Hezbullah would dearly like us all to believe).

But the reality is that peace will have to be negotiated and signed with Israel, sooner, as opposed to later. Therefore, why not apply the amnesty now, without prejudice?

Hezbullah wants their cake and they want to eat it too. They want Lebanon to be in a permanent state of war, therefore in a permanent state of risk, and hence be a less desirable place to attract foreign investment which is necessary for the economic prosperity of the country.

If there is any group that is currently holding Lebanon from real progress, it’s Hezbollah, their arms, their policy and their blackmailing the system. They are holding the (weak) Lebanese government hostage and playing Syria’s card which is- no peace with Israel til infinity. Syria’s recent statement about reviving the Beirut Saudi plan for peace is a pretty uninspiring starting point. Even the Saudis didn’t follow-up on it. It's a typical Syrian way of throwing mediocre arguments just to see if they'll stick.

Lebanon is Still the Same...

2005-07-31T16:33:00.000-07:00

...and so are MOST of its political leaders, even some of the newly elected ones.

Prior to February 14th, I used to occasionally read l'Orient or The Daily Star to check-up on the evolving state of the homeland, only to be often disappointed, disgusted and stunned in disbelief as to some of the absurdities uttered by the local politicians and the on-going vicious circles they live in. With the advent of the post-Hariri assassination Spring 2005/Cedar Revolution era, we were given hope and a sense of renewal, given the possibility that new elections and non-Syrian intervention would bring about change and usher Lebanon into a new era of prosperity, normalcy and long overdue evolution towards a modern, vibrant and economically strong country.

The formation of the current government and the events of the last few weeks and days have shown that Lebanon is still very much the same. Although some fresh figures are giving us hope and straight-talking to us (Aoun, Tueni primarily...but pls give me more names and examples), the scene is dominated by opposing forces, each pulling Lebanon in a different direction.

- Hezbollah. We know what they don't want: they don't want to end the resistance, they don't want to surrender their arms, they will not accept any withdrawal from any occupied land in return for any deal, they will not accept U.S. aid to Lebanon and they don't acknowledge UN Resolution 1559. But what do they want? Hezbollah has their own agenda. In essence, they have indefinitely hijacked the country's political system and forcing it to remain into a dangerous stagnation.

- Lahoud and his cronies are still thorns in the system; they often praise the "resistance", sometimes seemingly side with Aoun, sometimes push their own agenda, but despite of their pro-Syrian past were totally powerless in dealing with Syria on key issues that surfaced recently.

- Jumblatt is the ultimate rotating device that swings with the wind, but often is more confusing than enlightening- therefore a big negative.

- Hariri has proven his inexperience and immaturity, judging by how he got manipulated by Jumblatt or blackmailed by Hezbollah, and how he is back-peddling now on the Hezbullah issue; in reference to his CNN interview where he adopted the typical Lebanese low standards "we need to deal with each issue one a time". He is really a figure head, represented by Seniora who had to compromise to the hill to give birth to a mediocre cabinet.

- Amal and the Lebanese Forces are practically insignificant players on their own. Amal is really about the Berri persona, and the LF's role will depend on Geagea's demeanor.

- Aoun and the Future Movement are still the most honest political players. Aoun will not bought, sold or blackmailed. Unfortunately, he is the victim of a smear campaign by his opponents. He is still widely misunderstood by them, but slowly will gain new supporters. His place in the opposition is perfect, as he will call every bluff and every absurdity by its very name.

So this is how I see "poor Lebanon". It's a tragedy and a comedy at the same time. To those that think that the current situation is better than before, I would say: You probably have pretty low standards.

If Syria Really Wanted Lebanon's Interests...

2005-07-24T11:14:00.000-07:00

If Syria was really sincere about "brotherly" relations with Lebanon that respect Lebanon's interests, then:

- Why does the Syrian Prime Minister openly say that "disarming Hezbollah will threaten the national security of Syria"?

- Why did Syria block the border without initiating negotiations or attempting for pro-active talks in good faith?

- Why did they arrest Lebanese fishermen while Syrian fishermen continuously violate Lebanese waters?

- Why are they demanding compensations for alledged deaths of 35 Syrian workers, while thousands of innocent Lebanese either were killed or are rotting in Syrian jails?

Syria's double-talk is increasingly exposing their real intentions, day after day. It is clear that Syria wants to harm Lebanon, but why are our politicians still calling for best relations with Syria while Syria is litterally mocking us?

Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud yesterday underlined commitment to principles and stances Lebanese people had consensus on, on top of which is backing resistance and holding best ties with Syria.

Hammoud, during a ceremony to hand over the Foreign Ministry portfolio to new Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh, said Syria and Lebanon are determined to cooperate in the face of different threats and to achieve both states' aspirations.

I sure hope Salloukh wasn't listening to Hammoud's idiocies.

And who is going to believe this:

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa stressed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's keenness for boosting and strengthening the Syrian-Lebanese relations during a recent meeting with him.

from someone who is basically telling the Iraqi people to keep killing themselves by resisting the Americans, hence supporting the insurgents:

Moussa described the current situation in the Iraqi scene as a very chaotic and dangerous, calling upon all the Arabs to support the Iraqi people and not to leave it alone under foreign occupation.

It is obvious and clear that Lebanon will never have a real democracy as long as Syria has an autocracy. It's time to call a spade a spade. Enough double-talk and lip service designed to fool people with low IQ.

3 Types of Bombings: 3 Sources of Crime?

2005-07-23T10:02:00.000-07:00

With the latest Monot blast, it is clear that there are 3 types of classifications for the latest terror events in Lebanon:

1) Big bang, no collateral damage spared. These are the huge blasts (over 100 kgs) that are designed to kill someone in a motorcade and around a large radius. Targets: Hariri, Hamade, Murr.
2) Precision car seat bomb. These are remotely detonated at line of sight. They wait until the occupant is in the car and detonate the bomb that was placed under the seat. Targets: Kassir, Hawi.
3) Random blasts, random damage. Designed to scare and damage infrastructure more than to kill people. These are the blasts we saw in Kaslik, Broumana, Jounieh, Jdeide, Monot. Targets: terrorize Christian neighborhoods.

Could it be that there are 3 distinct groups perpetrating these acts, or is it the same group using different means to justify each purpose?

One of the common denominator to these targets is that they all represent Lebanese SYMBOLS. Lebanon’s enemies are after our symbols:

Hariri: Symbol of power, money, fame, international respect, new Lebanon.
Hamade: Symbol of early anti-Syrian resistance.
Murr: Pro-Syrian symbol, but was probably was on the verge of deserting them.
Kassir: Symbol of intellectual freedom, and early anti-Syrian.
Hawi: Symbol of surviving political diversity, and early anti-Syrian.
Christian neighborhoods: Symbols of Western influences and traditional Lebanese history.

These attacks are designed to destroy Lebanon at its core by getting rid of its important symbols. To counter these attacks (which will probably continue), the Lebanese must become more united at the core.

Backlash: Changing Lahoud & Lebanese Unity

2005-07-13T08:12:00.000-07:00

Having had time to digest and reflect on the Murr assassination attempt, I am reaching the conclusion that like other explosions, the intent of the perpetrators are actually being met by a reverse backlash that is totally different from originally intended.

Intent: The Murr assassination attempt was probably a message to Lahoud not to soften his pro-Syrian stance. Recently, Lahoud had been somehow “neutralized” by the massive opposition and public opinion wins. Perhaps the Syrians thought that he had gone too far in beginning to make compromises with the opposition, and gave him a warning by targeting his family.

Backlash: Lahoud could suddenly and officially “switch sides”, do a "mea culpa", testify against Syria by releasing evidence he may have,- basically plea bargaining.

Intent: This was an attempt to further divide the Lebanese by accelerating finger pointing against each other, polarizing the political tensions and even delay the government formation. Saniora put it succinctly by saying that “blaming each other creates an opportunity for the aggressors to continue these acts”.

Backlash: The Lebanese seem to be actually uniting instead of drifting apart. Every single politician that visited Murr or said something about this event had a conciliatory tone, underlying unity and the preservation of national interests, while none of them directly accused Syria. I am not sure if they in turn are fearing for their lives now, or whether they are coming to the realization that “united, we could fight this better than divided”.

These aggressors are underestimating the counter backlash effect which is much stronger than the results they were trying to achieve. Although they killed Hariri, the country has further united and Syria is out. And although they are trying to divide us, we seem to be closing ranks.

Cross-Border Trade with Syria: The Plot Thickens

2005-07-07T11:55:00.000-07:00

While we are being entertained by the government sausage-making like formation, cross-border trade between Lebanon and Syria is taking it on the chin. The timing of Syria’s actions were unexplainable as I posted in this previous blog.

New developments today point to a news release by the Syrian Finance Minister, with shocking statements, attributing the slow down to a “normal during summer times”. Instead, the Minister extolled the fact that Lebanon’s exports to Syria ($85 million) surpassed for the first time Syrian imports to Lebanon ($60 million) during the first half of 2005. He obviously wasn’t counting the many more millions in Syrian goods that are smuggled from Syria into Lebanon and flood the market at below-market prices. And he didn't mention that between 1997-2004, Syrian exports to Lebanon dominated trade with Lebanon: 93% in 1997 to 63% in 2004.

Meanwhile, Lebanese trucks are still lining-up at the border, amidst eyewitness reports reported by this Al-Jazeera/AFP story:

"I have never seen anything like this in decades," said Hassun, a taxi driver who makes a living transporting passengers between the Lebanese and Syrian capitals.
"Usually it is easy to cross the Syrian border post at Jdeide but the past few weeks it has been infernal," said Hassun after spending 45 minutes stuck at a Syrian military roadblock near the border.
"They interrogated us, searched the car and the passengers and confiscated some consumer goods. The people are fed up," Hassun said.

The same article reports of the actual state of Syrian-Lebanese trade:

In May, days after Syria completed its pullout from Lebanon, Miqati travelled to Damascus to discuss future ties, including pending economic agreements, and later said a border post would also be established to ease travel and trade.
But results from the visit have yet to be seen.
An agreement under which Syria was expected to supply Lebanon with natural gas has also been shelved.
It stipulated that Syria would sell Lebanon 1.5 million cubic metres (52.9 million cubic feet) of gas a day at three dollars per unit "or 40 percent cheaper than market prices", Lebanese Energy Minister Bassem Yammine said.
"But the Syrians have told us that this offer is no longer valid," after Lebanon said it wanted to renegotiate all its agreements with Damascus, Yammine said, adding that discussions were still underway.

If this isn’t a crisis, I am not sure what is. This certainly calls for the re-evaluation of Syrian economic relations. Syria’s timing is very coy and a low blow to Lebanon while the country is in the midst of the most diligent and transparent government-making in its recent history.

As Michael Young succinctly puts it in his last editorial: “It is unlikely the current Syrian regime could ever address Lebanon as an equal; for the men in Damascus, there is little room for a bona fide partnership in the shadow of the demeaning Syrian practices of the past.”

Hopefully, Lebanon will be able to stand on its own feet soon and deal with Syria from a position of strength. All we want is fair trade and fair trade pactices. In the past, this was difficult to even ask for, but now that Lebanon has the autonomy to ask, will we get it?

Syria halting Lebanese trucks at border: Why now?

2005-07-06T11:31:00.000-07:00

The timing of this border dispute seems quite ill, given that the Lebanese government is "in limbo", i.e. being constituted. I don't have any further information on this, except from this story which has also been reported on Lebanese television. There is nothing I could find from the Syrian side explaining why this is being done.
From the above article:

Hundreds of trucks carrying tons of perishable goods are still queuing up at the Syrian checkpoint along the border, threatening the livelihoods of thousands of Lebanese families.

Observers said that Syria apparently wants to demonstrate to the Lebanese that the anti-Syrian sentiments following the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon will not go unnoticed.

Syria is the only land outlet for Lebanese-made goods to the outside world.

"Syrian authorities are reluctant to facilitate the movement of Lebanese trucks," one trader said, adding that many of the tuck drivers are forced to throw away tons of fruits and vegetables on the road after spending days waiting near the checkpoint.

Lebanese trucks are spending between four and five days at the Syrian checkpoint while Syrian trucks crossing to Lebanon are cleared in less an hour, according to merchants.

Lebanon and Syrian signed a free-trade agreement more than five years ago but Lebanese traders and farmers complained that the Syrians never respected the agreement.

Lebanese farmers were also furious at Syrian smuggling into Lebanon, flooding the local market with cheap agricultural products.

In 1997 the volume of bilateral trade between both countries stood at $76.8 million, for which Syrian exports to Lebanon accounted for 92.7 percent.

As more agreements were signed, Lebanon gradually began tipping the trade balance in its favor. In 2000, for example, bilateral trade volume stood at $190.1 million, with Syrian exports making up 87.8 percent. By 2003, trade volume stood at $277.2 million, but Syria's share of the pie had slipped to 74 percent. In the first half of 2004, total trade volume stood at $136.95 million, of which Syrian trade accounted for only 63 percent.

Is this fair? Is this how Syria plans to deal with Lebanon, i.e. by hurting us, instead of co-operating with us?

I am curious about the opinion of others, especially if there are specific legitimate reasons for halting Lebanese trucks passing through Syria.

Polarization of Lebanese Politics

2005-07-04T20:29:00.000-07:00

After Rafik Hariri’s assassination and the Elections, the country was supposed to come closer together. Instead, we seem to be drifting apart. Each major religious sect (Maronite, Sunni, Chia’) seems to be clinging away at their own key post, without due respect for the opinion or votes of others.

I don’t recall in recent memory that the processes for selecting or supporting the Prime Minister/Government members, Speaker of the Parliament and President were as polarized as they are today.

I have several questions, but no satisfying answers.

Under the auspices of the Hariri/Jumblatt majority alliance, the Future Movement is the new Sunni pride and is deciding Lebanon's future via its distribution of ministerial portfolios. Little is done in terms of checks and balances due to the President's passive role, a result of his recent political isolation.

Of course, Berri’s nomination was shoved down the Parliament because he was the Chia’s choice, so no one could argue it.

And a majority of Maronites have lately rallied around President Lahoud now because he too symbolizes their religion.

What were the factors that lead us to such polarization?

- Was it Patriarch Sfeir who started with his remarks that only 15% of Christians could select their leaders under the current election law?
- Was it Saad Hariri who is monopolizing his father’s assassination, i.e. assuming carte blanche because Lebanon “owes” him that much?
- Was it the Chia’ voice which is amplified by Hezbollah’s arms that see the Speaker’s position as their only protection?
I sense there is even mistrust between Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement and Hariri’s Future Movement members relating to a simple event such as the Aoun-Hariri break-down. While both leaders took great pain to express their mutual respect for each other and left the door open for future co-operation, partisans of each party saw it differently. On one side you heard: “Hariri walked into Aoun’s trap”. And the other side claimed that “Aoun walked into Hariri’s trap”. The level of mistrust is indeed alarming.

Why can’t the Prime Minister, Speaker and President represent “national democratic choices” instead of being “chosen” by their own religious groups without respect for the others except for make-believe agreements?

The current political process discourages the rise of a real national political leader that is mutually respected by all sects, religions and regions, because as soon as one person starts to become popular across religions and begins to unite others, the other camps start to attack him since he is not from their own “club”. This is happening to Saad Hariri and Michel Aoun right now. They both have the greatest potential to unite the country, but they are caught inside a bad system where they spend their energies fending off attacks instead of working on uniting Lebanon. They both have baggage they can’t shake off: Aoun doesn’t have the support of all Christians and Hariri is under the threat or influence of Hezbollah and Walid Jumblatt.

I am not sure if this is just me, but I am sensing a real breakdown in the Lebanese political process. Please tell me if I am right or wrong, and if we can change it?

Is Hezbollah Dictating Lebanon's Foreign Policy? Their Arguments and Counter-proposals.

2005-07-02T07:51:00.000-07:00

It’s alarming to witness the increasing frequency of discussions pertaining to Hezbollah and its role in Lebanon, internationally and with Israel. The issue of Hezbollah’s position is still dominating the political agenda in Lebanon. This is good or bad depending on whether Hezbollah’s heightened clatter is perceived as wanting to increase their profile, power, visibility and agenda, or whether it is a precursor for a real and lasting normalization of their status, including a non-military integrative role into Lebanon’s politics.

A new report from the Berlin-based Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a must read because it presents a summary of arguments from both sides regarding the Hezbollah conundrum. And today, a Daily Star article headlines that Europeans Propose Merging Hezbullah with Lebanese Army, a suggestion that would “include international guarantees for Hezbullah's leadership that Lebanon would not sign a peace treaty with Israel before a general solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Further excerpts relevant to the ensuing analysis:

Hizbullah politburo member Ghaleb Abu Zeinab told The Daily Star the party's main concern is to defend Lebanon against Israel. He said: "Our main worry is to provide Lebanon with security. Hizbullah arms are providing that."
Asked whether integrating Hizbullah's arms into the Lebanese Army would hinder security, Zeinab said the party in its current situation is already providing security.
He added the party had no objection to disarming, but the challenge lies in maintaining security and peace in Lebanon. Zeinab said any national suggestion presented for preserving Lebanon's safety would be welcomed for discussion.
But Zeinab insisted any such suggestion should be discussed and agreed upon behind closed doors, given the sensitivity of the issue.
He said: "We will study any suggestion carefully and see if it preserves the country's security, and if it will generate national support and approval we will be ready to discuss it and adopt it."
Zeinab added Hizbullah is now the main resistance power in Lebanon, and it is supported by the Lebanese Army and the Lebanese people.

It’s a de-facto observation that Hezbollah has managed to become a heavy influencing factor for Lebanon’s foreign policy almost to the point of indirectly dictating it, due to the passivity of Lebanon’s past government relating to Hezbollah. This comes on the heels of repeated statements by Western powers that Lebanon will not get economic aid without the full implementation of UN 1559.

But Hezbollah’s arguments deserve counter-arguments that address them directly and with logic. Here’s a run-down of six key arguments and counter-proposals to them:

Argument: Hezbollah is a Lebanese internal issue.
Counter: But how come you are linking it to the full resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Argument: We have never turned our arms against the Lebanese people.
Counter: OK, but in the meantime, foreign investment is shying away from Lebanon because you are still perceived as a negative macro-economic factor.

Argument: Who will protect Hezbollah if we give our arms?
Counter: Jordan and Egypt are at peace with Israel, and there has not been any violations. If peace agreements are good for Jordan and Egypt, wouldn’t they be for Lebanon?

Argument: Hezbollah’s arms are needed to protect Lebanon.
Counter: Why couldn’t a Lebanese army of 70,000-100,000 (well equipped and modern) do the same job as the 10,000 Hezbollah fighters?

Argument: We won’t discuss disarmament until the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Counter: The Palestinians inside the Territories are now discussing peace with Israel without being concerned about the rest of the Arab world. Syria is the only remaining stumbling block. If we keep waiting for them, this could extend the status-quo for another 30 years, something the majority of Lebanese may not want. Why don’t we take a referendum in Lebanon regarding whether Lebanon should start peace discussions with Israel now or wait for Syria?

Argument: We are a resistance movement, not a militia, therefore the UN 1559 and Taef do not apply to us.
Counter: This is pushing the semantics rhetoric too far.

The Strategic Implications of Berri's Legacy Will Haunt Lebanon for 2 Years

2005-07-01T12:32:00.000-07:00

No matter how you slice it, dice it, explain it, justify it or make-believe it, Berri’s re-election as Speaker of the Parliament exemplifies the typical aberrations that are indigenous of the political system in Lebanon. Strategically, Berri’s legacy will continue to affect Lebanon for at least the next two years.

Aside from its pre-event drama, the Berri re-election points to deep-rooted systemic problems facing the Lebanese political process. The persona he represents is exactly what we thought would be part of Lebanon’s past and not its future. His omnipresence along with Lahoud’s proves that the remnants of the pro-Syria era were harder to dissolve than originally expected.

Lame excuses and low expectations
One of the primary excuses given for his re-election was that the Shia’ had felt isolated after March 14 and therefore, not selecting Berri would have further alienated them from the Lebanese community. Ahmad Fatfat (newly elected Future Movement Dinnieh MP) confirmed this “excuse” by saying that the alliance with Berri was vital in order "to complete the national unity that took place on March 14 and include the Shia’ in the reconciliation process." I really didn’t know that the Shia’ were pretty upset about not being part of the March 14th event. Didn’t they get dragged by Hezbollah and Amal into another counter-event one week earlier than March 14th, in support of Syria’s presence in Lebanon? This rhetoric sounds more like “Hezbollah-speak”, instead of mainstream Shia’ language. Is Berri’s nomination the only way to get Lebanon closer to the Shia’?

In reality, Berri is the one that has been isolating the Shia’ community from the rest of Lebanon, since he acts as their de-facto spokesperson and exclusive gatekeeper. LP describes very eloquently Berri’s practices in this blog.

In addition to his role as the Shia’s bridge into Lebanon, Berri is supposedly also the “protector of Hezbollah”. But protection from whom: Israel? Hezbollah's fears about "protection" are hard to understand and so overplayed. When there is peace, it’s peace. It means no more fighting. Therefore, a deterring force isn't really needed. Look at Jordan and Egypt: Israel has not violated the peace agreement with these two countries since it was signed. If Jordan and Egypt aren't good enough examples for Hezbollah, who is? If a strong Lebanese government negotiated a peaceful settlement with Israel, wouldn’t that fulfill Hezbollah’s goal? Does Hezbollah prefer to remain a continual enigma relating to their intentions? If Hezbollah’s goal is the destruction of Israel (or even an extended state of war) as they often imply, then it’s a suicidal mission that the rest of Lebanon does not wish to partake in.

Saad Hariri is on the line
Via its spokesperson, the Hariri bloc has justified the Berri’s nomination: "The extension for Berri is going to take place on the basis of his agreement to cooperate with the program of reforms: the application of the Taif agreement, a fair election law, etc."

It seems that Berri made some promises to Hariri regarding dealing with these “hot issues”. Someone from the Future Movement camp told me “let’s hope Berri doesn’t let the Lebanese people down”. My response was “let’s hope Berri doesn’t let Hariri down”. That deal was between Hariri and Berri. Berri gave his “word” to Hariri that he would deal with reforms, corruption, Geagea’s release, UN 1559, etc. My question is why couldn’t ANY other Speaker hold the same promises? Aren’t these tasks expected from the new Parliament, anyways?

So, Hariri faced a dilemma. On one hand, he was contemplating the easy thing, i.e. siding with Berri, pleasing Hezbollah and alienating Kornet Chehwan, OR blocking Berri and facing Hezbollah directly,- which would have been a first in Lebanon’s recent history, i.e. a Lebanese government dealing directly with Hezbollah with a tough stance.

Hariri took the easy way out, thinking perhaps that it was simpler to later reason with Aoun and the KC (those that didn’t vote for Berri) than to start dealing with Hezbollah. He has opted, in typical Lebanese fashion in the “delaying tactics”. Basically, if you ignore a problem long enough, either it eventually stops being a problem or its level of priority will dwindle down such that you will have in essence avoided it.

Hezbollah is stronger
In reality, this move has emboldened Hezbollah and made feel stronger. Now, the Lebanese government will be dealing with Hezbollah from a position of weakness, rather than from strength had they started by isolating them in the Parliament.

The Iran elections were undoubtedly another factor in Hezbollah’s toughening stance. In essence, they tipped the Lebanese Parliament in their favor, “blackmailed” it using the Chia’ cause as a shield for their intentions, and to further “thank Hariri” for trusting them, they liberally took advantage of the fragile border situation in South Lebanon.

Even if we assume that the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon was just an accident, by firing directly at Israeli soldiers, Hezbollah showed poor judgment and proved that they can’t be trusted with their arms. Their goal does not appear to revolve around reaching peace, but rather to promote a perpetual state of war. Did they really think that Israel was invading Lebanon with a patrol of five soldiers?

A Ray of Hope
The Taef agreement stipulates under a paragraph entitled “Political Reforms” that:

In the first session, two years after it elects its speaker and deputy speaker, the chamber may vote only once to withdraw confidence from its speaker or deputy speaker with a 2/3 majority of its members and in accordance with a petition submitted by at least 10 deputies. In case confidence is withdrawn, the chamber
shall convene immediately to fill the vacant post.

So, it is conceivable that when Lahoud’s term “expires”, Berri’s reign might as well come to an end if the Parliament applies the above Taef clause.

Until then, mediocrity rules
Until Lebanon’s political leadership is totally above board in terms of their transactions and deal-makings, Lebanon will remain a third world country where accountability, competence and national duty are taken rather lightly. Five-star hotels, designer’s shops, fancy cars and Zegna suits do not a developed country make.

It’s been said that Lebanon is so unique that its solutions are also unique. But going beyond logic defies gravity. Why lower our standards and accept things by the way they are "explained" or “justified” to us, or not by the way they should be?

Despite all the justifications and explanations, June 28th was a sad day for Lebanon.

Yes, Lebanon is the land of “consensus”, but too much consensus leads to mediocrity because you have to keep lowering your standards until you reach absurd agreements that avoid dealing with the tough issues and hence perpetuate the awful and unshakable status quo of mediocrity.

It's Berries (oops Berry) Season!

2005-06-27T06:53:00.000-07:00

In light of the continuous absurdities of the Lebanese political scene, some humor won’t hurt. It just occurred to me that June marks the beginning of the “berries” season, and this is why Berry will be our next Speaker.

Many similarities between the several berries and our unique, one-of-a-kind, organically grown Berry.

Straw-Berry: Straws needed to suck-up fortunes of others from a distance.
Cran-Berry: Cran-ky until he gets his way.
Blue-Berry: He will lie to you until you’re blue in the face.
Black-Berry: Oh, that’s a simple one. He always black-mails you.
Rasp-Berry: Definition of a “rasp”: A coarse file with raised, sharp points on its surface.
Goose-Berry: That’s an obvious one. He’s loose as a goose.
Mul-Berry: He will continue to “mull” things over until we are really confused.
Elder-Berry: Isn’t it getting elderly to have stayed so long as the Speaker?

So, here we have it. Our own Lebanese Berry patch.

The only problem is that in warm climates, apparently berries can grow all season long.

Open Letter to Saad Hariri Subject: Next Tuesday's Vote

2005-06-24T12:18:00.000-07:00

All the Lebanese in Lebanon and abroad are in suspense, awaiting the Parliament’s first session and the ensuing election of its Speaker.

We look up to you as Lebanon’s next savior, following the footsteps of your brave father. We understand that your block holds the tipping power for the choice of the Speaker of the Parliament.

Please, remember not to bring back the same Speaker that for 12 years exemplified pro-Syrian co-operation, made your father’s life as a Prime Minister miserable several times, and contributed to the venomous environment that eventually killed him.

Please do not make the mistake to fall into the low standards of compromise which has plagued the Lebanese political scene, where politicians routinely make deals with each other, regardless of the national interest.

And if you become Prime Minister, you would represent the people’s choice, not only the Sunni’s choice. So, please make the Speaker’s choice a national choice, not just a Chi’a choice, and please help make the President’s choice a national choice, not just a Maronite choice.

Leaders have to rise to the occasion and often make the hard choices over the easy ones. We know you will make the hard choice, and we will look-up to you with even greater admiration because we know that if you make the right decision, it will be your decision, not the result of back-room deal-making.

Lebanon’s future is now in your hands, as it recently was in your Great father’s hands.

Please do not disappoint us.
[You can sign the Petition endorsing this letter here.]

Are We Expecting Too Much from the Parliament?

2005-06-23T14:20:00.000-07:00

On the heels of Michael Young’s excellent analysis on the causes and effects of George Hawi’s assassination, I re-drew the list of challenges facing Lebanon from my previous blog Holding Their Feet to the Fire, and categorized them into a Difficult and an Easier pile. Upon reviewing that list, what struck me was that the Lebanese Parliament may be holding much of the powers necessary to enact most of these changes. And I wonder if we are not expecting too much from such Parliament given its appearance in what Michael Young describes as the "Syrian-led system minus the Syrians" and I previously called it "same old system without Syrians".

What’s difficult:
- Hezbollah’s fate, arms and position (Hot potato)
- Abolition of confessionalism (Boiling potato)
- Abolition of sectarian politics (Very Hot potato)
- Relations with Israel (Hot potato, might cool down quickly depending on Syria)
- Ending corruption (They all talk about it, wash their hands from it and treat it as if it only happens to others but not them. It’s a complex labyrinth with many hot potatoes along the way.)

What’s easier:
- Providing security (it’s a cornerstone for the economy but is gridlocked by on-the- ground reforms)
- Changing the electoral law (the debates will be heated, but it boils down to a known outcome)
- Replacing the President (Just as they voted to extend his mandate, they could shorten it)
- Not re-electing Berri (It’s all in their hands)
- Normalizing relations with Syria (Debates will start there to define them)
- Re-jolting the economy, tourism and construction (An effective Parliament sends the right messages of confidence to the world and improves the macro-economic factors which have been low)
- Lowering the debt (The Prime Minister could take the lead (as Hariri did), but it will take more than creative financing schemes which just delay the problem)
- Freeing Geagea (A very easy matter, perhaps their first vote)

So does it look like we are expecting too much from the Lebanese Parliament?

Are the MPs going to become Super Parliamentarians overnight and pass whatever is “logical” versus whatever is compromised upon (as in the past)?

Will the (next) Prime Minister be strong enough to take ownership of some of these issues and drive them, or will he/she “keep their hands off” these hot potatoes?

Are we going to be content by keeping an isolated President for 2 more years where he is certain to continue his lame duck record?

And are we going to fall into Berri’s hyper muscular machinations and keep him because he was a “great Speaker”, according to this nauseating defense of his record that appeared today in The Daily Star, penned on his behalf by Bilal Charara, General Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Lebanese National Assembly?

Doing what is easy is necessary, but not sufficient.
Doing what’s difficult will define Lebanon’s future.

Why doesn't Lebanon have a Rudy Giuliani?

2005-06-21T08:13:00.000-07:00

When Rudy Giuliani arrived at the September 11th scene in New York City and in the days after, he really showed the world what leadership was about.

At a time when the world's greatest city reeled in shock and horror from a devastating terrorist attack, Mayor Giuliani stepped into the searing void of grief and took upon himself the weight of millions of New Yorkers' pain. He did it without regard for his own safety, and then, without regard for his own needs, sought out all who suffered in all parts of the city for 20 hours a day or more. He visited Ground Zero two to three times a day, picking his way through the rubble of both World Trade Center towers and half a dozen other collapsed buildings. He trekked to hospitals and relief centers. He consoled widows, widowers and survivors, and anyone suffering from anxiety and fear. He spent every day like a true New Yorker, jumping out of his official van to grab a slice of pizza for lunch or dinner, or a cup of coffee for breakfast, all while keeping up a whirlwind pace, all day, every day.

Giuliani stood steadfast, unequivocally in command, showing a daily mastery of the details of rescue and recovery, while keeping a worried citizenry informed about the pace of the work, and the rising toll of victims. In the days that followed, he became a ubiquitous presence at funerals, wakes and memorial services, not only in the five boroughs but in communities up and down the Hudson River and across Long Island. Some days, he attended as many as eight or nine services, trying ultimately in vain to do what he had always done, attend every funeral for a fallen New York City firefighter or policeman. He even appeared on "Saturday Night Live," the New York-based comedy television program, to issue a declaration that the city was back in operation. He also spoke to the U.N. General Assembly's meeting on terrorism, calling the attack a "direct assault on the founding principles of the United Nations itself." A New Yorker by birth and blood, he became the voice and the soul for all New Yorkers, and for all Americans, and for all those citizens of the world who love the city as he does.

(Source)

What does Prime Minister Mikati do when he arrives at the scene of Samir Kassir’s killing? After he almost fainted (and reportedly put a handkerchief to his mouth), he starts “condemning” the perpetrators, then he gets haggled by the by-standers, then he leaves the scene, and nobody knows what specific action he took, except ordering an immediate investigation. Big deal, right?

What does Prime Minister Mikati do after the slaying of George Hawi? He is "stunned", "blames conspirators", “denounces the crime”, which “is aimed at destabilizing Lebanon and turning attention away from democratic achievements”. Duh?

Lack of Leadership = Lack of Confidence = Lack of Security

Why doesn’t Lebanon have a Rudy Giuliani?

Holding Their Feet to the Fire: The End of a New Beginning

2005-06-20T20:55:00.000-07:00

I am buoyed by the optimistic comments about the elections being a turning point in Lebanon’s history. Indeed, these are historic times, and Lebanon can look forward to a better future. However, we must temper our optimism because as much as Hariri’s death was the beginning of the end for Syria, the elections were just the end of a new beginning for Lebanon.

Phase I consisted of “Let’s unite to get rid of the Syrians”.

Phase II was about elections maneuvering: “Let’s get elected now, no matter what”.

Phase III must be about “Let’s build a New Lebanon”. Participants: Lebanese in Lebanon and Lebanese abroad, politicians and Western and Arab countries that want to help.

In terms of governance, we went from an old system with Syrians to the same old system without Syrians (yes, Taef is outdated). Now the hard work begins. Can we move to a new system? Can the same old players move us to the new system, or will the people have to go back to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with the status-quo?

We must not assume that our politicians will solve these problems on their own. In my opinion, the real meaning of March 14 has been already taken with a grain of salt.

A friend of mine put it succinctly: “The only real changes that will happen are the ones the people who took to the streets will come up with. There will be no miracle from the top down. The only improvement is that we replaced criminal/crooks by crooks. At least people will not get killed and tortured if they want to get organized, and Syrian influence will be hopefully purged. It is not a solution, but it is a start. “

My dear friends…it’s a start. We have a beachhead. Let’s not confuse it with the solution. We must elevate the standards that we want for this country of ours. Lebanon’s society (most of it) is largely modern. Its banking system is modern. Its universities are modern and secular. But can our politicians rise above the third-world type of governance they have been accustomed to? Is it such a tall order to get rid of corruption and usher efficiency in services, the respect of the individual and the emancipation of a civil society?

The hard work is still ahead. Lebanon has several monumental challenges if it wants to rise up to its full potential. If it doesn’t and prefers the easy route by choosing the lowest common denominators, then we will see our future in the rear view mirror. We must face the hard work now, and make the difficult, fundamental decisions that will define Lebanon’s future: Hezbollah, confessionalism, sectarian politics and Israel’s relations. These are the tough ones compared to the easier ones: changing the electoral law, replacing the president, normalizing relations with Syria, re-jolting the economy, lowering the debt and freeing Gaegea. Doing the later list will move us forward, but it will not get us over the hump, fundamentally speaking.

I do hope the next government will take their tasks seriously. Actually, very seriously. Extremely seriously. No more confusing us. Just serve us, like we elected you to. Like most other politicians in developed countries do. That’s why it’s called “public service”, and it means that. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege that comes and goes, like the wind.

My dear friends…as the saying goes: let’s hold their feet to the fire. This means they will be accountable with high standards. We must leapfrog into the 21st century. The Lebanese are extremely talented and creative, but talent is often wasted, creativity is often applied towards the wrong objectives and discipline and trust are almost always lacking. Let’s change that.

Change is what we want. Change has only started. We should only accept real change from now on. Nothing less, but a lot more. Those politicians that were re-elected have taken an unspoken oath that they are to be trusted. We are giving them a second chance if they want to get rid of corruption and implement reforms. We want Lebanon to regain its full respect worldwide, not just as a beacon of hope for other democracies, but as a successful economic power in its own league. We want Lebanon to be a model of co-existence between religions and cultures and a peaceful country practicing good relations with all its regional neighbors.

The dream of an economically and influentially powerful Lebanon is within reach. We are starting with a new slate, new hope, new Parliament- eager to work, and a new opposition that will keep them on their toes.

For us, we should hold their feet to the fire. Not more, but no less.

Paradigm Shift in the Opposition

2005-06-14T06:15:00.000-07:00

After Aoun’s victory on Sunday, several newspaper headlines were getting it wrong in labeling the “opposition”:

”Aoun success sets back main anti-Syrian opposition” (via AP)

“Switching General hurts Lebanon Opposition” (via AP)

“Lebanon Christians deal blow to anti-syrian coalition” (The Christian Science Monitor)

“Returning Lebanese General Stuns Anti-Syrian Alliance” (New York Times)

“The coming days look bleak for the opposition” ((The Daily Star)

Of course, these were all meant to highlight the defeat of the “former” anti-Syrian gang: the Kornet Chehwan gathering. But the reality is that the meaning of the word “opposition” is changing.

Whereas the previous opposition was an opposition to Syria, the new opposition is an opposition to whoever is governing, in the classical sense. So, for now, Aoun appears to have become “the new opposition” to the status-quo, to corruption, to sectarian politics, etc., i.e. he is the real paradigm shift in Lebanon’s politics.

Having a handful of previous Syrian cronies on his list doesn’t make him pro-Syrian. Aoun said last week: “I spent 15 years in exile, is it sensible that I strike a deal with a country that just left Lebanon and a regime that is falling apart. Does it make sense?” He astutely brought the last few remaining ex- pro-Syrian softies together so they don’t go stray and do more damage elsewhere; so he is controlling them now.

It is also worthy to note that not all those that voted for Aoun and his list are FPM’ers; they were just patriotic and related to the man’s honesty and real patriotism. Let’s dispel this myth one more time: you don’t have to be a Free Patriotic Movement member to have voted for Aoun or to support him. This message also applies for the Northern voters.

We owe Aoun a lot of respect because he is the only leader that was elected because of what he did and what he believes in, not because of who he is, where he came from or who his parents were.

Turning up the Heat on Syria and Hezbollah: Good News-Bad News

2005-06-10T12:50:00.000-07:00

Today’s headlines focus on increased U.S. suspicions that Syria is planning more politically motivated assassinations in Lebanon. These concerns were also echoed by Jumblatt in an interview here.

In addition, L’Orient-Le-Jour has reported in today’s edition that the U.S. Congress International Relations Commission is proposing a bill whereas it will remind Lebanon that UN Resolution 1559 must be applied in its entirety, including the disarmament of Hezbollah. This law is due for a vote at the end of June, and will apparently allow 120 days for its enactment, after which U.S. aid to Lebanon may be adversely affected.

These two events may have serious implications for Lebanon’s future and its relations with the United States.

First, the bad news.

This renewed call for implementing UN Resolution 1559 will probably be perceived by some Lebanese political circles as another heavy handed U.S. involvement. In addition, it might embolden Hezbollah who, feeling their back to the wall might overact and do something “stupid” in the South in order to gain sympathy from the population.

And with Syria, these U.S. accusations have some semblance of U.S. rhetoric against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It appears that a new “case against Syria” is being mounted, whereas the US is bent on proving that Syria is a destabilizing factor in the region and the last stumbling block to Middle-East peace. The evidence is part in Syria and part in Lebanon.

This has dramatic implications for Lebanon and only with an eventual Hezbollah disarmament will there be any good news.

The Lebanese political leaders will have to stop “dancing” around the Hezbollah issue and face it head-on with more logic, and less emotions. This will put pressure on the next Lebanese government who will have to take the Hezbollah case seriously and deal with it from a position of strength, not one of weakness. With Syria out of Lebanon, and with Iran facing even more international pressure, Hezbollah’s co-sponsors are being neutralized, therefore giving the group ample chance to save face by losing its arms, but keeping its identity.

It appears that the Hezbollah issue will be the first real test for the next Lebanese government. They will not be able to ignore it anymore. The Lebanese government will have to show real leadership and take the carrot that the U.S. is handing out. Not doing so would be irresponsible and might drive the country back into chaos while gravely discrediting the Cedar Revolution.

Exposing Lebanon's Democracy: The Biggest Flaw Was Not the Election Law

2005-06-05T06:42:00.000-07:00

While only a month ago, many were still claiming that the Election Law of 2000 was the main stumbling block to fair elections, judging by the way the elections have been conducted so far, it’s not the Law that would make the election more fair, but rather the election process itself.

Even a new Law would not have changed the habits of our existing politics which are to “nominate” rather than elect most officials. It’s really the dozen or so “leaders” that decide who they want on their lists and present it to the Lebanese people as a “fait accomplit”, almost a way to confirm their nomination. This has nothing to do with any law, districts or province subdivisions. And this shuts out or disadvantages most other candidates that may be more qualified than the ones that are “chosen”.

And it has become so obvious now that the greatest lie given to the Lebanese people was that it was a game of “Laws”. It simply was not. If the Law had a flaw, the process has an incurable virus.

The other farce is the staggered process over 4 weeks. It allows too much maneuvering and adjusting in response to the previous results, like a step-wise election that is not needed. Why can’t a country of 4 million vote in one day when most others with 100 million+ can do it in one single day?

The real truth is that- the Lebanese politicians can’t react in one day to events that may be counter to them. Sudden elections results would leave them scrambling and give them less control. It would be like a sudden ending to a real race, whereas they prefer the game of poker, where there’s always another round where they can sharpen their bluffs and backroom alliances.

The sad truth is that Lebanon's "democracy" has been exposed: these elections are for the politicians, not for the people.

Reflections on Assassination of Kassir

2005-06-04T10:09:00.000-07:00

Like many, this crime and its motives have been on my mind over the past two days. So many questions, so few answers.

In hindsight, Samir Kassir was the Dean of the Opposition because he started to speak out so early into the process of Syrian hegemony over Lebanon. He had the courage to say it, while most of us were afraid to utter a word. Many of us are still writing anonymously because we know that we could be within harms way.

But perhaps, if there were more voices like Kassir's, perhaps if there were more bloggers and writers out there 10 years ago, perhaps if we were all as courageous as he was, perhaps the Syrians might have left earlier? We can't change the past, but we can learn from it.

This means that we should be get intimidated but rather continue to speak out the truth under the assumptions of freedom of speech. It is Syria's government that is the anomaly, not the freedom loving Lebanese people.

Two days prior to his death, Samir Kassir said on a French TV that "some Syrian intelligence still existed in Lebanon, but their abilities to harm have been curtailed".

Could his death be a cowardly response to such comments?

Thousands More Kassirs: A Message to the Lebanese and Syrian Governments

2005-06-03T06:16:00.000-07:00

While it will probably be hard to find direct evidence about this hideous crime linking the Lebanese and Syrian government, in reality, they are both responsible. The first one for not preventing it, and the second one for being the source of it.

What struck me about the coverage of Samir Kassir’s assassination is a report in the L’Orient Le Jour citing a well dressed woman lashing out at Prime Minister Mikati while he condemned the perpetrators as he arrived at the crime scene: “Is that all you can do? What is the purpose of these condemnations? They never stopped honest people from getting killed. You are a shame. What are you doing here? Go hang yourselves, you group of useless people who can’t stop honest people from getting murdered.”

If I was PM Mikati, that kind of statement would have jolted me. I would have come back to my office and started to shake down the security and intelligence apparatus of the Lebanese government, right away.

Why do we never find who killed anybody? Why there never seems to be any evidence that springs out or any lead that appears, every time a tragedy hits Lebanon? Why are the assassins and their means always stronger than the police’s ability to investigate them? Why don’t we have highly skilled investigators that have the abilities required to do what is expected of them?

Of course the Lebanese government is ultimately responsible for these murderous acts. Their job is to prevent them from happening. And if they can’t, they should let other more competent officials take the helm. Where is the government’s program for creating and implementing more security so that Lebanese can live in peace?

Regarding Syria, if criticism of their government was a major motive for the assassination, then Syria has a long list of journalists all over the world that have been criticizing that regime. Just Google the words “Syria regime” and you get thousands upon thousands of articles criticizing Syria’s regime. They add-up to an order of magnitude the number of editorials or passages that Samir Kassir penned, critiquing the Syrian regime. Does this mean that all these authors are in danger too?

Syria’s archaic government is the source of murders like this, whether they like it or not, and irregardless of whether they keep denying it. Their regime is the cause. It is archaic and pre-historic in relation to the evolution of governments around the world. By its proximity, Lebanon is the first recipient of the Syrian virus. For all the good things Syria claims to have done for Lebanon, there are thousand other bad things that overwhelm the previous list.

The February 14th Hariri assassination emboldened politicians and the people of Lebanon that lashed out against Syria instead of being intimidated. It created hundreds of thousands of Hariri’s. Similarly, the assassination of Samir Kassir will unleash a tsunami of more articles and editorials and renewed calls against the Syrian regime. It will create thousands more Kassir’s. If February 14th was the catalyst for the Syrian government’s departure from Lebanon, June 2nd might be the catalyst for their departure from Syria.

How Absurd Can Lebanese Politicians Be?

2005-06-01T06:34:00.000-07:00

Here’s a typical example. Foreign Minister Hammoud (a remnant from the previous pro-Syrian Karame government) is complaining about “foreign interference” from Brussels where he is meeting with EU officials.

He called for a halt to the foreign interference in the internal affairs of any country under the pretext of promoting democracy, adding that he favored "the exchange of advice."

Minister Hammoud was over-reacting to reports in the Lebanese press (which were later categorically denied by the U.S. Embassy) that U.S. Ambassador Feltman had entered a polling station in Beirut (whereas in reality he waited outside,while Senator Biden made a visit, as an inspector).

How absurd of a statement could that be? Especially that in the meantime, it has been reported that 3 Syrian intelligence officials were in the North to help candidates win pro-Syrian seats. So, in Hammoud’s logic, it’s OK for Syria to continue to interfere, but it’s not OK for the U.S. to “promote” democracy. The linkage to Ambassador Feltman alleged visit to a polling station was just a pretext to attack the U.S. again.

And what is wrong in promoting democracy? Is our democracy so perfect that Hammoud is advocating that we don’t need lessons in democracy in Lebanon? Hammoud’s comments are so typical of Lebanese politicians. By these types of statements and actions, they are showing that they are no different in their mentality than the Mubarak’s, Assad’s and other Arab dictators. The only difference is they were disguised under the name of Lebanese democracy.

I hope that these types of Lebanese politicians have no more influence in the affairs of the country.

Same Old Fishy Stuff from Syria

2005-05-26T12:52:00.000-07:00

I find it utterly strange that two days after the Syrian announcement that they had severed their military co-operation with the U.S., suddenly 1,200 mercenaries are arrested by Syria heading to Iraq.

And over a month ago, at the height of another poignant moment in the U.S.-Syrian relationships, surprise: Saddam’s wanted relative appears in Syria and is handed over to the U.S. army.

Are these real coincidences or planned masquerades? Who are they trying to impress? Or, who are they are trying to fool? This has a sense of déjà vu all over again: it has Syria written all over it.

Musing: On the same day Hezbollah announces they have 12,000 rockets, Syria arrested 1,200 insurgents. What’s with the number “12”? Next, someone is going to release 120 prisoners?

Lebanon Should be the Power Broker for Middle-East Peace

2005-05-23T07:44:00.000-07:00

Yes, Lebanon. Not the U.S., not the U.N., not France and not the E.U.

After the Lebanese elections, Lebanon has an opportunity to play a greater role in the region as the main broker of peace between Israel and the Arabs. But this is only possible if it steps up to it. The rewards are huge, and the risks are minimal. Here’s why.

Let’s face it. The U.S., U.N., France, E.U. and Russia have all taken turns in trying to lead Middle-East peace initiatives and they all have failed at it. Even Jordan and Egypt have attempted to lead other Arabs to follow their path, and they too have failed. The Palestinians are charting their own trajectory. So, who is left? Lebanon.

Lebanon has an opportunity to lead this effort because of the special relations it enjoys with all key parties.

First, Syria is the key Arab country that really needs to make peace with Israel. The other key Arab group that also needs to make peace with Israel is Hezbollah. Which country has the closest ties to both of them? Lebanon.

Furthermore, both France and the U.S. have been cozying up to the new Lebanese government as guardians of the post-Syria democracy era. Lebanon is on their agenda now, and the diplomatic channels of communications are very open, very active and can go as high as they need to be.

Next, Saudi Arabia. Although Saudi Arabia will never play an active role as a catalyst for peace, their support is needed to grease its wheels. The Lebanese-Saudi relations are on very solid ground, and if anything, they have been strengthened after Hariri’s murder. The new Lebanese Prime Minister Mikati has already made 2 trips to Saudi Arabia since taking office a month ago. The Saudis have a history of trust with the Lebanese. Who could they trust now for leading them to peace with Israel? Lebanon.

Even Palestinian President Abbas has made open overtures of co-operation with Lebanon regarding the Palestinian camps in that country. And we know that this subject is on the agenda of the greater peace talks with Israel.

Back to Hezbollah. More than Syria, there is no other group that needs to heel its wounds with Israel than Hezbollah. Hezbollah and Israel have battled each other in South Lebanon for several years and the memories of death and destruction are still vivid on both sides. But deep inside, the two groups undoubtedly respect each other because each one knows that they can’t take the other one down, but they can both inflict damage to each other. The Lebanese government must ultimately manage Hezbollah’s reign for its own sake, and there is nothing better to boost their ego than inviting them to the negotiating table.

Back to Syria. Now, the famous brotherly ties between Lebanon and Syria can be put to a greater use. From one brother to another, Lebanon can tell Assad: “let’s make peace with Israel now”, or … we may not be able to help you sustain your own regime. In other words, Lebanon could now play a reverse role with Syria assuring its government stability in return for a lasting peace.

Finally with Israel, Lebanon has had a history of flirting with peace talks and although the two countries are officially on non-speaking terms, there is enough inherent empathy to warrant the start of something. Israel has recently proposed that Lebanon should make peace with Israel, now that Syria is gone. Lebanon can take this opportunity by telling Israel, yes to peace, but with Syria and Hezbollah too. By distancing itself from Hezbollah for the purpose of the peace talks, Lebanon can play a unique role in it. Lebanon is in a position of strength now, as the darling of democracy in the Middle-East. There is no better position to be in for starting negotiations than from a position of strength.

This is all possible, but not easy. Israel typically favors divided negotiation stages where they would make peace with each country or group, one at a time. A common front would not bode well for a starter, but this is not an insurmountable obstacle. In reality, they would be dealing mostly with Syria, but via Lebanon.

Now is the time for Lebanon to step-up and play its power broker role in the Middle-East like no other country can. Lebanon and the Lebanese are the only ones that can bring to the same table Israel, Syria and Hezbollah. As for the U.S., France and Saudi Arabia, their role should be mostly as cheer leaders, economic sponsors and emotional benefactors. Again, Lebanon is best positioned to orchestrate and arbitrate such roles.

Lebanon will stand to benefit from this expanded role. Lebanon’s global stature will grow commensurately and they will pick up an economic windfall not to be underestimated.

Let’s not just make peace; let’s re-engineer it.

Lebanese Entertainment Live Show, Playing Now

2005-05-13T08:16:00.000-07:00

Watching the Lebanese political dances and stunts is like watching a circus or a boxing match, really. It’s entertaining and shocking at the same time. But the tragic difference is that if this show doesn’t end soon, a whole country’s future is at stake, and the memories will not be so pleasant to remember.

What started like a big party (by the people, mostly) has now turned into a boxing match (by the professionals). The professionals are all hitting on each other, and the spectators are watching. When they stop momentarily, the show turns into a circus where they start to pull stunts, tricks and take us on wild rides. Then, during short intermissions, rabbits are pulled out of hats or from behind curtains. And after a good night’s sleep, some players get re-shuffled, their roles change slightly, and to make sure that we are not bored, they feed us new stories.

What the heck is going on? The whole thing is a mockery. Is this what the Syrian presence had been "masking" for 14 years, instead of trying to solve it? If Taef was supposed to unite us and protect us, but instead it is dividing us and inviting controversy, then, either Taef was flawed, or its implementation is being botched-up by the politicians, some of which helped to create it.

Who is minding the country? Who is talking about a better Lebanon, prosperous and thriving? All we hear is alliances and positioning. We hear divisions, confusion and unbelievable surprises. We're actually "numb" from the current madness.

It’s been said, ironically, that “logic stops in Cyprus”. Everything illogical and unthinkable will happen in Lebanon because its politicians are so creative and self-destructive at the same time. Where are the basic "values" of honesty, respect and trust?

As a Lebanese abroad, I am disgusted to see this. Judging by current events, Lebanon looks more like a circus or even a jungle, than a civilized country. Not the country I know.

Lebanese Citizens Abroad Have a Right to Vote Too!

2005-05-10T12:03:00.000-07:00

This is an appeal to all Lebanese abroad to sign the online Petition asking for their rights to vote from abroad. There is a last minute "push" right now to make this possible. Sign the Petition here.

A bill amendment suggesting a simple process of co-ordination between the Lebanese Embassies abroad and local official electoral lists holders has been proposed. Bill Proposal.

Tomorrow, May 11th is an international solidarity day for this cause. Lebanese citizens will demonstrate in front of the Foreign Ministry in Beirut at noon. The www.lebanese-abroad.com International Committee has sent an email to 14,000 Lebanese citizens who have already signed the petition. This email urges them to contact their respective Embassies to pass the message. See text of Open Letter at: http://openlebanon.org/modules/mypage/lebabroad-pr1.php

In addition, there are on-going discussions with local politicians and there is still hope for this to become a reality in 2005, because the Lebanese Parliament has agreed to meet this Thursday, one more time. See Berri agrees to hold legislative session, warns of time wasting

Furthermore, The Daily Star has a story today explaining that this process is really as simple as "putting a box in each diplomatic mission".
Bill proposed to grant vote to expatriates

More than ever, this goal is within reach, but we are at a critical juncture. It is not too late to lobby until we are allowed to fully exercise our fundamental voting rights.

Take action by signing the petitition, demonstrating tomorrow in Beirut, or faxing/emailing the Open Letter to your closest Lebanese Embassy.

The Real Syria Comes Out

2005-05-06T06:59:00.000-07:00

While Lebanese Prime Minister Mikati was meeting with Syrian President Assad on Wednesday May 4th in Damascus, the Spanish daily El Pais released an interview with Syrian Prime Minister Otri where he made a number of disturbing comments:

1- The Lebanese detained in Syrian jails are terrorists
2- Lebanon doesn’t want to establish diplomatic relations with Syria
3- Disarming Hezbollah is a Lebanese problem
4- Disarming the Palestinian groups is tied to the Israeli conflict

Interpretation and analysis:

1- Although Otri said that these Lebanese belonged to the Free Lebanon Army of the South, and that they apparently killed Syrian soldiers, what right does he have to call them terrorists? Any Lebanese that objects to foreign occupiers has the right to defend himself. They were heroes, not terrorists. And why did Syria deny the fact that they were holding prisoners for such a long time? And how about the promise made by the Syrian UN representative that all prisoners will be released by June 2005? Are these Lebanese people exempt from that release now that they have been labeled “terrorists”? And if they are “terrorists”, does that that put Hezbollah fighters in the same camp because they killed occupiers too?

2- Otri further added that the Lebanese people did not want diplomatic relations since Lebanon’s independence. Really? This is the first time we hear about that. It seems that it was Syria who always claimed that it doesn’t need diplomatic relations with Lebanon because of the “brotherly ties” that bind them. Would someone from the Lebanese government please respond to this?

3- In other words, “the monkey is off our back”. Or in plain English, “it’s your baby now”. Thanks Syria! After strengthening Hezbollah for 15 years, now you’re dropping that hot potato right into our lap. Thank you. Now we understand the meaning of your intentions!

4- So, first you were playing Lebanon as a card against your inability to solve the Golan problem. Now that this card has been taken away from you, you’re saying that the Palestinian camps are the new card. But how come most Palestinian groups are disarming inside Palestine, and you want the ones that are miles away to keep fighting from Lebanon? Haven’t you realized that the road to peace is via peace talks and negotiations, and not via armed battles that can’t be won?

So, is this the real Syria that is coming out: the Syria that is out of touch with reality? The Syria that is arrogant, disrespectful and ignorant?

And why isn’t the Lebanese Prime Minister responding to these comments? Why is he taking a “soft” approach by suggesting only the creation of a committee to study the issue of Lebanese detainees in Syrian jails?

If these comments don’t constitute interference in Lebanon’s affairs, I am not sure what does anymore.

Lebanon and Syria: Same Past, Very Different Future (Part II)

2005-05-02T15:32:00.000-07:00

We cannot dissociate Syria from Lebanon’s future, but we have to manage its intersection by first understanding its differences.

In the past 15 years, Syria tried to make Lebanon be like Syria. For the next 15 years, why not propose that Syria becomes like Lebanon, instead? Syria will stand to gain a lot more by being an open, democratic state, much like Lebanon is today. If that is the case, then both countries can benefit exponentially.

Going forward, Lebanon must become more assertive in what it wants from Syria- basically reversing the roles of the last 15 years. Of course, we know that an abrupt regime change in Syria will make Syria look like Iraq and invite anarchy, Islamic fundamentalism and Al-Qaeda operatives. So, the question for Syria is – what kind of future does Syria want? Can Assad reform Syria on his own? Will he be forced to do it, or will he prolong Syria’s agony by keeping the status-quo another 3 or 4 years and suffer the consequences of raising the pressure level on his oppressed people?

In order to make a more informed judgment on Syrian-Lebanese economic co-operation, we must look at the demographic and financial trends of the past 30 years.

In 2004, Lebanon had a population of 4.5 million, a GDP/capita of $4,300 and a GDP of $19.4 billion. Syria had a population of 18 million, a GDP/capita of $1,200 and an economy of $22 billion. But let’s examine the dynamics. In 1976, with a population of 3.1 million, Lebanon’s GDP/capita was $1,600 while Syria’s 7.6 million people had a GDP/capita of $980. So, in 28 years, despite 15 years of war and 14 years of Syrian’s presence, Lebanon managed to almost quadruple its GDP and GDP per capita while Syria only doubled its economy and almost its population, therefore shortchanging its people’s wealth which only grew by 25% on a per capita basis over the same period.

Assuming Lebanon’s economy continues to grow at 4% while Syria’s at 2%, Lebanon’s economy will surpass Syria’s in 2011. By 2015, Lebanon will have a $30 billion economy and $5,800 GPP/capita while Syria will have a $27 billion economy and $1240 GDP/capita. Syria’s then 22 million people will be shortchanged again.

The macro-economic numbers do not hold well for Syria if it wants to set itself on a better economic development course. More bad news: 71% of Syria’s $5.4 billion in exports are derived from oil revenues. It is predicted that these reserves will expire in about 5 years.

Here’s what the World Economic Forum’s Arab Business Council wrote in their report on Syria in November 2004:

The Case of Syria
- There are no reform plans on paper. Syria is in need of a clear vision.
- Within 5-7 years the Syrian economy shall be completely restructured. Given demographic developments, Syria’s macroeconomic stability could be in danger. Within the next 10 years, 500,000 job seekers will be added to the job markets each year. The window of opportunity to reform is limited given the demographic pressures.
- Syria needs growth of six to seven per cent to sustain itself – to achieve this, Syria needs high investment (public and private), but also drastic improvement of productivity.
- The past decade was a lost one for Syria. It was not conducive to private sector development, growth, or employment. In the past ten years, Syria witnessed a severe economic crisis. One out of four job seekers does not find a new job.
- Syria must embark on a path of reform that emphasizes manufacturing over resources (from oil to non-oil), from public sector- to private sector-driven growth, from import substitution to export-led growth.
- Syria, as any other country aiming to reform, must consider the deep interrelationships that exist between the issue areas to be reformed. Issue areas are inherently interrelated.

(From ARAB BUSINESS COUNCIL ANNUAL MEETING, MARRAKECH, 25 NOVEMBER 2004 http://www.weforum.org/pdf/ABC/marrakech.pdf )

This is why rushing into economic integration is a bad recipe for Lebanon and a good one for Syria. If the economic gap is too wide, the poorer country stands to gain more than the richer one. It’s pure mathematics. Look at the integration of East Germany and West Germany. West Germany had to pay a big price for this integration. They are barely recovering from it 15 years later. This is also why the European Union takes a stepped approach to accepting poorer countries into its membership, and more specifically why they are not rushing to bring Turkey in.

Let us hope that the next Lebanese government sees through the economic integration masquerade that the current government was leading us towards, blindly.

Of course we want to help Syria, but first, Syria must help itself.

For comments, I invite you to the new Open Lebanon Forum:
Please click here for Comments (Registration required)

Why Lebanese Politics Are Like a Game of Poker

2005-04-29T06:44:00.000-07:00

What do Lebanese politics and a game of Poker have in common?

Everything!

Lots of bluff, poker faces, unexpected moves, everyone holds their cards tight to the chest until the last moment, regular shuffling of the deck, frequent swearing, the winner takes it all, win-lose always, etc… Does this sound familiar if you have been following the last few Parliamentary sessions on the Elections Law?

What happened to the Opposition? How did they get duped? Were they dealt bad cards? Did other players stab them in the back? Why suddenly a return to the 2000 law as a fall-back for not having reached agreement in two days? Where is the real work of the Parliamentary commission that was set-up? What kind of impartial government is that? Why do we keep falling back on bad compromises? Why do we have to face the “fait accomplit” politics? What happened to transparency? Why is it always about “making deals” with each other instead of serving the country?

So many questions landing on so many deaf ears!

No sooner did we get rid of the Syrians that now we are facing the second Lebanese vice which is now in #1 position: the dirty game of Lebanese politics.

These politicians keep pulling rabits out of their hats and pulling the rug from underneath each others. That’s what they do best.

Here’s the real source of the problem: We can’t expect to get change from those that the intended change will hurt. This means that the Elections may not bring a clean slate of politicians overnight, but it may only make a dent into the existing composition of the Parliament. The Daily Star article Adoption of 2000 electoral law will return familiar faces summarizes this situation pretty well.

After getting rid of the Syrians, the Lebanese should focus on getting rid of most of the existing politicians. Seriously!

Memo To Lebanon and Syria: Get Busy and Stop Dreaming

2005-04-26T19:49:00.000-07:00

Dear Syria,

You left Lebanon a few days earlier than April 30th, so that Kofi Anan can include your great accomplishment in the report that he delayed for that purpose. I am not sure if you were really trying to impress the world, but if you expect accolades now, please don’t. This is like the thief who gets caught as he was leaving the house he just robbed, and he expects a reward or brownie point from the police because he didn’t rob the entire contents.

That shameful exit of yours was from your own making. You did overstay your mission by many years, didn’t you? That is the unfortunate truth.

Now that you are all back in Syria, please stay home and don’t call us for a while. We’ll call you. If the phone doesn’t ring, it’s us. Honestly, you have so much work to do at home that you shouldn’t even worry about us for a while.

Since your president decides everything for you, he has to sort out if he is capable of reforming Syria, so that it emerges as the modern nation that it should become. Syria has two gigantic issues to deal with. First,- in the last 25 years, it doubled its population while improving its GDP per capita only by 25%, i.e. a mere 1% per year. Second, it must do something about its anemic economy and shift its dependence on oil. Here is the dilemma: 71% of Syria’s exports come from oil, but that production has only five years left. These are ticking time bombs. Deal with them.

Dear Lebanon,

As the Syrian grip is eroding, there has been too much talk emphasis in Lebanese political circles already on strengthening the relationship between the countries, as if it was an absolute basis for the future of each country [See: Lebanese MPs stress distinguished relations with Syria, and Khouri to boost Syria-Lebanon relations.] This is wrong and premature. There are other priorities that Lebanon should deal with, internally. Although Syria and Lebanon’s future will undoubtedly intersect, that interdependence should not be the guiding post for determining what each country needs to do, now. Otherwise, we’re back to the same old recipe, and Syria will tie us down and stifle our creativity and liberty.

First, Lebanon has to sort out whether it can emerge as a truly reconciled nation, while figuring out how to deal with Hezbollah, the wild card. Lebanon must re-dress its political and social institutions and allow them to reclaim a glamour that was lost amidst the civil war and the Syrian provincialism that has tarnished them.

In conclusion, each country should forge its own destiny and work on their own internal issues, first. They both have lots of work to do before dreaming-up of new and sophisticated bi-lateral relationships with all kinds of ties and common denominators.

In conclusion, let each country get really busy internally, before they get busy discussing imaginary alliances. Once Lebanon and Syria are back on their feet, they can start dating and dreaming again.

Zogby poll shows Hezbollah a wild card for Lebanese

2005-04-21T18:44:00.000-07:00

A new Zogby poll has been released but not widely publicized yet. Here were the surprising or interesting results, from my perspective:

- 6% want Hizbollah disarmed, another 18% if peace exist, 31% if they self-disarm and 41% want them to stay armed
- 30% support the role of the U.S., 45% of France, 37% of Syria and 74% of Hezbollah

And these ones show that perception and reality are different:
- 75% of loyalists demonstrations principally motivated by “No to US/France” vs. only 19% of opposition demonstrations were actually inspired by US/French support
- 54% of loyalists thought that opposition demonstrations were not important versus 48% of opposition thought that loyalist demonstrations were not important

These polls show that the “dividing” issue remains Hezbollah. The “uniting” issues are: elections on time, new government, Taef accord and the role of foreign nations. Furthermore, this poll shows that there are large gaps between perception and reality.

I don’t think that the Lebanese are interesting in discussing their differences until after the elections which are seen as a defining moment in history. What is still unclear is how this polarization will change after the elections, and if it remains- will the Lebanese sit down and discuss these differences in a civilized manner, or will they ignore them?

Another possible scenario is that an entirely new reality might set-in after the elections, but this will depend on whether a new President can also be elected soon after, and whether he/she can fulfill their role as the ultimate “uniting motivator” for the country.

New Government: Consensus or Bad Compromise?

2005-04-19T05:05:00.000-07:00

There is a subtle, but important difference between reaching consensus and retreating to compromise. Because this new government includes some figures from the just-departing old government, it shows this was probably one of the compromises that the opposition had to concede to. But why include bad apples in a new basket? This is not a personal critique on the returning ministers, but couldn’t they find other qualified individuals with no association to the recent government? Murr personifies the embodiment of Lahoud-led corruption. And Hammoud was a disgrace by the way he handled the UN and by his closeness to Syrian foreign policy. This shows that Syrian influence is still in-there, and they have their men in-there ready to pollute and contaminate Lebanese politics when they want to. Maybe I missed something in the back-alley deal-making that preceeded this hoopla, but what happened to having a really neutral government? Was it just talk?

In hindsight, I am not sure if the opposition was tricked or if this was part of the deal-making, i.e. you pick the prime minister, but we get to bring back a couple of our own men. This shows that Lebanon has a (bad) habit of stooping down to compromise by finding the lowest common denominator, instead of rising-up to the challenge of reaching out towards a new consensus.

Bad compromise is the result of finding creative solutions that are not necessarily the best ones for the country, but they are what the politicians are willing to accept. So, this shows that the game is still about dirty politics, and not about Lebanon’s future.

Lebanon and Syria: Same Past, Different Future, Part I

2005-04-17T21:22:00.000-07:00

Part I: Not so fast on economic integration

Those (politicians) still defending Syria today and its regime are making a grave mistake. As long as Syria is governed the way it is today, there is not much that Lebanon can learn from its neighbor. In the past 29 years, Syria has shown Lebanon some pretty bad habits: how to lie, be corrupt, steal, deceive others, blackmail, threaten people, manipulate, infiltrate, spy on, abuse human rights and literally terrorize. They basically exported Syria’s “values” to Lebanon. So why continue paying lip service to a country that has trampled all over every single Lebanese sovereignty characteristic?

Syria’s system is not the model for anything. It is despised by all Western countries that see it as a backward, authoritarian, communist-like police-state,- in the same league as Cuba, North Korea, and the ex-USSR. So, why defend Syria and continue associating ourselves with them? The last 10 years have been bad enough for Lebanon’s image abroad as both Syria and Hezbollah gave Lebanon its bad name.

Despite what is being said about our brotherly and historical past, where Lebanon wants to go and where Syria is going are two different paths. We are not tied by the same umbilical cord, and if we were, economically speaking,- we could not afford to move forward because Syria is like an anchor that will drag us down. Syria is economically inferior to Lebanon in almost every aspect (more on the economic comparison of both countries in Part II). The numbers are stacked against any type of economic integration that is being dreamt-up by the Syrian regime. Economic integration makes sense when two or more countries are more or less at the same level in their socio-economic position and geo-political status.

Let’s tackle these aspects. Society-wise, yes we speak the same language and have some familial ties (and so do the U.S. and Canada by the way- so what’s the big deal?) But over the last 24 years, Syria has doubled its population, while barely doubling its economy, so they are producing poorer babies. Meanwhile, Lebanon managed to quadruple its GDP of 1976. Economically, Lebanon’s per capita GDP is $4,300 vs. Syria’s $1,200 so that’s another very large gap. Politically, Lebanon is a democracy (actually, it’s trying to become an even better one). Syria’s political system is a dictatorship. Geo-politically, Lebanon is in an enviable position. It is now the new darling of Middle-East democracy and is poised to receive record foreign direct investment as soon a new government is in place. On the other hand, Syria is still in the “dog house” as far as the United States and the European Union are concerned. Actually, Chirac and Bush don’t trust Assad anymore because his words are worthless, and he is close to getting the Arafat treatment. Even worse, Syria’s friends are limited to Iran and Turkey.

So frankly, I am not sure what our politicians mean when they talk about “sisterly”, "special" or “normal” relations with Syria. Given the mess these relations are getting out of, we need to drop any vague language and start to define a much more sophisticated and transparent framework for these relations. It should be based on the socio-economic and geo-political realities, and not on assumptions of business as usual.

If we keep doing what we’ve been doing, we’ll keep getting what we’ve been getting, and that path is probably not acceptable to a majority of Lebanese.

(Stay tuned for Part II)

Surprise! Lahoud & Assad cancel their travel plans

2005-03-21T13:21:00.000-08:00

I can't help but muse about the fact that both Presidents Lahoud of Lebanon and Assad of Syria have cancelled upcoming trips abroad, citing local circumstances in Syria/Lebanon as the common reason. Assad was scheduled to visit Austria, and Lahoud was due to attend the Arab League Summit.

I wonder how much heat they must be feeling under their seats, right now. As the French saying goes, "Qui va a la chasse, perd sa place". Translation (without the rhyme): If you go hunting, you risk losing your spot. I guess, that must be the real reason.

Insulted Syrians should lash back at their own government

2005-03-20T19:55:00.000-08:00

In a recent Daily Star article entitled Insulted Syrians boycott 'everything Lebanese’, the article claims that many Syrians “feel embittered and insecure in country where they always had an advantage”. Therefore, many have decided to curtail their business or personal visits to Lebanon and even withdraw their money from Lebanese banks.

But there is another side that Syrians should know about. They should realize that the messages emanating from the opposition demonstrations had nothing anti-Syrian people. They were really anti-Syrian government. Average Syrian people should lash out instead at their own government and get busy with their own revolution at home, assuming that they learned something from the Lebanese people, besides how free loving we are.

The overwhelming majority of Lebanese people have nothing against Syrians, only against their government, because as the article points out later, “Syria's tight hold kept Lebanese from voicing resentment toward Syria's presence until recently, meaning Syrians heard little of it directly; and Syria's state-run media painted the presence only as a benefit to Lebanon. “

Syrians should open-up their eyes and realize that they have an opportunity to make history, also. Their escapades in Lebanon probably gave them a taste of what freedom and (even an un-perfect) democracy can bring. Let them have it. A strong, vibrant, democratic and free Syria is good for Lebanon too. Just as we are getting rid of our government, we hope that one day, you will do the same to yours.

No One Wants to Harm Lebanon, Really

2005-03-17T21:53:00.000-08:00

I am only using some logic here. Here it goes:
Despite warnings from the power-at-be, it has been a pleasant surprise that none of the demonstrations (from either side) resulted in any violence, and thank God, no one has been killed, and no one detonated anything.
Let's assume we can believe the government's theory that Hariri's killers were rogue elements that came from Beirut's suburbs (just for a minute, only), don't you think that those same terrorists could have infiltrated any one of the demonstrations and God-forbid done something awful, if they really wanted to destabilize the country further?
So, the fact that nothing happened leads me to deduct that the only party that Mr. Future Ex-President was warning us about was really nobody. So, no one really wants to harm Lebanon (because they could have easily done it during the demonstrations)...nobody of course, except those that have already done the dammage. I hear they are leaving now even faster than they previously announced.
Comments/Discussion here.

10 Predictions for Lebanon for 2005

2005-03-16T20:00:00.000-08:00

First, some reflections on March 14th 2005.

The ink will not dry for a long time on the significance of the March 14th 2005 demonstrations in Lebanon. The country is even more energized than before because everyone knows now that this is the beginning of the end, and this end will lead to a new beginning (to paraphrase Churchill). March 14th was an "up the ante" day that delivered, delivered and delivered.

Technically, the only major obstacle to this new beginning is free elections. The failure of forming a government is not even a major surprise, since it proved that the pro-Syrians are powerless without the heavy hand of Syria.

My top 10 predictions for what might happen next:

1) Karame resigns again
2) A report links the Lebanese government and Syrian Intelligence to the murder of Hariri
3) Syria accelerates its departure
4) Lahoud agrees to resign after a new Parliament is voted
5) Hezbollah experiences internal rifts and starts to lose power
6) Elections in June, one month after the last Syrian soldier has left
7) Elligible Lebanese abroad are allowed to vote in special circumstances
8) A number of Lebanese politicians take asylum in Syria
9) The Lebanese economy booms in 2005 at 8% annual growth
10) 100,000 expat Lebanese return to the homeland

OK, here's an 11th one, but it's a long shot:
11) Something happens in Syria to the current regime

And we all live happily thereafter, because after a 30-year nightmare, there will be 30 years of prosperity and peace.

What are your predictions?

Lies, Absurdities and More Lies

2005-03-13T16:39:00.000-08:00

In the last two days, I managed to read a number of absurdities or lies from various media sources. Among them, a report from the Online Journal, claiming that “Hariri reportedly was assassinated to make way for large US air base in Lebanon”, and that it had been “ultimately authorized by two key White House officials, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams.” The article claims that this revelation was obtained from high-level Lebanese Intelligence sources.

Well, if they expect us to believe such lies, they are doing a lousy job at providing any evidence or even leaking something that is close to being believable. This article was also published on the Conspiracy Archive News web site. It is so typical of Middle-Eastern politics to be often dominated by conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated thoughts aimed at brain-washing the average reader or television viewer.

And on the absurdities side, according to the Daily Star, Speaker Nabih Berri (I didn’t know he was in charge of Foreign Affairs) apparently responded Friday to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's comment on the reappointment of Prime Minister Omar Karami by urging him "to name the Lebanese prime minister he wants, to dissipate his concern." And the “the Lebanese Foreign Ministry asked the Lebanese Embassy in the U.K. to explain to the British Foreign Department that the president does not appoint the prime minister, saying the appointment was the result of consultations between the president and MPs.”

We all know that Lebanese politicians are masters of creativity when it comes to making something appear like something else. And of course, what do you expect from a pro-Syrian dominated parliament? Do you really expect them to re-cycle anything less than the same old, same old? That Berri is slick as oil. He sure has a way with words, and his cynicism stoops at such low levels. Straw must be shaking his head about this.

Sanctions Against Syria Will Hurt Lebanon

2005-03-11T07:56:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post reports today that the “A top U.N. envoy will tell President Bashar Assad that Syria will face political and economic isolation if he does not completely and quickly withdraw from Lebanon, U.N. and U.S. officials said yesterday.”

As much as the process of sanctions appears to be an instrument of pressure, the reality is that it backfires in several ways and is not an effective mean to get Syria to change its position. Two main reasons:

1) Economic and financial sanctions end-up really hurting the population of the country being targeted, not its government. As a matter of fact, the sanctioned government ends-up pointing the finger back at the countries that are initiating the sanctions by telling their population “if there is shortage of food, it’s because of their sanctions”. So, it emboldens the targeted government.

2) Syria is in the process of joining itself at the hip with Lebanon, economically in addition to politically. Any heat on Syria will be automatically shared by Lebanon, one way or the other. For example, Syria could mandate that Lebanon shares whatever Syria is deprived from, in the name of “brotherhood and common interests”. And since Syria wants to have a “unified customs wall” and "economic integration" with Lebanon, there will be further confusion as to what is Lebanon and what is Syria when it comes to import/export transactions.

I hope that the international community turns to more creativity regarding applying pressure on Syria. Syria’s officials are probably laughing their heads off at the prospect of sanctions. In the meantime, who is looking after Lebanon’s interests? Why aren’t Lebanese politicians uttering any words about this? Why doesn’t Lebanon’s interest come first, and Syria second, instead of Syria first and Lebanon last? If Lebanese current politicians were on the side of Lebanon, they should have the guts to say to Syria: “You shall not drag us down with you”.

For or Against 1559?

2005-03-10T09:02:00.000-08:00

Today, the NY Times reported that the U.S. may be inclined to lower the heat on Hizbullah in order not to loose their support completely for getting Syria out of Lebanon. Indeed, it’s a tricky situation- how to extricate the militancy (and military) aspect of Hizbullah while preserving its potentially beneficial political role as a counter balance to Syria. So, far, I don’t really see how this could easily happen, since Hizbullah’s messages via Tuesday’s pro-Syrian demonstration and speeches have already emboldened President Lahoud to ask Karami to re-load his government. I think the Americans were 3 weeks too late in that realization. They should have moved-in right after Hariri’s death while Hizbullah's position was still somewhat in limbo.

However, as pro-Syrian as Hizbullah appears to be, they don’t see eye to eye in regards to 1559 where there has been a softening of the Syrian stand (although it might well be lip service). Hizbullah is adamantly opposed to 1559, “We have come here to voice to the world our opposition to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559” said Nasrallah in his speech. He added that support of 1559 is a means to “toppling the Taif Accord”. Contrast this to the Syrian-Lebanese communiqué and Assad’s speech where they don’t seem to have a problem anymore with 1559, and rather perceive the Taef Accord’s implementation as a means to also meet 1559. Is this cheap talk or an indirect way to confront Hizbullah eventually on 1559 which stipulates its disarmament? Or will Syria end-up simply ignoring sections in 1559 that they don’t like by tolerating Hizbullah’s militia army anyways? And if Syria and Lebanon are now “for” 1559, why did they allow the Lebanese Parliament to condemn it only a few months ago, in the name of foreign interference? We have to keep asking the tough questions.

Strategically, I think that the opposition should exploit this level of disagreement between Hizbullah and Syria and drive a wedge further between them. If Hizbullah is really with Lebanon, they should put their faith with the Lebanese army and/or integrate with it completely. Even further, they should consider changing their name while in the midst of this makeover, if they want to become solely a politically, culturally and socially active party in the context of a United Lebanon.

The Urge to Merge, Syrian-Style

2005-03-09T20:49:00.000-08:00

I see red flags all over the Syria-Lebanon communiqué which resulted from the meeting of the two Presidents on Monday March 7th, both in style and in substance.

The communiqué had all the makings of Syrian-style rushing in order to give it just enough appearance of legitimacy. The meeting was announced on Saturday by President Assad in response to international pressure and with a purpose to define a joint agreement for a pull-out schedule. Instead, it produced a hastily written agreement designed to cement political, economic, cultural and social links between the two countries without attaching much importance to the details of the expected withdrawal of Syrian troops.

First, on style, what a farce! The 2 presidents and their committees met quickly to give the appearance of a meeting resulting in a communiqué. But in reality, one President (the Lebanese one) went to the other one who summoned him there and told him: this is the communiqué we are signing, so let’s smile and make it happen. At least, if they wanted to fool a few more of us, they could have spent the entire day and evening behind closed doors to give the appearance of negotiations or give-and-take discussions. But this would have required too much effort. Instead, we get a bam-wham, thank you M’am.

On substance, here is what is troubling about this communiqué. It states that:

"The two sides stressed that this meeting, which comes during these difficult circumstances and in view of the challenges that face the two countries, emphasizes the determination of the two states to strengthen the march of co-operation and co-ordination between them and to continue implementing the articles of the treaty and the agreements signed within its framework accurately, with transparency, and in a manner that achieves the joint interests of the two countries.

The two sides pointed out their true determination to rectify any failure affecting this march within the framework of the joint establishments and services, which were established in accordance with this treaty, and which remains the sole legitimate and acceptable framework for handling difficulties and obstacles, and proposing visions on the future prospects for these relations, which should be translated on the ground through steps, projects, and conduct that reflect the historic, popular, social, economic, cultural, and political dimensions of these brotherly relations."

Meaning: We are in this thing together. We will sink or swim together, we will drag each other down until one of us drowns. My problem is your problem, we are chained and doomed together. And by the way, the aspirations of the Lebanese opposition do not mean anything, they are just a mood swing that will pass. Actually, let us get even closer together. Let’s get really cozy now and warm each other, because there has been some drafts of cold air circulating recently.

On the timetable aspect, the communiqué stated that the following was decided:

Item 1A. “Withdrawing the Syrian Arab forces stationed in Lebanon to the Bekaa region and the western entrance to Bekaa at Dahr al-Baydar and to the Hammana-Mdayrij-Ayn Dara line by the end of March 2005.”

Please check the location of Hammana on the map. Hammana and Mdayrij are not in the Bekaa. So, while the Syrians are letting the headlines state that their withdrawal is to the Bekaa, in reality, it is not. Hammana is a mere 30 kms away from Beirut, and in line of sight, on a nice day (i.e. 300 days of the year). It is indeed a very strategic, but a not well known placement where Syrian intelligence personnel has been already stationed there in abundance.

Items 1B and 1C are convoluted statements that are tied to Item1A. Basically, they say that the withdrawal is a 3-step process. First, we will withdraw towards the Bekaa, but not entirely to the Bekaa (by the end of March 2005). Second, within a month of the end of step 1, we will agree on how long we will stay there. Third, we will agree once more on when we will really leave. This sounds like someone who doesn’t really want to leave. In other words, the Syrians are saying- let us stay in your backyard for a while, then let us discuss how long we will stay there, and after that period is over, we can discuss when we will really leave. This basically means that this process could potentially end exactly where it started, but we are not sure and will not commit yet to where and when it ends.

Part 2, Items A, B, C and D refer to decisions already taken to accelerate and encourage further committee meetings at the ministerial levels between the two countries, specifically focusing on Foreign Affairs, Economic and Social affairs.

Part 4 requests a feasibility study for “establishing a unified customs wall within three months of approval”. I am impressed by the speed of implementation by these 2 government bureaucracies where it often takes that long to get a single document processed for its citizens.

Part 5 is about “Requesting the economic committee to submit its initial concept of the means and mechanisms of achieving an economic integration within three months for discussion.” This one really stunned me. “Economic integration” is such a big word. Can’t the Lebanese Parliament at least discuss it or approve it first? The communiqué clearly states that this will be done three months after discussions, i.e. whether you like it or not. Again, "economic integration" is such a big word, it’s bigger than free-trade. It is closer in meaning to the European Union’s economic integration, which means a single currency! Yikes… I am ready to throw-up my dinner now.

My corporate experience tells me that the above steps have all the ingredients and makings of pre-Merger & Acquisitions activities. Leaders flirt and meeting committees start to unify operations starting from the inside. On the outside, no one suspects a thing, until the final moment when they pull the curtain down, and surprise…there is an entirely new stage for the play.

Any Lebanese and any one interested in a sovereign Lebanon should read this short communiqué and judge for themselves whether it represents a real co-operation of equal partners or rather a subversion towards a fait accompli situation where Syria totally dominates Lebanon, and not just interferes in its affairs.

Mr. Nasrallah: Your Revolution Does Not Pass Mustard

2005-03-08T16:45:00.000-08:00

I am really confused now about the Hizbullah messages from Mr. Nasrallah's speech on March 8, 2005. So, the United States and France is the enemy? And Israel,- with whom the Palestinians are currently sitting with, face-to-face, to discuss peace- well, they will always be the enemy. Saudi Arabia and Egypt who also aren’t playing along with Syria and are too close to the U.S., are also the enemy. And at least 2 million other Lebanese people (perhaps more, but I am being conservative) are also enemies because they don’t believe that Syria is really Lebanon’s friend and wants our well-being. So, by deduction, after alienating the West (represented by the U.S. and France), most Arab countries (lead by Egypt and Saudi Arabia), and a lot of Lebanese, who is left as our friends: Syria and Iran?

Mr. Nasrallah, I am sorry to say that your logic doesn’t make sense, and will not pass mustard this time, neither with the Lebanese people (even those that you have dragged to the streets today), nor with the international community (because we live in a world of 200 other nations, not just 2 "brotherly" nations that don’t give a damn about the rest of the world). Syria is only one country, one neighbor. Look at the relations between Canada and the United States. They are each other’s largest trading partners (and we could be the same, with Syria, one day), but they respect each other decisions and deal with differences and conflicts via diplomacy and negotiations, not intimidation and interference.

Militarily, the game is over. So, please stop injecting fear, uncertainty and doubt into the hearts of the Lebanese people. Israel could crush Syria and Hizbullah in a minute. If you still believe that it is Hizbullah’s force that drove Israel out of Lebanon, then- I know that you don’t already believe in Santa Claus, but it would be the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus. Lebanon is not Iran or North Korea who are playing the nuclear weapons game, so Don’t You make Lebanon your playground, either! We are not North Korea, nor Iran, and we are tired of getting “lumped” with Syria’s geo-political rhetoric every time.

In your speech, you said to the demonstrators "Today, you decide the future of your nation and your country. Today, you answer the world. Are these hundreds of thousands for nothing?" Well, I have news for you. While numbers generally speak, they usually do in democratic elections, not in a match of who’s got the biggest demonstration. So, lets’ hope that we will all meet again for deciding the future of Lebanon, collectively, in the course of normal elections, under a fair electoral district law, and not just on the streets.

You asked the demonstrators several deductive questions. Allow me to ask a few, myself.

Why does Hizbullah want to take Lebanon back to the dark ages?

Why should we believe that a national consensus government will hastily implement Taief now, since they were not eager to do it before?

And why are you still repeating the same lies? You said about Israel and the United States: “Forget about your dreams about Lebanon. There is no place for you in Lebanon.” Don’t you know that, as a first step to discussing peace with Israel, the Palestinians received a pledge for $1 billion dollars in economic aid from Western nations, and that’s only the beginning. So why would Israel and the U.S. want Lebanon as the enemy while they are making peace with the Palestinians?

Mr. Nasrallah, you must be having really bad dreams, because you are seeing imaginary enemies for Lebanon, while ignoring the enemy within, i.e. Syria.

And here’s the biggest lie that was heard during the demonstrations. “America is the source of terrorism.” I was laughing my head off, but this is a serious matter- accusing the United States of terrorism. Could you please show some respect or show some evidence? Or are you referring to Iraq's mess? Well, the United States is failing at keeping the peace in Iraq, so they made a big mistake in their calculations, but their intentions were good, and the end-result is something you are afraid of. I have good news for you- the United States are not going to invade Syria, in order not to create a similar mess to Iraq’s. But I am puzzled that you are already forgetting that less than 2 months ago, several of your Shiite brothers have been duly elected there, and hold a majority, thanks to the United States.

Today, we live in an age of universal transparency where information and actions are instantly transmitted, analyzed and criticized. The voices of reason, hope and positive attitudes end-up triumphing over the voices of fear, uncertainty and doubt (which are your trademarks). This free world and the majority of Lebanese people that are allowed to think on their own, are overwhelmingly hopeful about a better future. Today, we live in an interdependent world, and that is the reality of things.

Often, the worst thing that happens to good people is when they are lead by bad leaders. Even worse, is when they start to believe in them. I feel sorry for the Lebanese Shiites who are being misled by some of their leaders, while they are being robbed of a better future.

Mr. Nasrallah, this isn’t Iran in 1976. Although your revolution is being televised, unfortunately this time, it will not pass mustard.

From One Dog to Another

2005-03-07T19:53:00.000-08:00

This picture caught my attention a few weeks ago, while I was browsing pictures from worldwide demonstrations. What dawned on me today was a title for it. Self-explanatory, but aimed at the Syrian government, not its people. (Source: Montreal demonstration)

From One Dog to Another

Media Fatigue in the West

2005-03-07T19:13:00.000-08:00

Although today's Independence demonstrations were the largest yet, they did not get as much coverage in the Western press. As I suggested yesterday, I thought that the opposition could have "rested" today as it was difficult to be in the limelight while 2 other major events were taking place, i.e. the Syrian-Lebanese meeting in Damascus and tomorrow's Hizbullah-led demonstrations. There is so much that the Western media will bear about the Middle-East. Right now, the U.S. is immersed with the Michael Jackson trial and the future of its social security system.

Hizbullah Not a Problem?

2005-03-06T22:47:00.000-08:00

I take offense to the Daily Star’s editorial Hizbullah is not a problem- it is part of Lebanon’s solution. Their analysis is flawed and short-sighted. The editorial states “If sovereignty means anything at all, then it means independence from the United States and Israel as much as it means independence from Syria. Sovereignty means sovereignty - it cannot be interpreted one way for one party and another way for another party. This is why, Nasrallah maintains, Hizbullah cannot support UN Resolution 1559. Nasrallah has a point, and Lebanese of all persuasions would be advised to listen more closely and afford the Hizbullah leader the respect he is due.”

Comparing Syria’s interference in Lebanon (with all of its apparatus) to occasional comments made by Israel or the United States about Lebanon is a mockery and an insult to the intelligence of most Lebanese or non-Lebanese people. The Daily Star is misleading its readers. Syria’s role in Lebanon is deep, very deep. The only thing that the U.S. is providing is hope and a vision about freedom, liberty and real democracy,- and these are the values of all developed nations. Here are Syria’s values: dictatorship, human rights abuse, oppression of freedom. Sorry, but I don’t want these values in my country!

Hizbullah's Last Hurray

2005-03-06T22:08:00.000-08:00

So, Assad is trying to drive a wedge between the Lebanese people, and Hizbullah is trying to nail it for him? Good luck to both, because they will not succeed. They are doing it so they can prove that their military might is still needed. Note that they are the ones instigating violence against the population (shooting incident in Ashrafieh by Baath party on Saturday and wounding of an 18-year old today at Martyr Square by same).

Lahoud and his group are going to Damascus for a so-called meeting to decide on the timetable for withdrawal, but we all know that they will get lectured by Assad Jr. If I was advising the opposition, I would “lay low” for the next couple of days, just to see how much the Syrians and pro-Syrian Lebanese government will want to grab, and then I would catch them with their hands in the cookie jar. This is different than before, because now, the whole world is watching. They want a fight,- but let’s not give it to them.

The planned Tuesday demonstrations by Hizbullah may be their last Hurray; they are totally uninspiring and mostly irritating, wanting to take the country to the past. Contrast the opposition’s approach, which is full of aspirations about a better future that is not dominated by a political or military agenda.

Inside the Minds of Lahoud

2005-03-05T20:22:00.000-08:00

A very frightening interview with Fadi K. Agha, Foreign Policy Advisor to President Lahoud, published by Counterpunch, an American political newspaper. My take on it is that the "loyalists" are digging their heels and not budging that much. With the resignation of Prime Minister Karame, Lahoud has so far deflected much of the heat directly, because some Lebanese probably still hoped that he might see the writing on the wall, and start acting in the interest of Lebanon, and not Syria. But these remarks make me wonder now that they really believe in their crap. In this long interview, Agha says:
"Today, this minority has seen its ranks swell by the joining of a few opportunists who were until YESTERDAY the beneficiaries of Syrian "largesse." They have seen the wagons are circling, and are hoping to live for another day. These are the same warlords, sectarian barons and opportunists who lead us once before to ruin."
"Needless to say, that the Lebanese are also NOT entirely united on the mechanisms and schedules of a Syrian military withdrawal, as MANY in the so called "opposition" have selectively read the Taef Accords, when in reality it calls for withdrawals to coincide with reforms and the ABOLITION of political sectarianism."
By the way, has anyone seen the actual text of the Taef Accords? I, for one would like to read it and make my own interpretation on what it says.

Once a Puppet, Always a Puppet

2005-03-05T19:46:00.000-08:00

From Naharnet, "Hoss, who is widely tipped to head a government of national unity, is scheduled to travel to Damascus Sunday or Monday to meet President Assad."
I don't have a problem with Lebanese politicians visiting Damascus, but why do so before being appointed? Does Chirac consult with Blair before forming his government or Bush with Martin, etc.? Isn't it obvious that this is a flagrant evidence of going to Syria to seek approval from Assad and get lectured on what they can or cannot do? Don't they know that the ENTIRE world is looking at Lebanese politics now with a microscope? On top of that, it was reported that Lahoud was dragging his heels on forming a new government until after Assad's speech. This entire set of events shows that Lahoud et al still don't get it. Why can't he form a government on his own by consulting with the Lebanese only, and without taking any cues from Syria? In a court of law, the evidence would be so much against him. If he was accused of being a puppet, he and Hoss would be guilty as charged!
If you're still talking to Syria,
You've got the puppet bacteria!

Assad's Empty Words

2005-03-05T18:50:00.000-08:00

There are a number of statements in that speech that I didn't like, and I would like to rebut them.

1) From Le Monde, Assad said: "The Syrian withdrawal does not mean the absence of a role in Lebanon for Syria. Syria's power and its role in Lebanon do not depend on the presence of Syrian soldiers in Lebanon."
Duh? Of course, we know that, you dummy! Didn't President Bush say "...and the withdrawal of Syrian intelligence personnel as well? Wait until opposition politicians, the U.S. and France jump all over that one tomorrow. But, hey...I'll give you a hint: in the future, the Lebanese will determine their own side of these relations that you'd like to hang on to, so dearly. This isn't going to be a "one-way street" anymore!

2) From the NY Times: Mr. Assad lashed out against Lebanon's opposition movement, accusing it of "marketing its politics" during the recent demonstrations that called for Syria's withdrawal. "If TV cameras were to zoom out" from their vantage on Martyrs' Square in Beirut, he said, they would show that "no one else was there."
So, you are a really arrogant liar, Mr. President. How dare you attack the Lebanese like that and feed the rest of the world such lies? This revolution is far greater that you will ever imagine. Lebanese from all walks of life and religion have demonstrated and will continue to do so, from their own will, in the same spirit that they exhibited when they rallied behind Hariri's funeral. And by the way, who are those 3,000 Syrians that were outside your fake parliament? Who told them to go there? The Syrian secret police? You are still so jalous of us, it's so obvious...so you want to show that Syrians can demonstrate their popular beliefs like in Lebanon? Ha! Who are you fooling? OK, you can fool a few die-hard Arabs that believe everything they see on Al-Jazeera, but that's about it.

3) From l'Orient-le-Jour, "...the Lebanese have taken advantage of us by defending their national interests..." Excuse me? So, now the Syrians are the victims? And since when is defending one's own interests such a bad thing?

4) From l'Orient-le-Jour, "...1559 has nothing to do with the extension of Lahoud's mandate. Actually, nobody is talking about this extension anymore, except some parties that are vexed about it and have sent a late note about it to the U.S. But this matter is already past. Let them find something else." Again, who is he kidding? This guy has a chip on his shoulder, or what? He sounds like a kid complaining to his mother. I am willing to bet that Lahoud will not finish his illegal 3-year extension. God willing, there will be free and fair elections, and the new Parliament will vote him out and elect a new President that represents all of the Lebanese.

The Beginning of a New Era

2005-03-05T18:40:00.000-08:00

So, I decided to start this blog, after fuming for 19 days over Hariri's assassination (Feb 14), and on the same day as the much publicized and short-sighted speech of Assad to his fake parliament on March 5th. Enough is enough...and these are sentiments shared by millions of Lebanese at home and abroad who have suddenly been empowered to take control of their own destiny.
In this blog, I will fume over the comments made by politicians and will provide my own opinion for what needs to happen in Lebanon so that the country can pull itself out of the current quagmire, and into the 21st century, once and for all!