Choosing the right leader crucial for Lebanon’s recovery
https://arab.news/jw4mc
Lebanon is in a state of chaos, with protests and road closures all over the country. The people are angry and the system is collapsing, while the sagging political elite is incapable, or unwilling, of overseeing any reforms. In the meantime, a virtual convention was launched last week to put in place a program for Lebanon’s recovery. However, the starting point for any solution in Lebanon has always been the agreement of regional and international powers, followed by the choice of the right person to lead the rollout of the recovery program.
In 1958, turbulence took over the country. Lebanon was divided between those who were swept up in the wave of Arab nationalism, represented by the charismatic Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, and those who did not identify with pan-Arabism and wanted to have a distinct identity and a country with defined borders. Then, the choice for stabilizing the country was the commander of the army, Fouad Chehab, who showed a great deal of professionalism and patriotism.
The decision to stabilize the country was due to an agreement between the US and Nasser. During the historic meeting between Nasser and Chehab that took place on the Syrian-Lebanese border, the Lebanese president was given the necessary assurance, support and regional blessing to have the upper hand in stabilizing the country and leading it to prosperity. Following his election, he embarked on a program to build state institutions. The French IRFED mission helped Chehab, who appointed decent and reliable individuals to build state institutions that the Lebanese citizens still benefit from today.
The second stage of recovery in Lebanon came after the first Gulf War. Lebanon had been shattered by a brutal civil war between Christians and Muslims, but the final blow was the clashes between Michel Aoun and Samir Geagea in 1989. The last episode of the conflict pushed the Arab League to look for a solution, which led to the Taif Agreement. Built on a Syrian-Saudi-American agreement, this marked the beginning of the end of the fighting.
The first Gulf War gave the Syrian regime an advantage. Hafez Assad’s maverick regime was now on good terms with the US, as it had stood with the Americans against Saddam Hussein. Syria was the “guardian” and the Assad regime had control over Lebanon, with Syrian troops present all over the country. The person for that stage was Saudi Arabia’s man in Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. He was the main Saudi contractor in charge of rehabilitating the country. He was also the man trusted by King Fahd. Under Hariri, big projects were undertaken in the country to rebuild the infrastructure shattered by 15 years of fighting. All militias were disbanded except for Hezbollah, which was then fighting against a much-loathed Israeli occupation in the southern part of the country.
Today, the country is at a historical juncture that can lead it to either disintegration or revival
Dania Koleilat Khatib
The problem is that the amnesty given to the militia leaders did not change their predatory behavior. Instead of the amnesty being a gateway for their exit from public affairs, they were rewarded for laying down their arms with a place in the government. This was the start of a new phase. The system put in place promoted profit-seeking behavior, whereby each sectarian leader took over a government department on behalf of theirdenomination and treated it as their own private possession, hiring redundant people to increase their support base and benefiting themselves and their acolytes via inflated government contracts.
Now that this system is bankrupt, the pie these people have been sharing for 30 years is finished — and so are they. Today, Lebanon is at a historical juncture that can lead it to either disintegration or revival. In order to revive this country, a great power agreement is needed.
Last week’s meeting between the French, Saudi and US foreign ministers was a positive sign. It is known that the French liaise with the Americans and are keen on preventing the collapse of the country, and Europe is still haunted by the problem of refugees. Europe is not ready to receive droves of Lebanese refugees on its shores. Last week’s meeting could signal the start of a convergence of interests. However, Hezbollah remains a point of contention.
Though there is unanimous agreement among the Lebanese people, as well as among the international community, that the political elite is beyond redemption, the issue of Hezbollah remains a hurdle. The Lebanese people are divided on the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons. Regional actors are also divided, as Iran is keen on preserving the privilege of the armed group while Saudi Arabia sees it as a regional threat.
The situation today is very different from the early 1990s, when Iran did not have the regional influence it now enjoys and when Saudi Arabia was not bothered by what it saw as a necessary armed resistance against the illegal Israeli occupation. Then, Hezbollah operations were limited to the south. The group had no ambition to take part in the government and it had no regional activities. Today, however, Hezbollah is in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. It arrogantly defies the government of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi royal family. It is very unlikely that the Kingdom will come to an agreement with Iran on Hezbollah. Nevertheless, even if an agreement cannot be reached, a certain balance can be struck.
Choosing the right person to lead Lebanon is necessary to strike a delicate balance between the different players. Even though the Lebanese see no light at the end of the tunnel and as the situation deteriorates by the day, there is hope for a solution as there is an international convergence of interests and a desire to stabilize the country. The key is to choose the right person to carry out the gargantuan task of getting Lebanon back on its feet.
• Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese NGO focused on Track II. She is also an affiliate scholar with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut.
