Speech delivered by Head of the National Dialogue Party Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi At the National Institute of Strategic studies

Tuesday, May 12 2009

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My country Lebanon is witnessing nowadays a series of crises which fall apparently under the label of parliamentary elections but which, when analyzed in depth, reveal that the country would look the same as before, in the days following the elections. All observers, including political forces in the country taking part in these elections, admit that there would be no change in the balance of power or in the political cast governing Lebanon. A thorough examination of the slogans and expressions used in speeches, and those used by audiovisual media and organs of the press, as well as in some international and regional media, indicates that those crises are a prelude to wars resulting from the concordance of internal crises with internal and regional conjuncture. Those crises are a good illustration of the external unstable – or, to be more precise, unclear- balance of powers.

The conflicts between forces representing the opposition and those loyal to the government during the last four years, and which culminated in the events of May 7, 2008 caused by the decisions taken by the government concerning the communication network of the Resistance and the security apparatus of Beirut International airport, these conflicts triggered the crisis in the street just before all fighting parties went to Qatari capital and met there to conclude a deal. This resulted in the Doha accord based on an entente among Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran and consented by the United State. This accord succeeded in putting an end to the conflict but at the same time has stalled all possibility for a change in the balance of political forces, a change that could have put Lebanon on the right path.

Preparations for elections revealed that the results were known in advance to the advantage of the big political blocs. The reason of such predictions resides in the Doha accord and all agreements made concerning the adoption of the 1960 electoral law and the subdivision of Beirut in a way that religious communities were shared outspokenly among the present forces even if it was under the procedure of formal voting. The 1960 electoral law adopted in Doha is obsolete as it does not take into consideration the true representation of the people. Furthermore this law does not implement correctly the majority system, as practiced in Western Democracies, whether on the level of electoral publicity, which should give equal opportunities to all candidates, or on the level of electoral expenses.

Lebanon is going through an unknown period because of these elections in which the country lost all opportunity for a change. It is clear that my country will witness a remake of the last government, the government of national reconciliation headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, which was the result of the Doha accord, grouping together opposing parties that were in fight during the last four years and who could not consolidate the country even to a minimum degree, in spite of the fact that it came as a result of an international and regional consensus which prevented Lebanon from resuming its civil war. Neither could it take advantage of the external balance of power in order to activate the public institutions and consolidate the state. Indeed the local forces kept their allegiances to international tutelages whose interests and schemes remain unclear because of the changes occurring in the superpower, the United States, due to the accession of the new Administration represented by President Barak Obama to power. The new US administration is still raising slogans of change by which the new president has based its electoral campaign.

However the ambiguity in the first steps undertaken by the U.S. administration was reflected in the region and in Lebanon, and the unclear stands in Lebanon’s political arena could mean that all are awaiting that Obama’s Administration put forth a clear strategy regarding two issues: A settlement of the Arab Israeli conflict and a final resolution regarding the Iranian nuclear file. Let us put aside the speeches, declarations and slogans related to the reconciliation with the Islamic world, such as stated by President Obama himself in Ankara; and he intends to put it into practice in Egypt on the fourth of June. All these steps deserves undoubtedly a certain recognition and esteem as it expresses the desire of the US Administration to undergo a change in the previous policies adopted by George W. Bush’s administration which tarnished the reputation of the United States not only in the Arab and Islamic world but in the whole world as well. However, the announcement made by White House Spokesman regarding the prorogation of President Obama’s launching initiative or even his scheme regarding peace in the Middle East during his recent visit to Cairo, all this indicates that Washington is still in an exploratory phase and has not yet outlined a road map to the awaited initiative. A proof of this is its maintaining of the sanctions against Syria, as such a resolution is linked to President Obama’s future actions following his Middle East tour which he started by meeting respectively Jordanian King Abdullah, Israeli President Shimon Perez, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Following this trend of events, it is not enough for President Obama to be decisive in his diplomatic orientation in the region, as Israeli interpretation of the situation contradicts President Obama’s orientations. Indeed, Mr. Netanyahu sees that the danger threatening Israel’s existence lies in Iran. Whereas for Obama, this is not apparently the case, as he sees that the reducing tension in the region is linked to the solution of the two states, that is the foundation of an Israeli and a Palestinian state. I say an Israeli state and not a Jewish one (a vow made by former President George Bush and admitted by President Obama) knowing that Lebanon is very sensible to this issue, for various reasons too long to elaborate during this intervention. But let it be known that the main reason is that the erection of a Jewish state would prevent the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and thus the project of Palestinian implantation would remain a threat to the Lebanese as such a project would be a factor of more troubles in the country.

Furthermore, Lebanon is still seen as a target by Israel, within the framework of the Arab Israeli conflict. The dismantling of Israeli collaborators’ networks by Lebanese security forces is a clear violation to Lebanon’s sovereignty to be added to the list of territorial violations by sea, air and land. Such violations do not respect international laws, or the Declaration of Human Rights and constitutes an infringement to UN Security Council resolutions in general and Resolution 1701 in particular.

Let us not hide the fact that using the Special tribunal for Lebanon in the conflict, proves that this tribunal remains a weapon used for enhancing the conflict among Lebanese following Election Day. A report published by a well known German newspaper revealed how much this tribunal is being exploited for political purposes; and the one who compared it with the “Ain el Roummaneh Bus”, that bus that was the direct cause for the outburst of Lebanese Civil war, was right. Indeed, the way Israeli officials hastened in exploiting such a press report (whereas the judges of the tribunal washed their hands from it) is a terrifying example to what would have been the case if the assassination of President Rafic Hariri were to be exploited in Lebanon, in an aim to modify the balance of power among opposing parties.

It is important to point out that, in the framework of all these crises, the country suffered a dangerous setback on the economic level as Lebanon Gross Domestic Product was 28.7 billion dollars by the end of 2008. It is expected that the rate of growth would decrease by five percent in 2009 due to the World economic crisis.

As for the public debt it was increased by five billion dollars in 11 months to reach 47 billion dollars in 2008, interior public debts excluded. It follows that the economic state of the people is not to be envied and they need urgently a government issuing a budget that would solve even part of their afflictions. The country has issued no budget since 2005, and it is well known that many development projects would be stalled, and, which is more, there will be no transparency in the expenditures of the forthcoming government. Indeed, the balance of power will remain unchanged and the same politicians who hampered the elaboration of a budget during the last four years, would resume power following the forthcoming elections. Hence the political bickering would resume even on issues as important as the budget. Whereas Lebanon should respect its commitments vis-à-vis donor countries, it will appear incapable of undertaking even the least of reforms or economic and social growth. Our governments have spent more than 150 billion dollars since the Taef Agreement. Despite this spending, the country was marked by an absence of vital public services in all sectors, and by negligence in all development projects. It was also marked by an absence of the state in the poor regions. And it is this absence which provoked the emergence of fundamentalism and extremism in many of these regions.

Thus, Lebanon needs immediate and urgent aid from the international community in order to prevent it from becoming a land of conflict serving regional interests. However, such an aid needs to be conditioned by imposing on the Lebanese government the necessity to launch a political reform program that would pave the way for a better future in terms of democracy. If we Lebanese do not find solutions to the problems our country is facing, we would then be repeating past mistakes and permit the other to repeat theirs. This requires a patient effort in order to promulgate a new electoral law that would adopt the system of proportional representation. Such a system guarantees a broad and complete representativity that would include all the fringes of the population. Furthermore, it would consecrate a suitable parliament which would form a new Lebanese authority that would preserve Lebanon’s democracy independence and freedom. Such an authority would also preserve Lebanon from the wraths of sectarianism and confessionnalism, two issues that could produce federation or confederation projects.

I am proud to belong to the National Dialogue Party. Since the Doha accord was reached, members of the Party realized that, being opposed to sectarianism, they could not run for elections in which the electoral campaigns were exploiting the sectarian factor. Political programs of candidates were void of solutions to the economic crisis or development projects and other reforms needed for the country’s upheaval.

In spite of the fact that its cadres did not run in the 2005 general elections, the National Dialogue Party continued providing services in various parts of the country and for all people irrespective of their religious belongings. It is noteworthy to mention that those who benefited from our services reached 130,000 persons. The services comprised various fields including education, technical training, loans, awareness campaigns, agriculture and others. As for health, more than 100,000 services were provided by the Party. And despite the fact that the party was only founded four years ago, the number of its adherents reached 35,000. This is because we believe that political work cannot be linked only with the electoral campaign but should be a continuous work. And despite various political and economic pressures exerted on us, our plant in Akkar will continue functioning in order to help this neglected region and find work opportunities for its people. We shall persevere and continue our policy in serving the people and building up the country.