May we not be faced again with past experiences!

Friday, Mar 5 2010

The third round of national dialogue discussions has started, and the country is once again faced with the prospect of dialogue between the various political groups, though the various faces represented at the dialogue table cannot claim to represent all the Lebanese people. Despite this, we hope that this round will be successful by turning everyone to the constitution and the constitutional institutions rather than for us to be faced with past experiences once again!

There is no doubt that dialogue is one of the cornerstones of the National Dialogue Party, and so in our opinion, dialogue must have a national dimension to which we turn whenever crises arise or one party seems intent on conflict with another, whatever our differences with the groups involved may be. And so, while we are under continuous Israeli threat and repeated violations of our sovereignty, we need to do more to protect Lebanon from these dangers by establishing a consensus amongst the Lebanese to support the resistance and the army in their concerted efforts to deal with any Israeli offensive in our country. What is required under the “defence strategy” clause is a return to the Taef agreement which defined Lebanon's identity, its strategic interests and the dangers which face it. We need to look realistically at the situation in order to build a defence strategy for Lebanon which takes into consideration past experiences and the creative cooperation between the army and the resistance in repelling the Israeli aggression and putting a stop to their ambitions. The success of the security establishment in general, and of the Lebanese army in particular in cooperation with resistance, in dismantling the Israeli networks, have confirmed that this establishment is the surest and strongest guarantee for Lebanon against any tampering with the security of its citizens, particularly that which comes from Israel which calls for a unified vigilance from the resistance and the army.

As regards the Palestinian issue, we believe that ignoring the social and humanitarian rights of the Palestinian refugees does not serve the Palestinian cause nor Lebanese stability; it also does nothing to prevent the naturalization of the refugees which all the Lebanese reject. It is common knowledge that the decisions taken at the first Lebanese dialogue table which dealt with this issue in 2006 expressed the commitment of those of the political forces participating at that time to work seriously to implement the Lebanese government's decision to end the presence of an armed Palestinian presence outside the camps “through dialogue”. And yet, the participants themselves were not satisfied with the security aspect of the Palestinian situation, but rather promised “to address the living standards and the social and humanitarian conditions of the Palestinians inside the camps and those living outside the camps within Lebanon”. Such “promises” never came to anything; indeed, the security aspect of the Palestinian issue is important, particularly the situation of the Palestinians in Lebanon, as events in the Ain El Helweh camp prove only too clearly. The deteriorating conditions of the refugee camps in Lebanon pose increased dangers of security breaches in our country. Indeed these have affected us in the past and have repercussions on poverty, destitution and neglect in general. If memory serves us well, the events of the Nahr El Bared camp and subsequent concerns and doubts of foreign intervention in regional matters, cleared the arena for the extremist forces following Al Qaeda, and showed that investment in the humanitarian conditions in the Palestinian camps by external or internal bodies is possible. The use of terrorist movements as happened in the Nahr El Bared camp constitutes a constant danger for the security situation in Lebanon.

Social and economic stability are required as a prelude to security stability. However, there are no real guarantees for the security of the country, particularly in light of the lack of Palestinian political security and in the absence of any success of the peace process. Indeed, President Obama has discovered for himself that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the hardest issues to resolve and his understanding of the failure of his delegate to the region, George Mitchell, was clear when he stated that “it seems that we have exaggerated our abilities to convince the two sides”. We must also not forget that Netanyahu wants the American priority to be the struggle against Iran. And so, what is required of the Lebanese government is wisdom is dealing with the issue of the Palestinian refugees in the camps in Lebanon and caution not to leave this issue neglected and open to being used by external forces even if by regional proxies. Naturalization of the refugees is but one of their dangerous purposes!

We trust in the ability of the dialogue table discussions being led by President Suleiman to guide the fate of the country and we look forward to the launching of political, administrative and judicial reform, the achievement of social justice and the balanced development and equal opportunities to create a healthy community which finds solutions in its constitutional institutions. And yet, what we are seeing today, is more of the familiar time-wasting policies. The main problem facing dialogue is that the country is being led by a group of politicians representing their sects and the political forces; and it is hard to reconcile personal interests with the greater national good. Also, these individuals and groups are responsible today more than ever before for preventing political or administrative reform, and what is the experience of the municipal electoral system if not new evidence for the frustration which awaits the Lebanese people with regards to any reform.

The National Dialogue Party finds regrettable the absence of Sunni representatives in the new dialogue table discussions. This absence is a glaring omission in the function of this body and its role, especially given that this absence has been a feature since the Doha agreement which established a consensus rather than using the normal democratic electoral process. This led to the absence of certain figures and to the exclusion of influential Sunni figures, forcing representation into one direction. The Sunnis, as is undoubtedly the case with the other sects, must be represented by more than one direction and not just by what is deemed to be the “majority”. We have repeatedly criticized this absence of the Sunnis from the current reconciliations between the various political groups and individuals. This unilateral representation at the dialogue table is regrettable, whatever may be the excuses and justifications. In any case, the persistent policy of exclusion and absence confirms the general disorder which has been in place since the Doha agreement. The country needs all its citizens to be involved and represented, and the best way to do this lies in changing the mentality which runs the country. We need to pass reforms in the electoral law to depend on proportional representation which will place a limit on the policies of exclusion. Unfair elections are based on an electoral law which can bring forth nothing other than increased sectarianism in the system on the one hand and more exclusion of sectarian figures on the other. In light of this bitter reality, we see no alternative to the constitutional institutions and thus comes the necessity of reforming these institutions so that the country is able to depend on their decisions. If not, then Lebanon will remain in this cycle even if a thousand dialogue sessions are held!

When the way is lost in the implementation of the constitution and when political representation becomes a matter imposed each time by disturbances followed by agreements and quotas, we fear for Lebanon as a state. We do not doubt at all the reconciliations and the mutual celebrations between the political groups participating in government, nor in their importance in easing civil relations and drawing a positive picture for the Lebanese political climate. However, we are cautious when the “consensus” is used as a basis and when the application of the constitution is an exception rather than the rule, that is if indeed it does occur.

More than three months have passed since the establishment of this government as what may be called a grace period for its leader, Mr. Saad Hariri, who seems unable to achieve any governmental work and unable to gauge the distance which separates him from the plans of the remaining forces of the March 14th group. His inability to rein in those around him has also become apparent, whether those in the administration of the Future Movement or Mr. Samir Geagea within the 14th March group. Mr. Hariri finds difficulty in reconciling the extreme proposals of Geagea-Seniora with those of the political reality along the open and clear lines with Damascus.

The opportunity is open for Saad Hariri to inherit his late father's path; the way is open for him to go to Syria and to embrace the resistance in the face of Israel. So why the hesitancy and the hiding behind a path which was tested over the past four years and proved to be a failure? His chosen path is alien to the traditions and heritage of the Lebanese people and the Sunnis in particular. We thus feel it is prudent for Saad Hariri to follow his father who did not leave an opportunity undeveloped for the sake of the unity of the country and of the Lebanese people.

Economic challenges are behind the mandating of Saad Hariri as Prime Minister of the national unity government. For this young man who is new to politics is the heir of his father. That is the truth of the situation. And as such, what is required of him is to translate the slogans which aim to improve the conditions of the Lebanese people after four years of instability, whether relating to living conditions, social or health issues, to reality. Given this, how is it that he is able to rest when his words contain a threat to break up the national unity government and to return to the situation of the past four years?

In conclusion, with or without a dialogue table, let us not forget that Lebanon is under Israeli threat more than ever through the remaining occupation of its land and through violations and daily assaults on Lebanon's sovereignty. It is not possible for a Lebanese person who fears for the fate of his country to consider Lebanon as an island separate from the region. Its geographical location and political situation mean it is never far from the rapid developments which are taking place and which may take place in the region. The role of the Lebanese people is to reach an understanding to maintain the unity of their country, its civil peace and coexistence. This will not happen without the strengthening of national unity which is our strongest weapon; otherwise any vibration in the region will shake Lebanon to its very core.