|
There was nothing “civil” about the war suffered by Lebanon 1975—1990. Religious sects were pitted against each other. The have’s battled the have-not’s. Neighbouring countries and countries faraway pushed for power wherever they could take it. Lebanon was teeming with frustration, struggle, death, distrust. There seemed no way out of the anguish that perpetuated the fighting. The war, of course, did come to a close, but the anguish lingered on as an undercurrent in the rebuilding of Lebanon.
Out of the turmoil was proposed a novel solution: an autonomous Lebanon whose government represented and supported all Lebanese. With hope pinned on the concept of a respectful co-existence—equality of rights and benefits for all Lebanese citizens—a movement was born before its time. Its leading proponent, General Michel Aoun, was forced into political exile by the Syrian army and its Lebanese allies.
It took another 15 years to see the expulsion of the Syrian presence in Lebanon. When General Aoun returned to his homeland, he found a nation still simmering with frustration, struggle, death, and distrust. Aoun and his supporters offered Lebanon a break from the past. In September 2005, the Free Patriotic Movement was declared a political party. Known in Arabic as “Al tayyar al watany al hor,” the party is commonly known as Tayyar. It is based on the fundamental worth of a diverse society working together for the good of all. In a country struggling for peace, security, and stability, the Free Patriotic Movement was a new voice that offered Lebanon a way forward. |
|
Tayyar presented its platform from a novel perspective: thinking in terms of one Lebanon. Since the beginning, each group of Lebanese had clung to its own identity as being the “true Lebanese,” and had considered the other Lebanese citizens as interlopers. This egocentric myopia had led to inevitable conflict. Tayyar suggested, however, that if all Lebanese had equal rights, freedom and dignity, then they could engage in constructive dialogue rather than war. Cooperation and dialogue would form the basis of a strong democracy. A strong Lebanese government could stand on equal footing with governments of other countries rather than being manipulated by them.
Soon after announcing its platform, Tayyar began to practice what it preached. After a period of extensive dialogue, the parties of Tayyar and Hezbollah published a “Paper of Common Understanding.” The two parties together presented ten solutions to major issues threatening the future stability of Lebanon. (Please see full document below) (1) The solutions were practical means of reaching not only stable, peaceful relations with its neighbouring countries, but indeed of reaching long-term peace for all of Lebanon.
As Aoun explains, however, their proposals for peace were not welcomed: “Our party presented this solution internally to all Lebanese political groups, the Lebanese government, and the international community—including the U.S. administration—repeatedly, for an entire year before this crisis [the 2006 war] began. Rather than help us to resolve the [Resistance] weapons issue peacefully and avoid the current agony our country is now enduring, the international community and Lebanese government flatly ignored the proposed solution.”(2) Just five months after the dialogue initiative, Israel launched the summer’s war.
Weeks into the war, as Bush and Rice were quoted endlessly saying that there could be no ceasefire (that is, that they would continue to back Israeli attacks on Lebanon) until there was a chance for a lasting, an endurable, a sustainable peace, (3) Aoun pointed out that “Considering that this crisis could have been avoided, and considering that there is—and has been—a solution almost begging to be made, one cannot but conclude that all of this death, destruction and human agony will, in retrospect, be adjudged as having been in vain. No matter how much longer this fight goes on, the truth of the matter is that political negotiations will be the endgame. The solution that will present itself a week, a month or a year from now will be, in essence, the same solution as the one available today, and which, tragically, was available before a single shot was fired or a single child killed.” (4) This war, too, did come to a close. But once again, the anguish lingered on as an undercurrent in the next rebuilding of Lebanon. In actuality, the war had merely shifted from overt hostility to covert aggression.
Flatly ignored in their efforts toward peace before the 2006 war, Tayyar, together with several other political parties, rallied in public protest in Beirut. On 1/12/06 when the demonstration began, Aoun explained their action: “We do not seek to isolate [the ministers in Grand Serail] and we do not seek to monopolize power. Nor do we seek to obtain personal or even sectarian interests. . . . It is a shame and a disgrace to separate between a confession and another as we have met under the Lebanese flag and we are proud of this; in front of the entire world we are not ashamed of our national principles. . . . I call on you to support our mission of change and reform and the preservation of free decision making and of the rights of the Lebanese people, all the Lebanese people. The rights of the Lebanese people should not be subjected to favoritism and confessionalism or political affiliation. These are absolute rights that all the governments should safeguard and for all the people, supporters and opponents. . . . Today we are suffering from an isolation campaign waged against us as if those in power intend to create a confrontation. But we do not want this confrontation. We seek openness in order to reach a national unity in which all the Lebanese people take part.” (5)
Their call for reform, with its massive public support, however, was chided by various elements of the Lebanese government, who relied on the clout of foreign alliances, just as had occurred during the “civil” war. The US, the UK and Saudi Arabia were all quick to denounce as “undemocratic” that the people should voice concerns over their own government. (6) The US, in particular, announced its intention to destroy any movement within Lebanon that would dare to challenge the status quo of the existing Lebanon government. (7) Saad Hariri dismissed the significance of the people’s demonstration: “No matter how long they stay in the street this will not bring down the government.”(8) Siniora’s response was that “Lebanon's independence is threatened and its democratic system is in danger." (9)
The people who carried their Lebanese flags to Beirut in an effort to resolve issues within Lebanese internal government found themselves accused by the Western World of being saboteurs. But having just literally swept up the rubble from the recent Western-backed war against their country, they were convinced more than ever of their right to carry their Lebanese flags. Aoun expressed the irony of the situation: “we find ourselves receiving advice from the great minds of democracy in the world to work within the Constitutional institutions that have become, thanks to the Government, devoid of any content. This is why we have to return the advice with appreciation and remind them that Beirut, the Mother of Laws, knows very well how to interpret constitutions and laws. Beirut does not require guidance but rather to be free of interference in its affairs… So we ask you all to stop interfering and allow us, at least, to deal with our affairs slightly more than you do.” (10)
This new initiative for a break with the anguish and violence of the past was, just like the previous initiative, ignored. On 30 March 2007, therefore, Aoun wrote a letter of concern to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon; the letter was also sent to all Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. (Please see full letter below) (11) Not only did Aoun outline yet again the grounds for concern for Lebanese internal government, he made it clear that international interference was a hindrance to resolving those issues peacefully through dialogue: “Despite the illegitimacy of, and the lack of confidence by the majority of the Lebanese people in, the Siniora Government and its incapability to rule the country, it has been receiving unlimited and irrational support from the international community. Given such empowerment, the current Siniora Government is not interested in any effort toward resolving the crisis in Lebanon through dialogue. The international community appears to be taking side in an internal dispute related to democratic rules and the Lebanese Constitution, and runs the risk of shouldering a big responsibility in case the country reaches a governance vacuum or internal conflict at the end of current President term.”
Aoun received no direct response to his request for mutual cooperation. Once again, his offer to “contribute to a permanent solution to the current crisis” was ignored. It is perhaps even more worrisome, however, that the UN virtually dismissed Aoun’s warning of a specific threat to the security of Lebanon: government-approved armed militias. There had developed, Aoun advised, the “establishment and expansion in Lebanon of fundamentalist terrorist organizations with no preventive measures on the part of the Siniora Government” and the “arming and training of previous militias and new ones, all affiliated with the governing majority, under the sight of the Siniora Government.”
In the United Nations Security Council report dated 7 May 2007, Ban Ki-moon gives a perfunctory reply: “In recent months, there has been no discussion among Lebanese political leaders about such a political process leading to the disbanding and disarmament of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. On the contrary, in the context of the enduring crisis, there have been mounting reports and increasing media speculation that a variety of Lebanese groups are expanding their existing weapons arsenals or are reacquiring a weapons capacity. . . . I have noted above and in my recent report (S/2007/147) the assertion put forward by the Syrian Arab Republic that some Lebanese groups are receiving arms from Israel. There has also been media speculation that Israel and other parties inside and outside the region are providing weaponry to groups aligned with the 14 March movement. The United Nations has not received any evidence substantiating such claims.” (12)
Ban Ki-moon refers to his “concern over a growing threat from extremist Islamist groups, who have reportedly found safe haven in Palestinian refugee camps, to the presence of the United Nations in Lebanon. The presence and reportedly growing strength of such groups stands in direct contradiction to resolution 1559 (2004) and is deeply disconcerting, threatening not only the United Nations presence, but also undermining the Government of Lebanon’s exertion of authority and its monopoly on the use of force throughout its territory.” He was apparently not, then, concerned that these groups were a threat to the Palestinians residing in those camps or indeed to the Lebanese people outside the camps. His concern was for the UNIFIL and for the lack of the Lebanese government to control such groups—which he goes on to identify as Syrian, despite the fact that he acknowledges their leader has an outstanding arrest warrant (for murder) in Syria. (13)
Ban Ki-moon then dismisses the issue: “As concerns the Palestinian militias in Lebanon, there has been no progress or action towards the disarming and disbanding of such groups. My Special Representative has continued his dialogue with the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Lebanon, who is also in close contact with the Lebanese authorities on all issues of mutual concern.” While acknowledging UNIFIL’s report of unauthorized armed personnel, “Palestinian armed elements, who are largely confined to the refugee camps,” Ban Ki-moon apparently deemed this side-line discussion sufficient. The bulk of his report worries about the weapons of the Resistance and the role of Syria in Lebanese affairs.
Since the ceasefire following the summer 2006 war, the Resistance has not used any weapon. In the same time period, Al Qaeda-inspired Fatah al-Islam has been responsible at the very least for the deaths of four Lebanese in the Ain Alak bus bombing (just prior to Aoun’s letter to the UN), and over 200 Palestinians and Lebanese in Tripoli during over three months of battles in and around the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp. (There were also at least 131 Fatah al-Islam militants of various nationalities killed.) The camp battles began less than two months after Aoun’s letter to the UN.
Tayyar had been ignored, derided and denounced by the 14 March alliance. Tayyar, however, was committed to its goals and confident of its support among the Lebanese people. When it was announced that there would be a special by-election on 5 August 2007 to fill the Parliament seat vacated by the assassination of Pierre Gemayel, Lebanon held its breath. The by-election in Metn, a Christian area northeast of Beirut, was charged with emotion. Running for the Phalange Party was former Lebanese president Amin Gemayel, father of Pierre Gemayel. Running for the Tayyar Party was a physician virtually unknown by the public, Kamil Khoury.
The Phalange Party put forth the idea that to vote for Amin Gemayel was to vote against the assassins of Pierre. (To date the killing is an unsolved crime) Photo posters of Pierre were prominently displayed in the constituency. A petition by key social and business names pronounced that the voters had a moral responsibility to support Amin in order to condemn the assassination. Phalange supporters handed out commemorative white roses to the voters. (14) Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir declared that "parliamentary seats being disputed belonged to people who have been assassinated by merciless criminals." (15)
Tayyar, of course, had long since made its position on assassination clear: “Any form of political assassination is condemned and rejected because of its violation of basic human rights and of the most important foundations of the existence of Lebanon represented by difference and diversity, and of the essence of democracy and its practice.” (16) Tayyar had not, in fact, been connected in any way with Pierre’s assassination. Aoun patiently responded to these tactics by saying, “"We would like the election campaign to proceed calmly - this campaign is not aimed at any individuals but has a clear political basis." (17)
Polls indicated that the constituency was clearly divided, with a marginal percentage supporting Tayyar. (18) Just days before the election, the US stepped up the pressure. On 1 August 2007, Bush signed an executive order that authorized the US Treasury Department to freeze the financial assets of anyone deemed harmful to the Siniora government: "I, George Bush, President of the United States of America, determine that the actions of certain persons to undermine Lebanon's legitimate and democratically elected government or democratic institutions, to contribute to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, including through politically motivated violence and intimidation, to reassert Syrian control or contribute to Syrian interference in Lebanon, or to infringe upon or undermine Lebanese sovereignty contribute to political and economic instability in that country and the region and constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat," (19)
As the 14 March alliance (including Gemayel) is what Bush considers Lebanon’s “legitimate and democratically elected government,” then to oppose that alliance would presumably mean casting oneself as a threat to US national security. On 5 August, however, the Lebanese people in the Metn constituency voted for Lebanese national security; they voted for Tayyar.
The Phalange Party was quick to claim victory even though they had lost the seat in Parliament. 57% of Maronite voters supported Gemayel, while only 47% of Maronite voters supported Khoury. Gemayel stated he was worried because Tayyar won 80% of Armenian voters, 97% of Shiite voters and 50% of Sunni voters. He was concerned that "These figures prove that the Muslims supported Aoun and backed his candidate." (20)
What these figures prove, however, is that Tayyar was able to garner support from voters across the board. Tayyar appealed to their sense of inclusiveness, their sense of being Lebanese. As Aoun said, “The call for Christian unity is a provocation. . . . There are always a majority and minority in the logic of democracy. Unanimity is manifested by dictatorship. . . . We do not want external interference. We have a democratic system that we ought to respect.” (21) Aoun has consistently voiced his support for an autonomous Lebanon that respects and nurtures all religious affiliations among its people.
As a Tayyar supporter explained, the call for national unity is not about gaining personal power, but about gaining peace and security: “All Lebanese live in one country called the Republic of Lebanon. Those who seek to preserve it, preserve it for everyone. Those who seek to undermine any community within it by aligning with foreign elements against that community, undermine it for all – including themselves.” (22) For many Lebanese, then, Tayyar ticks all the boxes.
Footnotes:
(1) Paper of Common Understanding Between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement February 6, 2006 tayyar.org 1- Dialogue National dialogue is the only avenue to find solutions to Lebanon’s crises on stable and firm bases that are a reflection of a unifying consensual will. The following conditions must be obtained to ensure its success: A- The participation of parties that have a political, popular and national standing with a round table as a venue. B- Transparency, openness, and placing the interests of the nation above any other interest, through the reliance on self-driven will and a free and committed Lebanese decision-making. C- Include all national issues that require general consensus. 2- Consensual Democracy Consensual democracy remains the fundamental basis for governance in Lebanon because it is the effective embodiment of the spirit of the Constitution and of the essence of the pact of shared coexistence. From this standpoint, any approach for dealing with national issues according to a majority- minority formula depends on historic and social conditions for practicing effective democracy in which the citizen becomes a self-standing value. 3- The Electoral Law The reform of political life in Lebanon requires the adoption of a modern electoral law –where proportional representation may be one of its effective means- that guarantees accurate and just popular representation and contributes to the accomplishment of the following objectives: 1- Activate and develop the role of political parties in achieving civil society. 2- Limit the influence of political money and sectarian fanaticisms. 3- Make available equal opportunities for using the various means of the media. 4- Ensure the required means to enable the Lebanese expatriates to exercise their voting rights. We ask the Government and Parliament to commit to the shortest possible deadline to enact the required electoral law. 4- Building the State Building a modern state that has the trust of its citizens and is able to meet their needs and aspirations, and provide them with the sense of security and safety as to their present and future, requires that the state should be erected on strong and solid foundations that make it impervious to destabilization and periodic crises whenever it is faced by difficult challenges and changing circumstances. This requires the following: A- Adopt the standards of justice, equality, parity, merit and integrity. B- An equitable and impartial judiciary is the essential condition for creating a state of rights, laws and institutions based on: 1- The complete independence of the judiciary and the selection of judges with recognized competence in order to activate the work of all courts. 2- The respect for the actions of the constitutional institutions while keeping them away from political polarization; ensure the continuity of their work and prevent their blockage (the Judicial Council and the Constitutional Council). What happened in the Constitutional Council is an example of such blockage, when the legal challenges of parliamentary elections submitted to it have not yet been acted upon. C- Eradicate corruption from its roots, because temporary and partial solutions are no longer sufficient. They have in fact become an exercise in bluff that the beneficiaries of corruption at all levels carry out to perpetuate their theft of the resources of the state and its citizens. This requires: 1- Activating the institutions and boards of financial and administrative control and inspection, while ensuring their strict separation from the executive power to guarantee that their work is not politicized. 2- Conducting a complete survey of the cases of corruption, in preparation for opening judicial investigations that would lead to the prosecution of those responsible for corruption, and to the return of embezzled public funds. 3- Legislating the required laws that contribute to combating all aspects of corruption and calling upon the government to sign the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. 4- Working toward a comprehensive administrative reform that ensures that the right person is assigned to the right position, particularly those whose merit, competence and integrity are recognized. This can be accomplished by empowering the Civil Service Council to assume its full prerogatives. 5- Setting deadlines for actions on these issues because the factor of time has become critical. This matter requires fast and judicious solutions which would use the time factor to their advantage instead of the corrupt using it to theirs. 5- The Missing During the War To turn the page of the past and achieve a comprehensive national reconciliation, all the outstanding files of the war must be closed. The file of the missing in the war requires a stance of responsibility to end this anomalous situation and put the parents’ minds at ease. The parents cannot be asked to forgive without respecting their rights to know the fate of their children. This is why we ask all parties involved in the war for their full cooperation to uncover the fate of the missing and the locations of the mass graves. 6- The Lebanese in Israel Whereas both sides are convinced that the presence of Lebanese citizens in their homeland is better than their presence in enemy territory, a resolution of the question of the Lebanese residing in Israel requires a speedy action to ensure their return to their country while taking into consideration all the political, security and livelihood circumstances surrounding the matter. On this basis, we call upon them to promptly return to their country in the spirit of the call by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah following the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon and the speech delivered by General Michel Aoun at the first session of Parliament. 7- The Security Question First, Political Assassinations: Any form of political assassination is condemned and rejected because of its violation of basic human rights and of the most important foundations of the existence of Lebanon represented by difference and diversity, and of the essence of democracy and its practice. Therefore, to the extent that we condemn the assassination of Former Prime Minister martyr Rafiq Hariri and all assassinations and assassination attempts that preceded and followed it, leading to the assassination of MP Gebran Tueni, we emphasize the importance of moving forward with the investigation according to the officially approved mechanisms in order to uncover the truth. This is an issue that cannot be subjected to any compromise because it is a required condition to achieve justice and serve it against the criminals, as well as to bring an end to the cycle of murder and bombings. For this reason, it is an obligation to keep these issues away from any attempts at political exploitation, which would harm their essence, and the essence of justice that must remain above any political conflicts or disagreements. Second, Security Reforms: A reform of the Security Services is an inseparable part of the broader reform process of state institutions and their rebuilding on sound and solid bases. Given the delicate position that the Security Services occupy in protecting and defending a stable security environment in the country against any breaches or threats, the process of building those Services must be given special attention. Therefore, the government is urged to assume its full responsibilities as follows: A- Put in place an integrated security plan based on the centralization of security decisions and on a clear definition of enemy versus friend, the determination of security threats, including the issue of terrorism as well as the security breaches that must be dealt with. B- Dissociate the Security Services from any political considerations and clientelism, for their full loyalty should be to the nation. C- Assign the responsibility of the Services to personalities with recognized competence and integrity. D- Security measures must not be in conflict with the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, most of all the freedom of expression and political action, which do not threaten security and public stability. E- Constitute a parliamentary Intelligence Committee that would oversee the reform and building processes of the Security Services. 8- Lebanese-Syrian Relations The establishment of balanced and sound Lebanese-Syrian relations requires a review of the past experience while drawing the necessary conclusions and lessons in order to avoid the accumulated mistakes, blemishes, and breaches. This is in order to pave the way to build these relations on clear bases on parity and the full and mutual respect for the sovereignty and independence of both states, on the grounds of rejecting the return to any form of foreign tutelage. Therefore, it is necessary: A- That the Lebanese government take all legal measures and procedures pertaining to the assertion of the Lebanese identity of the Shebaa Farms and present these to the United Nations, now that the Syrian state has declared the Shebaa Farms to be fully Lebanese. B- To demarcate the borders between Lebanon and Syria away from the tensions that could block this operation which both Lebanon and Syria have had a long-standing need to achieve through a mutual agreement. C- To ask the Syrian state to fully cooperate with the Lebanese state to uncover the fate of the Lebanese detainees in Syrian prisons without the provocation, tension, and negativity that would hinder a positive settlement of this file. D- Establish diplomatic relations between the two countries and provide appropriate conditions for them, thus transferring them from a relation between individuals and groups to a relation between institutions in order to secure their permanence and stability. 9- Lebanese-Palestinian Relations Addressing the Palestinian file requires a comprehensive approach that asserts, on the one hand, the respect by the Palestinians of the authority of the Lebanese state and their compliance with its laws and, on the other hand, the reaffirmation of solidarity with their cause and the recovery of their rights, in accordance with the following rules: A- The social condition of the Palestinians requires a strong attention to improve their living conditions and secure a decent standard for a dignified human life on the basis of bilateral cooperation and the human rights charter, in addition to facilitating their movement inside and outside Lebanese territory. B- The Right of Return of the Palestinians is a fundamental and permanent right, and the rejection of the settling of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is an issue that has the consensus of the Lebanese people and cannot be conceded under any circumstances. C- Define the relationship between the Lebanese state and the Palestinians in a single institutional Palestinian framework that would be a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in Lebanon in a manner conducive to proper coordination and cooperation. D- The issue of putting an end to Palestinian weapons outside the camps and controlling the security situation inside them should be dealt with as part of a serious, responsible and close dialogue between the Lebanese government and the Palestinians, leading to the exercise of the state’s authority and laws over the entire Lebanese territory. 10- The Protection of Lebanon and the Preservation of its Independence and Sovereignty Protecting Lebanon and preserving its independence and sovereignty is a national public responsibility and duty, guaranteed by international treaties and the Human Rights Charter, particularly in confronting any threats or dangers from any source. Therefore, carrying arms is not an objective in itself. Rather, it is an honorable and sacred means exercised by any group whose land is occupied, similar in this way to the methods of political resistance. In this context, Hezbollah’s weapons should be addressed as part of a comprehensive approach that falls within two bounds: The first bound is the reliance on justifications which meet national consensus, and which would constitute a source of strength for Lebanon and the Lebanese people for keeping the weapons, and the other bound is the definition of objective conditions that would lead to a cessation of the reasons and justifications for keeping those weapons. And since Israel occupies the Shebaa Farms, imprisons Lebanese resistance members and threatens Lebanon, the Lebanese people should assume their responsibilities and share the burden of protecting Lebanon, safeguarding its existence and security, and protecting its independence and sovereignty by: 1- Liberating the Shebaa Farms from Israeli occupation. 2- Liberating the Lebanese prisoners from Israeli prisons. 3- Protecting Lebanon from Israeli threats through a national dialogue leading to the formulation of a national defense strategy over which the Lebanese agree to and subscribe to by assuming its burdens and benefiting from its outcomes.
http://www.tayyar.org/files/documents/fpm_hezbollah.pdf
(2) “History Will Judge Us All On Our Actions,” Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2006, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115429780106621697.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
(3) 2 samples: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14018618/ ; http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-07/2006-07-31-voa20.cfm?CFID=205025436&CFTOKEN=30222127
(4) “History Will Judge Us All On Our Actions,” Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2006, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115429780106621697.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
(5) full text of speech at http://www.voltairenet.org/article144278.html
(6) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article658323.ece
(7) US President Bush stated “The United States has staunchly supported the Siniora government” and states that “Any attempt to destabilize Lebanon's democratically-elected government through such tactics as manufactured demonstrations. . .would, at the very least, be a clear violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1680, and 1701.” He then delivered $10.5 million in military goods to fulfil his pledge that the CIA and other US intelligence agencies would fund anti-Hezbollah groups in Lebanon and pay for activists who support the Siniora government (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=36467; and http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061101-1.html; and http://beirut.usembassy.gov/lebanon/PRrodmen.html; and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/10/wleb10.xml; and http://theswoop.net/sys/article.php?art_ID=1031&color=1)
(8) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article658323.ece
(9) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6197992.stm
(10) http://www.tayyar.org/tayyar/articles.php?article_id=23942&type=GMA
(11) General Michel Aoun Rabieh, Lebanon March 30, 2007
HE Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon,
On the occasion of your visit to our country Lebanon, I would like to clarify a number of critical matters as we observed some misunderstandings in recent statements made by certain members of the international community.
For almost two years, our country has been suffering a governance crisis which primarily resulted from unfair 2005 parliamentary elections and was further augmented following a series of failures by the Siniora Government. The crisis significantly escalated subsequent to the resignation of all Shia Ministers leading to a sharp division between the opposition and the Siniora Government.
In accordance with Article 95 of the Lebanese Constitution and Paragraph J of its Preamble, all communities must be represented in order for the Government to be legitimate. The resignation of all Shia Ministers, and the failure to replace them, has rendered the Siniora Government constitutionally illegitimate and has violated the National Pact.
The Siniora Government, in addition, has violated numerous other provisions of the Lebanese Constitution including, inter alia, (i) bypassing the Presidency through ignoring Articles 49 and 52 connected with the authority and prerogatives of the President as the Head of State, (ii) failing for two consecutive years to submit Draft Budget to the Parliament as required under Article 83; hence, the country has been operating without a budget, and (iii) paralyzing the Constitutional Court stipulated in Article 19; thus, preventing it from examining appeals connected with the 2005 election violations which, if adjudicated, will change the majority in the Parliament in favor of the opposition and strip from the Siniora Government the parliamentary majority it claims and rules on its behalf.
As result of the July 2006 war and its aftermath, the failure of the Government to implement its program and any of the provisions in its Declaration as well as the breakup of electoral alliances which led in mid-2005 to the current Government, the Lebanese people lost their trust in the Siniora Government. This has been translated through massive demonstrations and sit-ins since December 1, 2006 with unprecedented numbers (over 1.5 Million Lebanese on December 10, 2006) representing opposition parties and diverse communities.
Despite the illegitimacy of, and the lack of confidence by the majority of the Lebanese people in, the Siniora Government and its incapability to rule the country, it has been receiving unlimited and irrational support from the international community. Given such empowerment, the current Siniora Government is not interested in any effort toward resolving the crisis in Lebanon through dialogue. The international community appears to be taking side in an internal dispute related to democratic rules and the Lebanese Constitution, and runs the risk of shouldering a big responsibility in case the country reaches a governance vacuum or internal conflict at the end of current President term.
We urge you to support Lebanon and all of its institutions and not only the Siniora Government. We hope for greater objectivity and reconsideration of current positions which assume the crisis is only the result of external factors or dispute regarding the international tribunal. We are a key player in the opposition as we represent 1/3 of the Lebanese population ·according to the last election. And we are known to have no agenda connected with any foreign interests in Lebanon. In addition, we were the first to propose and support the establishment of the international tribunal. We continue to strongly believe in the possibility of its adoption in accordance with the Lebanese Constitution and in cooperation with the Security Council.
There are however many other dimensions to the current crisis. It is detrimental to be ignoring a number of priorities which are posing threats to the welfare of the Lebanese people and the security in Lebanon and the region. These include, inter alia,
• The establishment and expansion in Lebanon of fundamentalist terrorist organizations with no preventive measures on the part of the Siniora Government; • The arming and training of previous militias and new ones, all affiliated with the governing majority, under the sight of the Siniora Government; • The rampant corruption by the same governing elements who caused the accumulation of at least USD 40 Billion debt (or around 200% of GDP); and • The real threat of settling the Palestinians in Lebanon which we, and the overwhelming majority of the Lebanese, oppose. There is a national consensus in Lebanon against such settlement as stipulated in the Preamble of the Lebanese Constitution.
The solution to the current crisis starts with respecting the Constitutional rules in forming Governments and in ensuring adequate proportional representation of political forces in a national unity Government. There should not be a deadlock in a democracy. Should the current illegitimate Government continue to maintain its current position, the solution would be to resort to the people through holding early parliamentary elections followed by Presidential elections and formation of a new Government.
In conclusion, I assure Your Excellency Secretary-General, of our full readiness for constant communications and coordination with the United Nations to provide further clarifications and contribute to a permanent solution to the current crisis.
Respectfully yours,
Michel Aoun, Member of Parliament Head of the Change and Reform Parliamentary Bloc CC: Permanent Members of the Security Council
(12) http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Lebanon%20S2007262.pdf (quotes from paragraphs 33, 37, 39, 42, and 43)
(13) For an alternative perspective, see Franklin Lamb’s article “Who's Behind the Fighting in North Lebanon?” http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb05242007.html and Alberto Cruz’s article “The United States' new strategy in Lebanon: The secret war against Hizbollah” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17866.htm
(14) www.lorient-lejour.com.lb/page.aspx?page=article&id=348826 and http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/38E92305-2BC2-44F7-90D2-C08B07699F3E.htm
(15) https://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidDS020807_dsart31/SecMain/pagHomepage
(16) See footnote 1, item 7.
(17) Daily Star report at http://mybelovedlebanon.blogspot.com/2007/07/tashnag-throws-weight-behind-fpm-ahead.html
(18) https://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidDS020807_dsart31/SecMain/pagHomepage
(19) http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/eo/13441.pdf
(20) http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/08/gemayel_i_repre.php
(21) http://english.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=news&action=article&id=1329
|
|
The following editorial is an analysis of a political phenomenon in Lebanon. Friends of Lebanon does not endorse a particular religion or political party. Rather, it supports the building of a better and more peaceful Lebanon through respect and cooperation.
New Voices in Lebanon: the Tayyar Party’s Quest for Peace |
|
The Charter of the Free Patriotic Movement Party The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) is an extension of the Lebanese phenomenon that began with a long journey filled with struggle on which General Michel Aoun embarked. This journey continued throughout his office as head of the Lebanese Government in the late 1980's. The FPM phenomenon manifested itself in a heightened awareness among the Lebanese people of foreign conditions and their outcomes. With pioneering, humanistic and brave conduct, the FPM opposed the occupation of Lebanon domestically and internationally and presented many sacrifices while defending its freedom, sovereignty, independence, and the dignity of its people.
As a political party, the Free Patriotic Movement aims at renewing the political life in Lebanon on the bases of knowledge, ethics, progressiveness and the emancipation of the Lebanese individual. The Party is committed to work under the banner of change and reform according to the following tenets:
In Principles
The FPM declares:
1. Its belief that the individual is intrinsically valuable and that people are born equal and die equal, having equal rights, freedom, and dignity, and being able to differ in opinions, orientations and beliefs.
2. Its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to all pertinent international charters and conventions, whose values and principles will act as guidelines to the Party's goals and programs.
3. Its intransigence in the belief that Lebanon is a sovereign, free and independent entity founded on a social pact sanctioned by the free will of its people.
4. Its assertion that Lebanon is a distinctive human experience by virtue of its pluralism, intellectual interaction and openness to civilizations, and due to its pioneering democratic experience in the Arab world.
5. Its abidance by the Lebanese Constitution as a charter of governance in Lebanon, in its practice, interpretation, and ratification.
6. Its adherence to the openness of Lebanon to and its interaction with its Arab surroundings and the world, in such a way as not to conflict with the national belonging and provided that the Lebanese will be a dimension of Lebanon in foreign countries and not a foreign dimension within Lebanon.
7. Its conviction that men and women are equal in rights and obligations, since women are fundamental partners in the building of the society and in the making of the political decision.
In the Goals
The FPM aspires to:
1. Guarantee the sovereignty of the Lebanese state and its independence and to safeguard its existence.
2. Build a nation of law based on equality, justice, social solidarity, equal opportunities and the upholding of a fair judicial system, since the latter is a true and impartial criterion for the consolidation of justice and democracy.
3. Establish democracy as a system of government and a way of life by guaranteeing the respect of freedoms and basic rights of the citizen.
4. Institute a culture of citizenship in the aim of achieving equality between the Lebanese; enact a discretionary civil personal status law; and separate politics from religion to facilitate the establishment of a secular state.
5. Protect the family because it is the nucleus in the building of a society and a nation.
6. Eliminate all legal and social distinctions between men and women and promote equality through practice on the basis of competence and aptitude.
7. Persevere in supporting the youth and promote their role in developing the society and in stimulating political life.
8. Enable the Lebanese Diaspora to exercise their political rights in Lebanon from their countries of expansion and strengthen the bond among them and between them and their motherland.
9. Disseminate a political culture that liberates the Lebanese from a mentality of tutelage and supplication and develop their sense of critique.
10. Adhere to the free economic system and personal initiative within the boundaries of human dignity and the welfare and principles of social justice.
11. Promote institutional functions on the basis of competence and the implementation of the principal of liability and accountability.
12. Protect and Preserve the environmental resources for a healthy environment is a natural and intrinsic human right and a part of human existence.
13. Make education available to all Lebanese, propagate Lebanese heritage, develop all sectors and encourage the mastering of skills, sciences and arts in such a way as to cater to the needs of the society and the requirements of the age.
14. Propagate the culture of peace, dialogue and democracy. |