Rational republic

Bashar Is Solely Responsible For Syrian Bloodshed

2012-01-30T19:51:00.001-05:00

It is always lamentable when killings become a common everyday occurrence and in particular when many of the victims are innocent civilians, children women, and old people. It is especially chilling when death and destruction becomes a daily affair by the forces that were meant to protect the population against foreign enemies and to guard their rights and privileges. It is especially disheartening when “evil” is rationalized as essential since that transforms a shameful and ignominious act into a trite one. That is the danger of allowing murder, and oppression to metamorphose into a sterilized, common and hackneyed accounting of those killed every day in cold blood by a ruthless dictatorship whose sole interest is to maintain its ability to oppress, exploit and abuse.

Taking away life of civilians of all ages, including children, by their own government just because they dared protest against tyranny is always wrong. Obviously, deontological philosophy will never permit such egregious acts since it is based on a profound understanding of our moral and ethical obligations to each other. But neither would consequentialism, its opposite, approve of murderous acts that would not prevent greater numbers of people to be killed in the future.

The irony of the daily horrendous events of loss of life in Syria is that the tragic loss of life is being used by those that are essentially responsible for it as an excuse and a rationale for them to continue their senseless spilling of innocent blood by ordering heavy artillery and tanks to level neighbourhoods that dared demonstrate for democracy and personal rights. It is paradoxical when the oppressors who had over forty years to adopt some reforms and let the sunshine into the dark and rotten dungeons that they have built start portraying themselves as reformers and as democrats. The foreign minister of this rotten regime, Walid Al Moualem, even declared that the Syrian Ba’ath gang is ready to teach the world a lesson in democracy. He has no shame, neither do his fellow conspirators. I wonder whether Mr. Al Moualem even knows what is the meaning of democracy, citizenship, human rights, diversity, personal responsibility… Obviously his Don; Bashar Assad does not, as it was made amply clear in his interview with Danish TV where he said that he implied that he is a dictator who knows best what is good for the Syrian people, their personal preferences be damned. It was also laughable when he told ABC TV , just a few months ago, that he was not in control of what goes on in Syria and so he must not be held accountable for the approximately 6000 lost lives, tens of thousands of prisoners, many city quarters across Syria demolished or an economy that is about to implode.

It is not uncommon for individuals to have a distorted vision of reality but when the preservation of such a vision results in the deaths of thousands and the destruction of dreams then that paranoia and delusion cross a redline. The acts of the last year have made it amply clear that those in control of the Syrian government are driven purely by personal ambition to stay in power and to exercise their tyranny and oppression. Syria as a country that belongs to 22 million people is an alien idea to them since the country is a fiefdom for the Assads and their clan, a mentality based in a pure vision of personality cult worship and a party that is all knowing.

Is there a place for such tyranny and repression or do the citizens have the right and the moral obligation to put an end to a half a century of exploitation and abuse? It has been long in coming but finally the Syrian brothers have awoken from their slumber and have taken a stand for what is right and just. It is the Ba’ath and Bashar that have tried to exploit the situation over the past year in order to distract the revolutionaries from demanding what is rightfully theirs; the ability to decide their own destiny. Bashar could have avoided all this bloodshed had he declared his intension to hold free elections and to introduce meaningful reforms over a year ago. He chose not to do so only because he did not believe that the Syrian masses deserve to be treated with dignity. Let him reap what he has sown.

An Annual Automatic Minimum Wage Adjustment: Misguided Policy

2012-01-21T20:58:00.001-05:00

The adage “Be careful of what you wish for, it might come true” highlights the need to be very cautious and deliberate in choosing an end as well as a means. For who wants to attain a cherished goal if that implies adopting wrong and illiberal policies that are antithesis of the goal sought. Even Machiavellianism would not advocate a means that could wreak more havoc than the benefits bestowed. Such a circumstance is similar to the empty and hollow Pyrrhic victory where the king of Epirus defeated the Roman army in battle but said: "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."

Unfortunately for organized Lebanese labour, the latest raise in the minimum wage is being celebrated as a victory, which it is, had it not been attached to a provision of annual automatic increases tied to the rate of inflation. This automatic rise in the level of minimum wages poses a great danger to transform this accomplishment into a defeat for labour.

Indexing of wages, even minimum wages, is problematic for at least two reasons. (1) What is the index that is to be applied for the purpose of conducting such adjustments and does the country posses such a reliable objective index? One issue to be clarified at the outset,is that an adjustment by a consumer price index , CPI, does not make all its recipients whole as it is popularly alleged. Given two consumers Ali already owns a house while Elias does not and assuming that the largest component in the CPI is that of housing then a 10% increase in pay might help Elias not fall behind but it will be pure gain for Ali who has already purchased his dream house. As this very simple example illustrates there are a number of indexes that could be constructed and each could lead to a different result. That is why it is important to agree from the start on a specific index and who is going to be in charge of collecting the data for that particular measure. This is not a simple matter since Lebanon does not have the detailed studies to compose the baskets that are to constitute such measures. I still have to see the detailed composition of a Lebanese CPI. Furthermore the cost of living in Lebanon, as small as it is, shows considerable variation between regions and thus regional indexes are in order. But what ought to be of a great concern is the feature of automatic guaranteed rise in minimum wages. That automaticity could become the most damaging to the labourers at the bottom of the pyramid. If it so happens that the wages of unskilled labour increases without a commensurate increase in its productivity then that would only lead to more unemployment among the low skilled and would exasperate the levels of poverty.

A constant level of minimum wages in real terms is an honourable goal worthy of achievement. That is not what is being questioned. It is the efficacy of the method used in order to achieve that noble goal. A cost of living adjustment , even if a reliable and fair index is available, must not be automatic since that introduces rigidity into the labour markets and because it assumes that all inflations are alike which ,we all know ,is not the case. Economies, such as many of the southern European ones, are at times afflicted by negative macroeconomic data that demands a major effort to control wages in order to regain competitiveness. Under such dire economic circumstances labour will be committing suicide if it demands a higher nominal wage when wage restraint should be the regimen. The phenomenon of cost push inflation or what has been called stagflation is no longer an aberration but is instead a possibility to contend with. Another equally troubling scenario would be that of an imported inflationary environment combined with relative stagnation in the productivity of the economy where the general wage level is stagnant. Under such conditions an automatic increase in the minimum wage would become a reward for being unskilled.

A society is best judged by how equitable is its distribution of income, once the skill level is accounted for, and how well it treats its underprivileged and poor. These goals are to be promoted through a progressive income tax structure, greater expenditures on education and targeted growth policy. A rigid automatic increase in the minimum wage is not a substitute for the above. If this proposal is adopted as is then I predict that it will hurt those that it claims to be helping but the degree of the pain will not become clear until 5-7 years after its adoption.

May I humbly suggest a periodic thorough review , once every five years or so, of the status of the minimum wages vis a vis the rest of the economy instead of the straight jacket of an automatic annual increase.

What is a Fair Minimum Wage for Lebanon.

2012-01-12T19:56:00.001-05:00

The idea of a minimum wage has a great appeal all over the world. Although the notion was first introduced by New Zealand in 1894 practically all countries in the world have adopted a minimum wage standard. Since each of these countries has attained its own unique mix of social and economic development then each country has used its own rationale while setting these wages. Yet probably most such statutory wages share a common concern about reducing poverty and promoting fair equity.

Lebanon has been struggling for a while to set up an adjustment to its current level of minimum wages but to no avail. The last three tries have failed and a fourth one is expected to be announced sometime this week. The need for an adjustment in the level of monthly earnings in Lebanon has become increasingly urgent as the cost of living; especially the major components of housing and food have outpaced any wage gains. The result can very easily be observed in the high poverty rate. A recent study concluded that 28 % of Lebanese households live below the poverty line of $4 per day.

Since equality in pay leads to an equality in income then why not guarantee a wage level that will compensate each labourer a level of earnings that is close to the per capita income. As incredible as this idea might sound it is in essence the goal of Charbal Nahas, the Labour Minister, who proposed a level of compensation that will allow the least skilled among us to earn close to 75% of the Lebanese per capita income. Such a policy ,if adopted, would prove to be very misguided . Superficially such policies tend to enjoy wide organized labour support since they aim to narrow the pay differential between the skilled and the unskilled. Unfortunately such policies will also discourage investments in education and enhanced productivity. The higher is the proportion of GDP that is guaranteed by minimum wage legislation then the smaller is the premium for investing in human capital.

So what sort of a guideline should one follow in setting a minimum wage? Allow me to suggest that an effective minimum wage policy should be set in such a way as (1) not to discourage the pursuit and acquisition of higher skills and (2) ensure that the reward of employment is the attainment of a living standard that is above poverty. The concern with (2) is often referred to as a “living wage”.

Given that the current Lebanese per capita income is around $10,000 per annum then the first criteria above; encourage acquisition of high skills; should be in the range of 45%-55% of GDP per capita. That implies an annual minimum wage of $4500-$5500 or $375-$458 per month. The second criterion is even more problematic since the actual cost of living differs substantially from one region to the next. There is no doubt that living in Beirut or its direct environs is financially more demanding than living in the Bekaa, Akar or the south. But since the custom is to set up a uniform minimum wage for the whole country and since the currently acceptable poverty line in Lebanon is that of $4 per day then a family unit of four individuals would be able to escape poverty with a monthly income of $480.

Based on the above rough computations we can conclude that the Lebanese minimum wage should not be set above 700,000 LL per month. This level of income would allow a family of four to escape poverty especially if the main wage earner is to get some assistance from his/her spouse. Anything above this level will start to become counterproductive and will affect adversely industries that are dependent on unskilled labour. A high minimum wage might make Lebanese agricultural produce much less competitive.

And last but not least we should caution that the pursuit of social justice is an honorable goal but as in everything else good intensions are not sufficient to bear fruit, they must be accompanied by the proper productive tools. Minimum wages are only one tool in the fight against inequality and poverty, a tool that must not be abused.

Lebanese Religious Leaders: Are They Anachronistic?

2012-01-06T22:04:00.003-05:00

The Maronite Patriarch, Al Rai, has demonstrated one more time why is it that men of the cloth should not deal with politics but should confine themselves to their field of expertise , religious guidance. The logic in this case is quite simple: a rational person would not seek the advice of a carpenter when an automotive vehicle breaks down neither would one seek the guidance of an electrician when the bathroom sink develops a leak. If the above is true, and I sure hope that it is, then why would I need to listen to the advice of a clergy when the issue is purely political? This matter of separation becomes even more urgent among the Christian clergy whose spiritual master, Jesus Christ, asked them to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".

That has been the basis for the separation between church and the state and it continues to be. That is why a secular state is a state that does not consider the religious beliefs of its officials, simply their qualifications to do the job in question. But the Christian Maronite Church has different views. Its clergy especially its high rank ecclesiastics seldom perform their religious duties of simply preaching the tenets of their beliefs but instead issue their periodic political analysis and furthermore act as the final arbiters of what is to be enacted or not in the civilian and political realm. The Maronite clergy act more as an unelected Parliament than as men of God. An excellent example of how egregious are the pronouncements of the Maronite Church is best illustrated in the sermon given, on Friday January 6, 2012, by its most senior official, Patriarch Al Rai .

The Patriarch called upon “The Lebanese, Christians and Moslems, to preserve the Lebanese structure which consists of Moslems - Christian’s unity together and that is not built on demographic numbers but on the two cultures of Christianity and Islam. This unity forms the single civilization which is rich in its diversity of customs and beliefs. This Lebanese structure, by maintaining the principal of equal partnership, as per the constitution means a just and equal balance in positions and responsibilities. The cooperative and supportive Christian and Moslem halves form the Lebanese entity.”

A close reading of the above makes it very clear that the speaker, Patriarch Al Rai, has an uncommon understanding of what is democracy, equality or secularism. His only concern seems to provide a rationale for continuing the present unfair and undemocratic structure in Lebanese politics because it treats all people as equal but some as more equal than others. What does the Patriarch mean when he says that Lebanon is built on the idea of equal partnership between Christians and Moslems and that demography does not count? I for one have always believed, like so many others in this world, that demography is destiny. What is the basis of this equal partnership? Is the Patriarch asking for the protection of individual freedoms and liberties for all or is he asking for equality of seats in the Chamber of deputies and for a guarantee that the President of the Republic will always be a Maronite? When would this equality of elected officials cease to be acceptable? Should the Christians be entitled to 50% of the seats in the parliament when they represent say 20% of the population? Is the strong opposition of the Maronite church for offering the Lebanese citizenship to the Palestinian refugees influenced by this shallow call for “religious balance”?

Any kind of an exchange whether it is between individuals, regions or countries, whether it is in the realm of ideas or physical goods is best when it is based on the principle of knowledge and efficiency , on comparative advantage. It is not difficult to show that people of the cloth do not have much of an advantage in anything in a modern democratic society and so society is bound to be ill served when it heeds the advice of those whose knowledge of the field in question is at best suspect.

The Lebanese have nothing to worry about if they adopt a constitution that protects individual rights and that is implemented. Once we can rise above our narrow tribal religious affiliations to elect the most competent for the job then it should make absolutely no difference whether the official is a Protestant, a Sunni, a Maronite, a Shia or a Durzi. What is important is that the individual in question is a capable, knowledgeable and a competent Lebanese. Nothing else should matter not gender, not racial origin, not sexual orientation and not the colour of one’s eyes. It is time that we ask the heads of the churches and Mosques, to leave the public square and to specialize in that which they can do best, save souls. Unfortunately I do not believe that the clergy, Christian or Moslem, are about to abdicate their political power which borders on being absolute. In the final analysis it is up to each of us to tell the clergy of our churches and mosques that the sacred and the secular are separate issues and that we will not tolerate their interference in civilian life.

Are The Proposed Minimum Wages Too High?

2011-12-23T00:43:00.009-05:00

Minimum wages have always been very controversial and chances are that they will always be so. The idea is so contentious since it deals with one of the most sensitive ideas of a market economy, that of Laissez Faire. Is there room for government regulations and how much government interference is acceptable is at the heart of this issue?

One school of thought in mainstream economics, the positivists, refuses any kind of government regulation as being ultimately ineffective. They simply maintain that a society must accept what is, the market dictate. The opposing view, represented by the normative school, argues for what ought instead of what is. Members of this school of thought admit that a market economy faces many market failures and the only way to correct for these failures is for the Government to interfere and force the markets to change their behavior into what ought to be. It is clear that the second school is built on subjective thinking since what is, say, equitable to one might be inequitable to another. Let it be said though that market failures are not a theoretical construct since one can point to any number of such instants. In a sense all prices are not the real prices since the cost of externalities is never internalized fully by any supplier and thus the point of equilibrium is never the true efficient one. That is the whole idea that was initially advanced by Pigou and has become known as Pigouvian taxes.

As controversial as minimum wages are yet the arguments on both sides are rather simple and straight forward. Those that do not favour minimum wages argue that free markets are best at allocating resources and that government is not in a position to make such judgment. They argue that minimum wages end up in hurting those that they are planned to help; the poor. There are many studies that support this point of view by showing that job losses more than compensate for the increase in wages.
The arguments on the other side are just at straight forward but in my opinion more convincing. They rest essentially on two pillars:

(1) Moral: No one should work when the rewards would not lift one from under the official poverty line. These are the ideas that have become called “living wage” and that are often supported by ones view of what ought to be considered as fair rewards.

(2) Economic: Labour markets are neither homogenous nor perfectly competitive. This means that the simple textbook model of supply and demand that the positivists depend on is not applicable. It is easy to show that in imperfectly competitive markets a higher wage could act as an impetus for greater productivity and thus even more employment. The great majority of labour case studies support this argument.

The above presentation is meant to show that almost all over the world governments have sided with the normative school of thought by mandating a minimum wage rate. This however does not imply that government has a carte blanche at setting any rate it chooses. Obviously if the minimum wage rate is to have any meaning then it should be above the minimum market rate but it should not be set at a level that would become counterproductive by choking off hiring and reducing the competitiveness of the affected industries. And so the real question is how high these rates should be? Unfortunately there is no set answer for this question although there is some rough evidence to where it normally is set. A quick review of the minimum wages all over the world reveals that they are usually related to the level of economic development of the countries in question. As a general rule the industrialized countries tend to have a higher cost of living ,a relatively high GDP per capita , a higher absolute minimum wage rate but that rate usually replaces a low proportion of the GDP per capita. In most of these major countries the minimum wage represents less than 50% of the GDP per capita: USA 33%; Germany None; France 53%; Japan 35%. Only the least developed and the poorest countries have adopted a wage rate that is either close to or even higher than the GDP per capita: Ethiopia 95%; Benin 108%; Burkina Faso 133%.

So where should the level in Lebanon be and what do the world levels say about the recent controversy that was set by the new minimum wage adopted by the council of ministers? The best judgment is to take a look at the group of countries that are in the same group of GDP per capita:

Country....$GDP/capita Min..... Wage/GDP/capita
Hungary………………13,000…………………………..……..34%
Poland…………………12,300…………………………..……..45%
Uruguay………………12,000………………………..………..23%
Chile……………………11,800………………………..………..38%
Lithuania…………11,000……………..………………..…..35%
Libya……………… .10,800…………………..……………..13%
Brazil…………………10,800….…………………..……………37%
Latvia……………….10,700……………………………..…..37%
Russia……………….10,400………………………………....19%
Turkey…………………10,300…………..……………………..57%
Venezuela…………10,000…..………..……………………60%
Lebanon.. .. ....10,000……... ………………………….70% (based on the new proposal of $576 per month)
Mexico………………..9,500……………..…………………..13%
Argentina……… …9,100.………………..…………………63%
Kazakhstan…... …9,000………………………..………..12%
Gabon………………...8,800….………………………..………27%
Costa Rica……… …7,700…..…………………………..…36%
Saudi Arabia......7,600................33%

As the above table makes it abundantly clear the Lebanese proposal would make the Lebanese minimum wage represent the highest such wage rate in the world. Actually had it not been for Argentina, Venezuela and Turkey the Lebanese rate could easily be judged to be twice the global average for countries at its level of GDP per capita. So even if one is to be progressive but yet realistic it is abundantly clear that the Lebanese minimum wage rate should be scaled back to a maximum of $500 per month. That would still keep the Lebanese rate as the second highest in its group of countries, barely behind Argentina. Any rate higher than that would be irresponsible and will NOT help either the country nor those that it is intended to favour. The government has many other tools that it can apply to improve the level of welfare of the poor besides a forced unrealistic minimum wage rate. It is one thing to be progressive and it is another thing to be suicidal.

The Bane of Lebanon: All Encompassing Sectarianism

2011-12-17T20:49:00.004-05:00

There is a time for everything. A time to live and a time to die but there is never a time to be sectarian “a member of a sect or faction, especially one who is bigoted in his adherence to its doctrines or in his intolerance towards other sects, etc.” To be sectarian is to be close minded, to be a bigot, to see the world through a very narrow angle that distorts reality and makes a mockery of diversity, pluralism and democracy. Paradoxically these are some of the most important themes that many in Lebanon pretend to be promoting when in effect they are doing the opposite by pledging their allegiance to the backward and reactionary visions of the men of the cloth of the clergy.

Lebanon is currently in the midst of dealing with such three schizophrenic issues, each of which demonstrates clearly the need for a law that prohibits the clergy from meddling in political affairs. Interestingly enough each of the three largest sects in Lebanon has to face reconciling the irreconcilable; political stands that are the exact opposite of what each sect wants to appear to be promoting.

Maronites and Democracy:
No one can ever seriously question the commitment of the Lebanese Maronite church to a sovereign and free Lebanon. The church has played a major role in the creation of Greater Lebanon, as it exists today, and has always taken positions that challenge the political hegemony of foreign powers in Lebanon. Unfortunately though, the church leadership has seen it fit to play a political role in Lebanon instead of concentrating on its spiritual one. By doing so the church has promoted a distorted vision of identity. It has claimed in the past and still maintains that all Lebanese are equal but some are more equal than others. That is at least one reason, why it insists that the Lebanese official institutions are not to be populated either by elected officials judged by the merit of their vision nor are appointed officials to show superior knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. The Maronite church has favoured in the past and continues to favour the fact that the “official” sectarian denomination of a specific number of both appointed and elected officials should be the only criterion taken into consideration in these elections or appointments. Merit can easily be trumped by religious practice. What seems to be crucially important to Bkirki is to have 50% of the Lebanese MP’s be of the Christian faith and they are willing to lobby government for what they consider to be their fair share of political appointees whether these individuals are qualified or not to perform a certain job. Bkiriki and all Maronite MP’s do not seem to see the irony , maybe one can call it even the hypocrisy, of claiming to be democratic but yet insisting on a quota. The recent discussions regarding a reformed electoral system have even magnified the antithesis between what they claim to espouse and what they actually support. Most of the major Maronite blocs are on record supporting the strange proposal by the Orthodox Church that would mandate each sect should elect its own representatives. Isn’t that the most antiinclusive measure that a society can take and isn’t this a measure that defines personal political identity in terms of religious sect at birth? Is there any room in this vision for non believers or for those that make a profound distinction between the sacred and the secular? Whatever happened to personal qualification as being the only yardstick against which potential recruits are to be judges.

Sunnis, Civil Marriage and Women’s Rights.
The Sunni Dar Al Fatwa does not fare any better than the Maronite church. They are just as schizophrenic if not even more so since what is at stake does not appear to be that fundamental. Yet the Sunni clerical hierarchy has seen fit to oppose, and rather strongly, the proposal that would offer Lebanese women some official protection against domestic violence and abuse. The strange reasoning by the Mufti is that protecting women against abuse by the male hierarchy would lead to the dissolution of the sacred family institution. Did they ever stop to think that if abuse is so crucial to this institution then maybe it does not deserve to survive? But the beat goes on. The Sunni mufti speaks of equality and individual rights but promotes domination and hierarchy by one gender over the other.

Shia and Independence
Yes not all Shiites in Lebanon are members of Hezbollah but HA acts as if it is the sole representative of Shiism in Lebanon, and to be fair it is the strongest of the Shia factions. Its leadership has never hidden their total commitment to the Wilayat Al Faqih, the relatively new interpretation that arose in Qom and was popularized by the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. If the clergy are to be the rulers and if Islam is to be the answer then how does HA propose to bridge the vast chasm that would never accept non Shiites as equals? To claim a belief in the philosophy of Wilayat Al Faqih eliminates immediately any belief in the other, in nation states and in their sovereignty. To HA Lebanon as an independent state would be tolerated only because it cannot be conquered. As soon as it becomes feasible to transform society into a totally Shiite one then the individual rights of others will never act as a hindrance. That is not democracy or the rights of the down trodden masses. That is ultimate discrimination.

Salvation
Based on the above it should be obvious that each of these three sects has a major problem of credibility. Each advocates, for convenience only, an idea that it opposes vehemently in practice. These in compatible positions cannot persist for ever. Each of them will at one point or another be called upon to stand up and be counted. Inconsistent positions will ultimately cause the collapse of the edifice that is built of quick sand. Lebanon’s salvation, for all its citizens, is to judge each of them on His/her merit and allegiance to the common good. It is time that men of the cloth should retire to their respective religious institutions and it is time for the Lebanese to define their political identity in terms of what is good for the state and not by whether various members prey, or how they pray. The clearest sign that Lebanon has joined modernity would be when voters cast their ballots on the basis of ideas and not sectarian affiliations. We should rejoice when the Lebanese elect a Shia woman for Presidency, a Protestant as a PM and a Druze as a speaker of the Chamber of Deputies. It is only then that we would have transcended the narrow politics of divisions and chosen real democracy.

Syrian Dictatorship, Israeli Occupation and Civil Disobedience

2011-12-12T01:45:00.003-05:00

It can be argued that dictatorship is not that different than outright occupation by a foreign military. Actually it has been suggested by many commentators that occupation is the ultimate dictatorship. What is important for us in this column is the similarity between the two forms of rule. Both deprive the people of their personal rights, both are non democratic, both are not elected, both maintain control through armed forces and both violate the most fundamental principles of human rights as expressed by the Human Declaration of Human Rights. It is rather obvious that both occupation and dictatorship are two different forms that accomplish the same end: rule against the consent of the governed. Whenever such rule is present then it is an invitation to rebellion and revolution. The above describes very well at least two political entities in the Arab world; Syria and The West Bank, the former is occupied by the Assad family and the latter by Israel. Both of these forms of government are cruel, discriminatory and exploitative.

The Palestinians have resisted occupation and have tried a number of policies over the past 44 years but they have not succeeded in attaining their objective yet. They are possibly the last remaining colony in the whole world unless one considers China a colonizer of Tibet and the Russians as colonizers of Chechnya. The valiant Palestinians have not however committed themselves to the principle of non violence through organized and wide spread civil disobedience. I, and many others, have often argued that the Palestinians have no choice but to adopt the Gandhian method of civil resistance. That is the only way to “disarm” the cruel Israeli machine of occupation and deliver the Palestinian people to the “promised land”, the land of self determination, sovereignty and democracy.

It must be also very clear that the same methodology suggested to the occupied Palestinians on the West Bank is also the one that promises to be very effective in delivering Syria out of the clutches of the Assad regime and into the phase of representative democracy and self respect. The current Syrian regime has resisted the legitimate demands of its populace by constantly denying the facts on the grounds. The whole administration has acted over the past ten months exactly as one would have expected dictators to act. Deny, obfuscate and pretend that the unelected rulers, those that impose themselves by the power of hired thugs otherwise known as “security forces” are the only ones that know what is good for the country.

This irrational logic is so wanting that it does not deserve to be addressed except to say that if pretenders were so sure that they have the good of the people at heart then why fear an open and free election? Why insist on a system that depends on random fear and on expropriating everything of value to the integrity of the individual. Obviously dictators, all throughout history, have dreaded the moment that the oppressed find the strength to stand up and claim their stolen rights. Dictators have always lived in fear of the moment when the regular citizens will shout that the emperor has no cloths, that the regime is bankrupt and illegitimate.

The Syrian uprising that started nine months ago is all of the above and then some. The Syrian people have demonstrated great courage in standing up to the might of the dictatorship thugs and have offered the greatest of sacrifices without any hesitation. The Syrian people have given all of us, the world over, a lesson in sacrifice and commitment. They have faced the organized “shabiha” hoodlums and their supporting tanks with smiles on their bare breasts, bravery and heroism. They have already offered over 400 martyrs, many of whom are children and women and they have managed to keep up the pressure on the killers and criminals in power. They have simply set an example of audacity and boldness that has rarely been seen, if ever.

Yet the regime continues with its lies and distortions. It fabricates stories about undisciplined armed gangs that are in the employ of foreign powers when arguably it is the present regime that has often served the Israeli occupation of the Golan best. An excellent example of the cluelessness of Bashar Assad, the head of the ruling pyramid, was demonstrated in his disastrous interview with ABC where he claimed that he has never ordered any killings and that he is not in charge of the armed forces in Syria. Isn’t this a perfect fit for what is a psychopath?

"Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, ...psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses."

The current monstrous regime in Syria is intent on showing that the uprising is essentially driven by petty religious rivalries and revengeful acts. That is why the present Syrian dictatorship will stop at nothing that will help it provoke a violent uprising. The courageous Syrians will commit a fatal error if they fall for this trap that is being set up for them. They should spare no effort to show both the depraved Syrian regime and the world that they are above sectarian hatreds, petty politics and random violence. What better way to show that they are cut from a different cloth than the present killers and exploiters of the Syrian people than to adopt wide scale acts of civil disobedience and non violence. Let the authorities arrest, if they dare hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of citizens, let the few thugs run the schools, the factories and the shops. Civil disobedience has worked wonders in India, South Africa, the Czech Republic, the Ukraine and has even partially succeeded in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and even Lebanon among other places.

Syria is obviously in need of a revolution and there is nothing better than what Henry David Thoreau called “peaceable revolution” in his essay about Civil disobedience. A peaceful and non violent Syrian revolution is the best option for the Syrian uprising. I am certain that it will succeed and once it does then it would have set up another example of the efficacy and attractiveness of “civil disobedience” for the whole world in general and for the West Bank in particular. When the people ask for freedom, respect and integrity then no dictatorship can possibly deny them their intrinsic rights.

STL Funding and Lebanese Polity

2011-12-04T21:14:00.003-05:00

And so Lebanon dodges another bullet. What was billed, by all sides, as being potentially an explosive event ended up being a whimper just like the Elliot had predicted in “The Hollow Men” :

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

But has the problem been solved or have we applied the traditional Lebanese formula that has been in control of the country for over fifty years. La Ghaleb wa la Maghloob. No winners no losers. What a crock. Why anyone should be obligated to act responsibly if the outcome never matters. It always ends with the La Ghaleb wa la Maghloob.

In the last round things are different. No matter what kind of a spin anyone wishes to apply to the outcome Mr. Mikati has scored a touchdown in the last seconds of the fourth quarter. As a result the big losers are both Hezbollah who promised that the STL will never be financed and then obviously the clAoun who never seems to know what he wants. It is as if he is always waiting for orders from Damascus.

But this apparent victory is hollow. It does not mean much. Lebanon is still waiting for the real independent Najib Mikati to stand up and make a statement that is based on nothing else but the Lebanese national interest. He has not done that yet and it is highly unlikely that he would. The FPM on the other hand is busy bending itself into a pretzel form to say that what they have always cared most about is the integrity of Lebanon more than the simple singular issue of STL finance. The only response to that is bunk!!! This fiasco has demonstrated again the lack of professionalism, the amateurism in decision making and the total incompetence of those in charge of the FPM. But don’t blame them blame those that have voted for them without holding them responsible for anything and blame those that will vote for them again.

But the biggest looser by far is Hezbollah. A party that has threatened and cajoled a people on this very same issue that they had to eventually agree to. It will be next to impossible to explain rationally this flip flop of Hezbollah.

But Lebanon has not won except a small moral victory. HA still acts as a state within a state. Note the recent problem with electric generation at AlZahrani power generation plant. The official Lebanese authorities have not been allowed to enter that area because it is only a “ghost” part of Lebanon an incorporeal region. The South is ruled by HA and neither the Lebanese Army, nor the Lebanese PM nor the Lebanese President have much to say about that.

Unfortunately Lebanon’s problems are not limited to those mentions, as seminal as they might be. The opposition; March 14; is not in a much more enviable shape. Sa’ad Hariri has demonstrated amply enough that he was not born to lead. He is neither charismatic, nor well read he is neither creative nor principled. He simply has no vision; if he does he has not articulated it. The others in his camp are at least equally as disadvantaged and even more so. Samir Geagea carries so much baggage from the civil war that he must never be given even the chance to lead while the Gemayels will never be able to escape from their self made image of religious and political dinosaurs. Mr. Jumblatt appears to be a liability to both sides.

Lebanon’s salvation is in modernity, democracy and a clearly defined bill of rights, i.e. a truly secular society. But how can we have a secular society when the Patriarch, the head of the largest Church in Lebanon behaves on a daily basis as a political chieftain, a non elected one for that matter. What hubris and what chutzpah. Why does he think that he is qualified and/or entitled to act as a political feudal lord when he is at best a priest, a man of the cloth who is supposed to offer some guidance to his flock on strictly spiritual basis? The Maronite patriarch and all the other Christian church leaders must, in the name of Christianity, renounce all semblances of political power and simply encourage their flock to develop an identity that transcends religion. If they fail to do that then they fail the basics of the Judeo Christian ethics, the egalitarianism of St Francis of Assisi.

And in all fairness the same is true of the Moslem Sunni Mufti. He must emphasis to his followers that to be a good citizen of a state does not diminish one’s ability to be a good observant Moslem. Religion is a personal matter and must not be brought into the public square. That is purely for the secular. And that is another fatal flaw in Hezbollah who have stated clearly their belief in Wilayat Al Faqih. It simply states that the head of the church is to dictate and rule. No one else is important. That is autocratic and dictatorial. That is the interpretation of Qom and not Najjaf.

Yet I will be willing to put at risk everything of value to me in order to protect the right of Hezbollah to the freedom of self expression and belief but not for the right to abuse this freedom by taking a whole country hostage. They can rationalize it any way that they want but no one has a monopoly on resistance and no one has a right to establish a state within a state through illegitimate force and foreign interference.

A democratic Lebanon shall rise from the ashes and the tyranny of hooliganism and vigilantes shall perish. Either the outright fall of the Syrian regime or the introduction of meaningful democratic changes ogre well for Lebanon. They would only mean the diminution of the HA power. But let us remember that that is not enough in itself for the establishment of a potentially vibrant democracy. We have to declaw the other clerics also, the Patriarch and the Mufti.

Mikati Must dismiss the Aoun Histrionics.

2011-11-27T23:21:00.003-05:00

Old habits die hard, actually at times they never die. This is a good thing if the habit in question is that of integrity, high ethical standards, intellectual curiosity and creative thinking. But it is a bad when the characteristic in question is that of being addicted to superficiality, megalomania and a squeaky wheel. Lebanon is cursed by having one of political heavyweights behave like a Dean of the latter group, a group that is addicted to obstructionism, nepotism superficiality and bluster. General Michele Aoun has exemplified the role of being the squeaky wheel of Lebanese politics, the wheel that needs to be oiled in order to stop the aural damage and lessen the demagoguery.

The self proclaimed saver of the Christians and the most principled of the Lebanese politicians prevented the formation of the present cabinet for weeks by constantly raising peripheral issues and meaningless objections. Then all of a sudden he forgot about all the issues that he had objected to and consented to the cabinet formation essentially unchanged. What is it that had changed? Was it orders from Damascus and/or Tehran? We will never know for sure but that is the most likely explanation.
As if the above sophomoric behavior is not enough, yesterday the General instructs his cabinet ministers not to attend a regularly scheduled cabinet meeting and hints that his parliamentary bloc might resign from the cabinet if it dares approve honouring Lebanons’ obligations to the STL. What is strange about this issue is that the Premiere, Mr. Mikati, has always insisted that his cabinet is committed to fulfilling all the international obligations of the country. If everyone, the world over, has known about this for months then why did mon General not know about it? Is it because he was asked to join the cabinet when he did and now he is being asked to quit? Is there any other explanation.

Mr. Mikati should dismiss the childish behavior of the FPM and carry on doing the peoples’ business. Lebanon can hardly afford a cabinetary vacuum at this moment. But that would not be enough. Mr. Mikati has an obligation to govern as the effective Lebanese independent politician that he promised us to be. He should use his bully pulpit to lobby for policies that benefit the Lebanese citizen and should shame the ideologues and obstructionists into supporting policies that are guided by the national interest no more and no less. That includes but is not limited to favouring policies that will stand up to dictators and to threats from reactionary regimes built on fear and brutality.

This cabinet has thus far failed to be effective and has failed to govern. Its major problem is the lack of harmony between its members and in particular between the FPM and everybody else. The Premiere has the duty to form a cabinet in his image and not to conform to the whimsical wants of a group of ministers that are focused on histrionics and grabbing headlines. There is a popular folkloric tale in Lebanon about Jeha who broke the spout of the only clean water reservoir in the village so as to be noticed. That is nothing else but a need to be noticed, an ego full of misplaced hubris. Such an individual “habitually infuses inordinate emotion and self-dramatization into interpersonal and social persona”. That simply means that the General is "over the top", he has become nothing else but a caricature , a person who is in love with himself. Lebanon needs better politicians and Mr. Mikati should bring the General back to earth. Somebody has to.

The Fall of Bashar and the Rise of Democracy in Syria and Lebanon

2011-11-21T22:39:00.005-05:00

Often reality is difficult to accept and especially for the ideologues whose understanding of development and their advice is rarely, if ever, to be taken seriously. Ideologues are not to be confused with principled individuals because their positions are dictated not by the rationality of a circumstance but by a predetermined notion of which party to oppose and which one to support. They act as if one party has a complete hold of the truth all the time while the others are always misinformed even if they are to adopt views that are associated with their opponents. A perfect example of an ideologue is the expression of utter bewilderment on the face of the head of the Ba’ath party in Lebanon, Mr. Shukur, when his debate opponent, Mr. Alloush, stated that he does not believe the statements of Bashar Assad. The priceless expression was what one would expect to see on the face of a 4 year old when told for the first time that there is no Santa Clause.

The reaction of Bashar Assad and his entourage to the declarations of the Arab League and other nations all over the world are not any different. They refuse to accept the clear inevitable conclusion of the ongoing Syrian revolution. It would be practically impossible for Bashar Assad and the Syrian Baath to stay in power. They have already lost and the longer it takes them to internalize this reality the costlier will be the final synthesis. The Syria that the Assads have ruled for over forty years as a fiefdom has finally had enough humiliation, abuse and exploitation. It has risen to and has demonstrated tremendous courage in facing the unbelievable odds to standing up to the security apparatus and the army. These actions would not have been called for had MR. Assad acted responsibly by showing that Syria is above party and it transcends family and business cronies. Alas Mr. Assad, just like an addict, could not bring himself to admit that the Ba’ath has abused the trust of the Syrian people and that the continuous mismanagement of the economy have transformed Syria into a paper tiger and a backward and bankrupt economy that is rapidly moving towards an environmental abyss as well as an economic meltdown and a social disintegration.

Instead of doing the right thing of listening to the clear and legitimate demands of his people Mr. Assad has decided to bunker down and to defy the world by threatening that if he is to be constantly reminded of reality and legitimacy then he might have no choice but to lash out at his unarmed civilians. Pity the man that thinks of himself as a modern leader but acts as a tin horn dictator. But our biggest sympathy goes out to the brave Syrian civilians who have decided that freedom is not free and that they are willing to pay the price.

The tipping point has already been breached. Syria will be free from the Ba’ath. What is not certain is how dear the price will be. Mr. Assad is still the dominant factor in this equation. He can act responsibly by accepting the new facts and start immediately the negotiations for an orderly and peaceful transfer of power or he can persist in his obstructionism by bringing down the temple on himself and the Syrian people. Time is running short and unless he acts decisively in the next few days to avoid a Syrian Armageddon to save himself and the country that he claims that he loves then he would be committing an abominable act that history will not forgive for centuries to come, if ever.

A corollary to the above is the major transformation that will engulf Lebanon when the cruel Syrian dictatorship is finally booted out. The ramifications on Lebanon will be as seminal as the changes in Syria. Lebanon will finally get a chance to exercise its independence and sovereignty. Its people will be able to rule themselves as any democracy should and the new realities will finally help bring to an end the Mafiosi rule of Hezbollah and all those that have helped and abetted its nefarious acts. It should also usher in a tide of new, young and committed youth who reject sectarianism and corruption. A new era of citizenship will take hold in Lebanon as soon as the divisive and backward Syrian Ba’athi minions are swept away from the official offices that they have exploited and profiteered from for decades. The only question that stands as an obstacle in the face of the historical movement in both Syria and Lebanon to enter a new post Assad era is whether the celebrations will take place in late 2011 or early 2012. I can hardly wait.

Syrian Suspension And The New Reality In Lebanon.

2011-11-13T17:49:00.003-05:00

The reaction of the Syrian regime to the recently announced suspension of the Syrian membership by the Arab League reminds me of the story about the proud mother during a military parade who was jumping up and down with joy and yelling to whoever can hear her: “Please take a look and note how all the brigade is out of step with my Amer, bless his soul”

A few months ago when the European Union announced a set of measures against Syria and some Syrian oligarchs in conjunction with Washington Mr. Al Moualem, the Syrian foreign affairs minister announced with bravado that Syria will act as if neither the US nor the EU are part of the world map. Two days ago the Syrians decided to erase another part of the world map; this time they said “Toz” to all the Arab countries. Russia and China have, so far, shown some lukewarm support for the Syrian regime although both countries have stressed that they expect Mr. Assad and his Syrian minions to stop the use of force and to implement genuine reforms immediately. Maybe it is time for the Syrians to dismiss another major chunk of the world map. It looks very highly likely that pretty soon the Syrian regime will operate in a shrunk world of its making composed of Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. Obviously they can always count on the unquestioned support of their Lebanese subordinates: Hezbollah, Amal, FPM, Marada, Talal Arslan and Wiam Wahab. The support of Mikati and Safadi will be ambiguous

The relatively wide official Lebanese support for the Baath killing machine is problematic at best. The Tower of Babel, better known as the Lebanese cabinet, is one more time trying to take a position and its opposite at the same time. The PM, Najib Mikati, has never tired of telling the world that Lebanon honours all its international obligations and will obviously pay its dues to the STL. Unfortunately he forgot to relay that message to the largest bloc in the cabinet, FPM, and the real power behind the throne Sayed Hassan Nasrallah. Mr. Nasrallah, an unelected official who acts as the PM, Speaker and President ; all rolled into one; has declared a few days ago that as far as he is concerned the STL does not exist, as if reality is something subjective. (If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it then does it make a sound?) I guess not. If SHN decides not to see something then irrespective of the scientific proof that an entity exists Mr. Nasrallah feels that he can act as if it does not. Does the Emperor have cloths on or is he naked? Ask SHN or Bashar Assad before you answer that one. Their views are what counts, the truth be damned.

Then there is the Lebanese position Vis a Vis the decision of the Arab League to suspend Syrian membership. Lebanon dispatched its foreign minister to support the Syrian position and argue that Syrian demonstrators do not exist, the 3500 deaths of unarmed civilians are the fabrication of Western media, tanks and the full might of the Syrian armed forces have not been used against unarmed civilians in Homs, Hama, Dara, Latakia among numerous other places all across Syria. But to top it all the Lebanese President, Michael Suleiman, himself elected unconstitutionally, called Bashar Assad to tell him that Lebanon did not vote for Syrian repression but only to protest the punishments being doled to Syria What a joke. When would we ever learn that to take a position and its opposite simultaneously is a logically bankrupt exercise and what is more important that it is an insult to the intelligence of the public.

It is time to shout it from the hill tops. The Emperor has no cloths. This Lebanese cabinet is a sorry excuse for a government. Lebanon is ruled according to the diktats and personal whims of a certain unelected clergyman, Sayed Hassan Nasraalah, who does not recognize the right of Lebanon to sovereignty and independence. No one in this cabinet would dare take a position on important issues without seeking in advance the blessings of SHN. This charade has gone as far as it can. But what is equally clear is that the Syrian Baath has already lost even if, against all odds, it manages to stay in power. The minimum changes coming to Syria are a new constitution that does not recognize the Baath as a special party, free and popularly elected members of the parliament and a freely contested and elected president. Who would have even dared suggest such changes a few months ago? The new reality is that Syria will become more democratic, that all the Baath lackeys in Lebanon will have to adjust their vision to see the new reality including SHN.

Slavoj Zizek en Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-12T00:02:00.000-04:00

An interesting, informative and yet entertaining presentation by one of the top intellectuals in the world. Take a listen

Patriarch Rai: A Shephard Endorses A Wolf?

2011-10-04T00:14:00.004-04:00

When viewed through the prism of citizenship; and that is the only view that counts; then no country has any minorities. All citizens irrespective of their gender, race, physical attributes, educational skills, sexual preferences of religious persuasion are treated equally. In the eyes of the law of the land they are to have equal rights and equal protection. The state is not allowed to differentiate between any of its citizens as long as they are law abiding.

In a modern democratic state, as the one described above, the fears expressed by minorities are unfounded. Actually when a religious leader such as the Maronite Patriarch Rai express concern about the destiny of minorities then that flawed sense of identity is a reflection of his narrow vision of what a sense of citizenship entails. Citizens of a nation cannot be minorities in their own countries whereby the constitution does not discriminate between its residents. Yes inhabitants can always be classified by a myriad of characteristics that will result inevitably with a minority and a majority. But such distinctions are meaningless in determining qualifications for a political office or the ability to perform a certain job. If ones girth is not grounds for state discrimination and thus for fear that overweight people will not have access to political posts or financial institutions among other things then why should the issue of prayer or non prayer be any different.

A state is composed of different people who have different beliefs and who belong to different sub categories. That is what natural diversity, a hugely important feature for healthy evolution and growth, is all about. All countries will have conservatives, liberals, progressives, libertarians, highly skilled, rich, poor, Moslems, Christians, atheists… but each member of any of these groups belongs to only one class of citizens. That is why the scare mongering about minorities and the equally meaningless boast of some that this nation or that one is composed of minorities is based on a flawed logic of what is muwatiniah. Citizenship has no minorities.

It is especially troubling when such discriminatory language is used by those that are expected to embody the highest of values of ethics and morality. Patriarch Rai, among others, is essentially a preacher and a servant of Jesus Christ the man who had the courage to never waver from his beliefs and who threw the money changers from the temple. He was also the one who said in the Sermon on the Mount “'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst to see right prevail; they shall be satisfied.'" It is with lots of trepidation that an atheist should be reminding the leader of a 1600 year old Catholic Church about the teachings of Jesus Christ whose message was about courage, love and forgiveness, not about political compromise and expediency. It was in the same sermon that Jesus went on to teach the multitude by saying:’ "But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." He did not say “If someone strikes you then support their oppression so that you may be protected “.

And finally I will let Billy Graham speak to the Patriarch about what the real historical message of Christianity has been about for over 2000 years: “"Christianity grew because its adherents were not silent. They said, 'We cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard.' … They stormed against the evils of their day until the very foundations of decadent Rome began to crumble."

I sincerely and humbly think that Patriarch Rai ought to be reminded of the message that his church has stood for all throughout history but above all he must reconsider his stand of offer spiritual solace to those that represent moral decadence in the Middle East, those who have violated every shred of decency for over forty years, those who have used the full power of the military against unarmed civilians, the Ba’ath regime of Syria led by Bashar Assad. Unless Patriarch Rai finds a way to speak truth to power, to speak against dictatorship, oppression and violators of human rights he will have to endure the opprobrium of his stance on the dark side.

The above tale should also serve as a reminder about the dire need for secularism. Individuals should be free to practice their religious beliefs any way they choose but such beliefs must be banished from the public square. Let the Patriarch tend to his spiritual flock and have the imams and sheikhs do likewise to their followers but let civil society be a free place for all citizens to fulfill their earthly dreams and pursue their aspirations unhindered by a religion that is often bestowed upon them by birth.

Hypocrisy (in all fields)

2011-09-30T12:01:00.002-04:00

It has often been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Well in this case it sure is.
I honestly think that it would be redundant to say much about the accompanying image, it tells the whole story and very effectively for that matter. It also demonstrates clearly that most of us are not that sincere about the claims that we make.This goes by the polite name of claiming to be politically correct when in fact one has no intention of subscribing to the idea one is pledging lip service to. That is the essence of hypocrisy.

Palestinian Authority:To Go To The Security Council Or Not.?

2011-09-19T00:45:00.002-04:00

That the ongoing tragedy of the Palestinian dispossession in 1948 is still in limbo speaks volumes about the depth of the injustice that the Palestinian people have been subjected to by the whole world community. The iniquity bestowed on the Palestinians is practically unparalleled but they have come to accept the state of Israel, the power that has usurped their land, their homes, and their humanity provided they would not be prevented from establishing their own nation on the land that was taken by Israel during the 1967 war.

The sudden shock of the dispossession led to the adoption of a few unproductive policies in the hope that their acts would win back what has been taken away from them by force, their land and their right to self determination. Many have argued over the past 65 years that the Palestinians have often been their best enemies when they followed policies that guarantee negative sensational press coverage but nothing else. These wrong and misguided means are best described as pyrrhic victories. Whether it was exploding the airliners in the Jordanian dessert, massacring the Israeli athletes in the Olympic village in Germany or throwing overboard the body of Leon Klinghoffer from the Achille Lauro the Palestinian guerrillas failed to win converts to their cause.

Eventually the Palestinian leadership agreed to renounce its claim to the whole of Palestine and to accept to live side by side with the Israeli state that has not stopped its continued incursions into the West Bank by building more settlements and by expanding the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem by continuing the acts of dispossession and disinheritance of the Palestinians. Yet the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Abbas and PM Fayad offers nothing but continued support for the two state solutions that the Israeli government has honored through lip service only. Their latest move is to seek recognition of a Palestinian state from both the General assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.

It is clear that most countries in the world, with very few exceptions will vote at the General Assembly in favour of this resolution. It will pass overwhelmingly. But a General Assembly vote does not carry as much heft as one in the Security Council, and this is the rub. The US government has all but guaranteed that it will veto the Security Council resolution later on this month. Since this expected Palestinian request and US response are a practical certainty then one must ask what the potential outcome from this line of action is. One thing for certain is that the US veto will expose the US one more time as duplicitous and hypocritical as far as the Arab Israeli question is concerned. The fallout from such a vote will hurt not only the US but also all its potential allies in the region. Unfortunately, the realities of American presidential elections dictate that Mr. Obama will forget all his promises to change the world and will veto the resolution at the Security Council. Make no mistake about it, Secretary Clinton and the White House will use Orwellian language to tell us that they vetoed the resolution because of their commitment to a two state solution. If any one takes these explanations seriously then they make great prospects for those who want to sell land in New Orleans ‘ ninth ward.

But why should a setback for the US, as significant as it, be considered more than a moral victory at best for the Palestinian people. In a sense such a moral victory could be construed as an empty one if not quite a Pyrrhic victory. The attempt to embarrass the US on such a large scale will undoubtedly lead to efforts by the Congress to reduce US financial aid to the Palestinian Authority at a time when its budget coffers are empty. But that in itself is not a major development. The real danger from this vote is that the intransigence of the current Israeli government will only increase and the possibilities of any progress diminished appreciably. The world media will spend a day or two maybe even a week covering this story and interviewing the Palestinian officials who will be celebrating their new status at the general assembly but as time goes on other stories, political and economic will come to dominate the news cycle. By then the Palestinians would be exactly in the same position that they are in right now and possibly they will be facing larger challenges.

Usually the argument to do the right thing wins easily. But in this case, I am afraid that the potential consequences of this act more than nullify its purely moral gains for the Palestinian people. If an act is to be judged ultimately by its consequences then the PA has nothing to gain from this line of action. Maybe what the PA should consider, rather seriously, is a declaration that they no longer want a two state solution but instead they want to demand that they become citizens of the state that has occupied them for the past 44 years. If their demands are not met then the PA will launch major civil disobedience campaigns all across Israel. Maybe it is time that the Israeli political establishment should be made to realize the consequences of its acts.

Lebanon: Who Is In Control?

2011-09-11T20:27:00.002-04:00

No institution and especially no cabinet can perform effectively if its members hold contradictory beliefs and are guided by incompatible ideas and paradigms. That is the reason why effective governments are usually formed by a majority party or a workable coalition of members that agree to keep their differences under control and to work essentially to further the public welfare.

Unfortunately Lebanon has departed from this almost universal standard over the past 6 years. Taif started this trend towards diffusion of power by keeping the President of the Republic as a symbolic figurehead who is basically entrusted with accepting ambassadorial credentials and other ceremonial functions such as meeting with cabinet ministers and even presiding over ministerial meetings if he chooses. The President however cannot cast a vote or even introduce an item on the agenda. There is nothing unique about this since that is the norm in all parliamentary democracies. The problem in Lebanon is that someone has forgotten to inform the public about this change and so many, especially among the Maronites, still believe that we have a Presidential system. FPM among others still maintains the belief that presidential powers can still be restored. Let them dream or maybe more appropriately keep them in their make belief reality!!!

But a Parliamentary system cannot function efficiently and productively when the powers of the Prime Minister have been abrogated to a large extent by the so called council of ministers. This set up suffers of two major flaws:

(1)The Prime Minister is not treated as a chief among Indians but as only another chief among many others. The PM cannot be held responsible for what transpires under his/her term in office since the PM is not in a position to shape the cabinet policy. When the power resides in the council of ministers then each minister acts as if he/she is a mini PM and thus the premiership becomes so diluted that it becomes totally ineffective.
(2)The trend to have either a so called “national unity government” or one that is composed of irreconcilable ideologies ends up in creating a cabinet that in essence robs the parliament of its function. The cabinet becomes a mini parliament and thus it ends up in usurping parliamentary authority.
The situation does not need to be hopeless. We have a moral obligation to wage a major educational campaign to inform the Lebanese public that ours is no longer a presidential system and that we have opted for a parliamentary one. But that is not enough. We also have the duty to allow the PM to govern. That cannot be done under a system where the major power rests in the ministerial council. We have to make it clear that the bulk of the executive power rests in the Premiership and that the PM has the power to dictate eventually the beliefs and the policies of the office. If it so happens, as it is inevitable to occur, that certain members of the cabinet cannot go along with the vision of the PM then these ministers must submit their resignations. Once the policies of the PM can no longer get the required support from the chamber of deputies then the cabinet will have to resign and be replaced.
The current as well as the past 3 cabinets, presents an excellent example about the absolute necessity for a change in the way that cabinets are formed. Najib Mikati, the current PM, never tires of saying that the cabinet is fully committed to honour all of Lebanon’s’ international commitments under international law including UNSCR 1701, 1559 and financing the STL. Normally that should be enough of an indication about what official Lebanese is in these matters. But is it? Not when Hezbollah and its minions keep on stating that they will not favour financing the STL neither would they want to enforce 1559. In this regard it is fair to ask, isn’t it? Who is it that speaks for Lebanon? Is it the PM or is it the ministerial council?

I strongly believe that it is time that we put an end to this unworkable cabinet composition. It is high time that we shout from the hill tops that Lebanon has become a parliamentary system and it is also time that we allow the PM to lead and govern if the premiership is to be held accountable for the successes or failures. To allow the cabinet to substitute for the parliament and to encourage individual ministers to subvert the role of the PM is eventually ineffective, unworkable and even undemocratic. The PM must head the cabinet and choose those that are willing to enact the plays that he calls.

Invalidity of the Defense of the Syrian Regime

2011-08-27T22:55:00.004-04:00

The fall of the USSR and the official establishment of the Russian federation in 1991 was a major turning point in the political make up of what was known as the Soviet Union and all its European and Asian satellites. The rise of Boris Yeltsin to power of a free, and independent Russia that has renounced 70 years of Communism effectively marked the end of the Cold War. The occasion was welcomed by most people all over the globe if for nothing else but for the potential peace dividend that it carried and for the apparent freedom and liberty that it had bestowed on the people of Russia as well as all the Soviet satellites from Kazakhstan to Latvia, Georgia, the Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, the unification of Germany… Yet some people on the extreme left blamed the Russian citizens and the residents of each of the satellites for wanting a better life. They blamed them for their uprising and for throwing the yoke of their exploiters and corrupt politicians who deprived the citizenry of its rights but made sure to bestow all kinds of privileges upon themselves. Many leftist party members in the West argued that the citizens of the ex Soviet Union should have never demanded what is rightfully theirs but should have allowed the oligarchs and their security forces to go on abusing them for personal gain. Obviously that line of thinking is laughable as any visitor to any of the liberated countries can document.

Move forward twenty years and in particular to the uprising that started in Syria over 5 months ago and you run against the same tired, self serving, hackneyed and superficial logic. Many of the Syrian regimes supporters know better than to make a straight forward argument in favour of a brutal dictatorship and so they twist themselves into unwieldy shapes trying to argue that the regime is needed because without it then Syria would degenerate into sectarian warfare. Obviously none of those that advance this line of thinking would provide any shred of evidence why such an outcome is inevitable. We are also told that Bashar Assad the scion of the cruel dictatorship that has been ruling under an emergency law and through a single political party rule for over 40 years need more time to introduce the legitimate reforms that the unarmed civilian protestors are calling for. Isn’t almost half a century long enough to come up with a package of reforms? And if it is true that the current regime is intent on reforms then isn’t it a coincidence that this matter became apparent only when its monopoly on power was challenged. Is it rational then to question the sincerity of such reform proposals while the tanks are demolishing neighborhoods and the prisons are full of political detainees? It is very clear that all of these are nothing else but excuses for those that are happy with the status quo of no elections, one party rule and promotion of Soviet style personal celebrity rule.

This unfortunate use of inverted logic is not left only for the domestic supporters of the dictatorship. Similar logic has been used by Egyptian thinkers as well as Lebanese writers. The most glaring such example, however, is that taken by Hezbollah. Sayed Hassan Nasrallah has stated the position of his party clearly one more time in his latest speech on the occasion of the International Day of Jerusalem. He, as expected, lavished nothing but praise on the Syrian regime but was sure to justify that by highlighting the steadfastness of the Syrian government against Israel. His premise is that the single most important issue in the Arab society is the position against Israel and in favour of the Resistance movements and since the Syrian Baath has supported Hezbollah, Hamas and PFLP-GC then any movement by the people against this regime is suspect and must be defeated. The very clear weakness of the above, even for those that share the believe in the preeminence of the Arab-Israeli position is the fact that Mr. Nasrallah assumes that the replacement government will not take the same position against Israel. He makes that assumption and asks the listeners to accept it on faith. That is purely an exercise in tautological thinking. The other weakness in this strange logic is the assumption that Mr. Nasrallah knows best what is good for the Syrian people. They do not have a say in self determination. Could that kind of thinking be influenced by the principles of Welayat Al Faqih?

What is especially pernicious about the above illogic is that its promoters were very highly critical of the doctrine of "preemptive strikes" as articulated by George W Bush. That principle allowed the US to take action/wage war based on suspicion that an act was being planned, no proof was necessary. That is identical to what supporters of the Syrian regime are claiming, deprive civilians of their rights, use ruthless force to put them down only because you suspect that they will propose a policy that you disagree with, no proof needed and their rights be damned even if they chose to enact such a policy. What imperious hubris.

As if all of the above is not enough, many of the same groups that are defending the Syrian killing machine are applying the same logic to downplay the tremendous accomplishments of the Libyan revolutionaries that have spared no cost to free themselves from the dictates of the mad man Qadaffi. Obviously it would be unacceptable to defend such a mad person and his entourage directly and so it has become common for this group to apply its strange logic by claiming, that the courageous and brave Libyan people were manipulated by foreign powers. That is simply just as grotesque of an insult to the intelligence of the Libyan as the above thinking was an insult to the intelligence of the Syrian people.

Why cannot we accept the simple fact that the Soviet masses as well as the Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan, Yemeni and Syrian have risen against their exploiters because they have had enough. They prefer to live in dignity rather than be used and mistreated by oligarchs bent on accumulating personal wealth and power?

The days of the Syrian dictatorship, like all other dictatorships, are numbered irrespective of its disingenuous efforts to save itself.

Bashar must go: No Legitimacy for the Illegitimate

2011-08-21T00:20:00.003-04:00

One of the most popular expressions of the Lockian idea of “natural rights” can be seen in the preamble to the US declaration of independence written by Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The above simply means that it is not up to government to offer its populace personal rights since these are among the bundle of rights that cannot be alienated from the individual. No government can take away that which is embedded into citizens by virtue of birth and to act otherwise is a gross act of hubris and egregious exploitation. When the state adopts policies to take away from people part or all of their natural rights then the state is acting against the will of the governed whose welfare it is supposed to enhance. Such acts of diminution of the rights of citizens are best described as immoral, unethical, exploitative and constitute justifiable uprisings against the ruler whose acts have violated all accepted responsibilities of a governor.

Unfortunately, history is replete with states that have acted as authoritarian rulers, absolute monarchs, brutal dictators and autocrats. Yet the movement towards more democracy and responsible government got its biggest boost with the American and French revolutions of over 235 years ago. Many philosophers and political scientists have argued that the spread of democracy is probably the single best achievement of the 20th century. Alas this glorious trend appears not to have found even a toe hold in the Arab world until the onset of the Arab Spring that started in Tunis, spread to Egypt, Libya and Yemen then Bahrain and Syria not to mention the defensive moves in Morocco, Jordan and possibly Iraq and Palestine.

Tunis and Egypt have already started the hard work of establishing working democracies as soon as their previously strong autocratic regimes collapsed, Yemen and Libya seem to be close to uprooting the dictatorial regimes of Qaddafi and Saleh while the Bahraini demand for reform appears to have been squashed by the Saudi monarchy with the acquiescence of the rest of the GCC. But besides Bahrain, the real paradox so far has been the courageous and popular Syrian uprising. It has been over 5 months since the people of Dara’a took to the streets to send a message to the Syrian Ba’ath that forty years of suppression, exploitation and expropriation of natural rights is enough. The spark of Dara’a spread like a wild fire to the suburbs of Damascus, to Homs , Hama and their environs, to Deir Ezorr, Jisr Alshughur, Banias and Latakia among other places. The civilian protestors were met in all cases with the full force of the Syrian army whose tanks have demolished many residential quarters and whose snipers and military has already killed over 2000 civilians; men women and children, not to mention the tens of thousands of injured and the over 10,000 rounded up for interrogation and torture. It is ironic that the same army that has failed to fire one bullet in almost forty years to liberate the Golan Heights was willing to butcher its own citizens in the name of resistance. As all this blatant brutality by the Syrian dictatorship was going on not one of the Arab governments issued as much as a statement of moral support to the insurgents when each of these regimes did not hesitate to support the Tunisian, Egyptian, Yemeni and Libyan uprisings. The deafening Arab silence was finally broken a fortnight ago when Saudi Arabia issued a statement asking the Syrian authorities to stop the bloodshed. This lukewarm support by Saudi Arabia was followed by expressions of support for the Syrian insurgents by other Arab governments and the Arab League but not by Lebanon. The West on the other hand has continued to pressure Syria to stop the killing through the Presidential Statements of the Security Council, through more severe economic sanctions and through an outright call for Mr. Assad to step down.

The official Lebanese position vis a vis the Syrian uprising will come back to haunt it but it was to be expected from a country whose President was unconstitutionally elected and who has often made it clear that his allegiance to the Damascus is his priority. In addition to the above the current PM, Najib Mikati and his brother Taha, are known to have strong financial ties to the Syrian regime through Syriatel and Sami Makhlouf president Bashars’ cousin. Obviously no one needs to be reminded that Mr. Mikati is the symbolic head of a cabinet that came to power through the machinations of Hezbollah whose military and financial strength depend on smuggled missiles and other ammunition originating in Iran through Syria.

Despite all of this less than overwhelming support of the Arab regimes for the Syrian people in their greatest hour of need the Syrian Revolution is still gaining strength and the autocratic and brutal dictatorship led by Bashar Assad is struggling to find a way to survive by promising all sorts of reforms including a multiparty political system. How convenient to become a reformer when your survival depends on it, this is political expediency par excellence. Mr. Assad fails to understand that there is no such thing as legitimacy of the illegitimate.

Dictatorships are often born in blood, fear, exploitation and usurpation of that which cannot be stolen since it is inalienable. Every single dictatorship will eventually end ignominiously simply because all are rooted in illegitimacy and sooner or later the people will lose the fear of the ruthless security machine that is set up to protect the dictator by pretending that the authoritarian regime knows best what is good for the multitudes when in effect all of the states’ acts are dedicated to the glory of the dictator and his entourage. Mr. Assad is not loosing legitimacy since he never had it to begin with and the governed have the legal right and the moral authority to establish a regime that respects their “natural rights”

It is a foregone conclusion that the Syrian uprising will eventually free itself from the inhumane grip of the Syrian Ba’ath but the price of that liberty is subject to the acts of Bashar Assad. He will either drag Syria into a Libyan style conflagration or he will decide that it is time for the Syrian people to rule themselves. Bashar Assad must go, all dictatorships must end and this is the time to end a forty years old cruel dictatorship.

The Mikati Cabinet: More Incongruities

2011-08-14T18:53:00.005-04:00

So the Lebanese politicians were not satisfied with the lack of accomplishments by the Sa’ad Hariri led cabinet. That is their privilege. A new majority was cobbled up in an effort to form a different cabinet. Alas the new coalition could not agree on the cabinet formation for over 5 months and then when the new cabinet was formed its composition turned out to be as unwieldy and as incongruous as the “national unity “ cabinet that it was to replace. So it is logical to ask, isn’t it, why bring down a cabinet in order to replace it with another one that is just as divided , incompetent and unable to rule as the first one? The answer to this question is regrettably easy and shallow at the same time.

The major factors that led to the “Lebanese coup” stem from essentially the same root problem, the Syrian Ba’ath dictatorship. The international investigation into the assassination of Rafic Hariri had to be distracted and the accused had to be protected even at the expense of civil strife. Obviously the coordinated effort to demonize the United Nations sponsored Special Tribunal for Lebanon, STL, would be easier to accomplish if the cabinet is beholden to the party to which the accused belonged. Hezbollah engineered the coup by reneging on its Doha commitments in order to call the shots more clearly and they did. As soon as the STL released its indictments, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah delivers a fiery speech in which he dares the world community to enforce its warrants. What makes this challenge especially galling is that the source of this challenge is the king maker in the Lebanese cabinet which insisted that it is bound to carry all its obligations to the world community. This bad cop good cop routine did not fool anyone since the real intension in this case was obfuscation. Pity Najib Mikati, a successful billionaire who might have truly believed at one point that he can make a difference for taking on the role of trying to explain the unexplainable: a cabinet cannot be for the STL but yet against it. All the protestations of Najib Mikati and his confidants to the contrary, will not succeed in changing his image as a Hezbollah enabler.

As if this reason to protect the perpetrators was not enough the Syrian uprising that started in Mid March 2011 gained more popularity and spread across Syria as time went on. The initial response of the Syrian security forces was to dismiss the protestors as hooligans and foreign agents but that turned out to be a wrong policy. The Syrian Ba’ath has been forced to offer one reform after another and one compromise after another in an effort to subdue the uprising that is still gaining support domestically and internationally by the minute. This uncomfortable situation in which the Syrian masters of Hezbollah and its allies found themselves in became another major reason for forming a Lebanese cabinet controlled by Hezbollah and subservient to the Syrian regime that has very few friends left, if any. The Syrian foreign minister, Muallem, declared that he was willing to forget that Europe exists. I am sure that as a result of the most recent UNSC Presidential Statement he had to erase North America, as well as Russia, China and India from the world map. But his consolation prize is that Lebanon dissociated itself from the vote. What a farce.

The contradictions in the positions taken by the various members of the Lebanese cabinet headed by Mr. Mikati have never seized. Lebanon who has refused effective cooperation with a UN set body, STL, and has threatened to discontinue its share of the funding is calling on the UN to arbitrate in the maritime demarcation of the Lebanese Economic Exclusive Zone. If the UN is part of a Zionist conspiracy in setting the STL then why is it to be trusted in maritime demarcation? Again Hezbollah makes threats of war while Najib Mikati seeks UN conciliatory role.

The same contradiction reveals itself in regards to the role of UNIFIL, the UN sponsored force in South Lebanon. The Mikati government claims that it is crucial for Lebanon to support the UNIFIL in the south but yet the UNIFIL contingent is used often for target practice in an effort to send messages to the Western powers that their contingents in Lebanon are not safe unless Hezbollah says so.

Although it is not the intention of this brief column to document all the incongruities that have surfaced in the Mikati government let me add quickly another few examples. The FPM, through no less of a spokesman than GMA himself is doubting the honesty and the transparency of the finance minister, Mr. Safadi, possibly the single most important ally of Najib Mikati. Add to the above the fiasco that occurred in the dahieh a couple of weeks ago when the Lebanese security forces had to seek permission from the HA elements to enter the area in addition to the way that the Estonian kidnapped were released. Some media outlets have even carried reports that PFLP had kidnapped these Estonian by mistake. When was the last time that George Habash dared oppose the demands of his Syrian masters? That is laughable.

Then there is the so called Electricity Plan that the FPM has presented as its own solution to a devastating Lebanese problem that has dragged on for over a decade. It turns out that the whole plan was prepared under the previous administration but was being presented by GMA as a personal accomplishment.

It has become very evident that Mr. Mikati has either willingly accepted the role of trying to explain the acts of Hezbollah or that he is a willing participant in this charade. In either case this cabinet is just another tower of Babel. It is ineffective, opaque and cannot govern. Lebanon deserves better. Mr. Mikati ought to resign and go back to his roots by forming a truly independent cabinet of technocrats. That was his appeal in the first place.

Reflections on the Hezbollah March 14 divide.

2011-07-06T22:19:00.002-04:00

Since we have been going around in circles for a few years, at best we are running on the spot, it is time to stress for the umpteenth time what appears to still be misunderstood by many.

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, SHN, and all the Hezbollah, HA, allies have chosen to oppose the STL on some of the least logical grounds, they have primarily depended on an emotional appeal to the general concept of resistance without ever mentioning the specifics of the indictments. All ideas, no matter where and what they are about, will have supporters as well as opponents. That is the way it should be.

What is unique to the current Lebanese standoff, which has been in effect for about 6 years, is the fact that both sides enjoy practically equal popular support. Each side has a perfectly loyal base that will blindly follow its leadership without any questions asked. It makes no difference what SHN says, he can count on the support of all FPMers, Maraada, Arslan, Amal and probably 90% of the Shia. The other side will also follow, maybe slightly less enthusiastically but equally blindly, the decisions of Al Mustaqbal leaders and other March 14 politicians.

Since the sum of the supporters for both sides add up to represent practically all of society then none of these two parties ever feels the need to listen to the other, to reevaluate or to compromise. Why should they? They already have 45-50% of society on their side. What Lebanon seems to be lacking is a substantial independent swing group that can force each of the other two groups to seek its support. Such support can be sought only by widening the appeal of the respective parties which implies more flexibility and less rigidity. It means that no side can afford to dismiss the other, as they currently do. Had this been the case then the HA group would not have stuck to its policy of opposing STL and yet be for it at the same time. It’s an untenable position but one that creates no problems for a leadership that feels comfortable with its large base of support. It’s a position best represented by what Nawaf Al Mousawi said on behalf of his HA colleagues” We invite the others to talk all they want but we will not listen”. What a productive recipe for dialogue?

The same logic applies to March 14 who have spent the last six years preoccupied in creating a bigger than life image of Rafic Hariri. This is not to suggest that a thorough investigation of his assassination is not called for but this is to suggest that statesmen and stateswomen should be able to govern. and yet carry on an investigation of a most heinous political crime. The public will chose to sanctify individuals that are important to it without the need for a well orchestrated campaign built around ubiquitous photographs of the deceased and constantly planned visits to his grave site.

I am one of the Lebanese how is totally dejected by the attempts by HA and their ally to paint everyone and everything that is not in agreement with them as an Israeli agent. Being sanctimonious is the height of hypocrisy. Their continuous veiled attempts to push their religious, totalitarian agenda is no longer that veiled when their chief spokesperson, SHN, declares to the world, that he would prevent the state and any of its operatives from enforcing an international warrant. That is nothing short of being bombastic and maybe even drunk by power to dictate. He acts as a combination of French royalty, d’état ce moi” and a grand ayatollah who staunchly supports the structure of a Wilayat Al Faqih.

But it is crucially important to understand clearly that as much as individuals as myself, object to the HA ideology and rhetoric this should never ever be taken as an endorsement of March 14 who , in my opinion, are marginally more acceptable but essentially just as much part of the problem as HA.

So what does it mean if one is opposed to both parties? It means a lot. The future of Lebanon, and paradoxically I still believe that there is one; is not represented by any of these two backward and incompetent alternatives. History moves forward, unfolds, through a dialectical process. I am very welcoming of the present day high tension between these two parties since I firmly believe that none of them can represent the future aspirations of the young Lebanese. These two alliances represent a thesis and an antithesis and the resulting conflict between then would result in a synthesis that will represent for a time to come a more just, a more democratic and a more viable future. The efforts to establish, in any form, a faqih led society have failed and those that look towards the 1960′s for inspiration are equally at a loss of understanding that the root of our current dilemma is found in that which they are trying to resurrect. Our salvation lies in a movement that will liberate us of both.

Totalitarianism in Lebanon

2011-07-03T21:35:00.008-04:00

By most common metrics Lebanon is essentially a failed state. It is arguable whether it has ever been but a failed state ever since this experiment was established 66 years ago. The early formative years of practically all states promise to be uphill struggles. These are the years that are spent in establishing a national identity and allegiance to an idea instead of allegiance to tribes, feudal lords and religious orders. Lebanon is no exception and actually it has done better than some of its neighbours by preserving a modicum of liberty, freedom and human rights. But what is frustrating and even dismaying is the fact that as the state gets older its grasp on freedom, sovereignty and statehood becomes less certain. That is ironic when many other states in the region are moving in the opposite direction. An excellent illustration of the above point can be gleamed from the latest speech by Sayed Hassan Nasrallah.

As is often the case, SHN spent over an hour repudiating the legitimacy of the Special tribunal for Lebanon, the STL, by all sorts of attempts to make it appear that the whole set up is a sham, a conspiracy. SHN does not bother to tell the listener why is the conspiracy of the STL needed and what are its objectives. To him it is enough to accuse the STL of being an Israeli Western tool whose aim is to discredit Hezbollah and thus by association the resistance. He seems to intimate that all of the hundreds of workers at the STL have only one function in mind, create judicial structure and fabricate from nothing judicial evidence that would implicate certain Hezbollah operatives of being involved in the planning and the execution of the assassination of Rafic Hariri.

The STL structure is very transparent and is possibly far from being perfect. But SHN does not, ever, critique the “biased structure” or request a modification in the proscribed procedure so that it can become fairer to the accused. He simply lambasts the structure as being illegitimate. Well if it is biased and illegitimate then what does he suggest to make it more legitimate and less biased? He is numb on this front since it appears that he has chosen the tactic that the best defense is a strong offense. Again that is perfectly acceptable if Hezbollah was going to marshal its resources to mount a vigorous defense of its accused members.

But that is not what SHN opts for. He uses lies and half truths to paint an unflattering picture of the STL and its personnel but then proceeds to conclude in the most bombastic and even demonic manner by throwing a gauntlet for the opposition, the STL and the international community by stating flatly that he and his organization are above the law. He affirms the suspicion that he is the only master puppeteer in this proposed government that should never think in terms of executing its moral and legal obligations to serve warrants to the accused and to subsequently deliver them to justice.

The essential part of the whole speech is the final challenge. It makes no difference whether there is any truth to all his previous accusations leveled and fabricated against Cassese and other member. What is essential is that Hezbollah will never entertain the idea of submitting its members to the court irrespective of whether the proceedings are fair or not. Mr. Nasrallah has acted as judge, jury and executioner. He has determined that his people are not guilty and that no one should dream of arresting any of them, not in 30 days, 6o days, 30 years or even 300 years.

This is not the speech of a statesman but of a Don Nasraleone (the phrase coined by V on Qifa Nabki). This is the language of a vigilante, a bombast who views himself to be not only above the law but as being the state. It is unfortunate but true, Mr. Nasrallah is acting as the President, the PM and the Speaker. Lebanon has devolved into becoming nothing short of a perfect debased theocratic totalitarian state of Nasrallah land. And that is a shame.

Let me conclude one more time by stating that the future for Lebanese legitimacy needs not be gloomy. The power of Hezbollah is derived from their patrons. One of the patrons will most likely not survive and the other is facing tremendous domestic challenges. That is why I believe that since history does not unfold backward and that it is very highly likely for either both or at least one of Hezbollah patrons to be weakened that the anything outside the immediate future does not look rosy for Hezbollah. It just is not rational to expect the irrational to prevail for long.

STL Indictments

2011-06-30T22:34:00.003-04:00

The Lebanese public life has been held captive to all sorts of speculations regarding whether the STL will ever conclude its investigations and issue indictments in the case of the assassination of Rafic Hariri, a former Lebanese Prime Minister. Over the years there have been leaks, false witnesses, some more leaks, numerous speeches by Hassan Nasrallah , the secretary general of Hezbollah, accusing the STL of being a Zionist conspiracy, an American plot hatched by the CIA, some other assassinations and obviously some more leaks. Even the UN appointed chief investigator prosecutor has changed three times.

Well finally, just as Le Figaro and Der Spiegel had predicted years ago, the 130 page indictment has been handed over to the Lebanese Prosecutor General along with the request to arrest 4 allegedly Hezbollah operatives. It is tempting to say that over the years many have written and speculated about practically every possible conceivable scenario and so it is time to just wait and see what is going to happen. Alas doing so would be similar to avoiding the proverbial elephant in the room since the STL has been the only topic of conversation in Lebanon as well as many other world capitals.

To avoid the topic until the judicial process has had enough time to issue indictments, hold trials and then pass judgments on the accused would have been the order of business in any country that is informed by the concept of “the rule of law” but sadly not in Lebanon where this all important concept is alien.

So what is next and what is the expected time frame? It is very likely that as you are reading this column the STL would be handing its Syrian indictments in Damascus and releasing the names of the Syrian indictees. It is widely believed that the plot to assassinate Rafic Hariri had to have at least high level clearance from the Syrian authorities who were exercised tight control over all aspects of life in Lebanon. Some would even claim that the Syrian role was that of instigator of this sordid affair. The actual planning was carried through by the four individuals already named and indicted in Lebanon. It is also expected that there will be also a long list of foot soldiers/grunts who actually implemented the plan. This means that you should expect the final number of indicted people to be quite large, say over 25.

The Lebanese government was the one who requested the formation of the STL and is the one that had pledged its full support and cooperation with the STL. Actually most of the law used by the STL is based on Lebanese law although the court itself is in The Hague. Hezbollah was part of the cabinet that had initially asked for the establishment of the STL and the previous cabinet that had promised total cooperation with it. But when it became clear that the investigation is moving towards an indictment of individuals connected to Hezbollah the party embarked on a scorched earth policy of vilifying the STL at every possible moment.

Hezbollah has seldom acted as if laws mattered, whether it was the call to disband its military wing, hand over its illegal communication network or allow the Lebanese authorities into its geographic areas. Hezbollah has not shied away from flexing its military muscle to blackmail and intimidate. The latest such incident took place around six months ago when they forced the resignation of the cabinet headed by Sa’ad Hariri and were able to put together a thin majority to nominate Najib Mikati whose cabinet has not won the parliamentary vote of confidence yet. That is expected to take place within the next fortnight otherwise the cabinet will become a care taker one. I mention all of this since many believe that the major reason why the old cabinet was forced out of office; constitutionally; and why a new PM was designated but cabinet formation has not been facilitated is essentially the STL. The previous cabinet had a clear cut obligation to cooperate with the STL while the current cabinet does not have such an obligation so far. I would even suggest that the state of limbo serves HA rather well. It would be much easier for them and their allies to claim that since there is no government then no one is in a position to deliver on the promises of the previous Lebanese cabinet.

Things however could get out of hand and rather quickly. Lebanon has only 30 days to act upon the indictments. If the Lebanese government fails to live up to its international obligations under UNSCR 1757 which was passed under chapter VII then the international community will be in a position to force compliance through sanctions and other means.

It is my considered opinion that Hezbollah is playing a game of chicken that can only backfire on Lebanon if Hezbollah is allowed to proceed with its obfuscations and charades. Hezbollah is acting like a vigilante group who believes that they are always right and that they are above the law. That is a recipe for disaster potentially for Lebanon as a result of the uncertainty and political instability that could result. This misguided policy will also lead eventually to the weakening and even marginalization of the party. If that does occur then that would be the silver lining in this gathering storm.

Lebanese Sovereign Debt Default: An Inevitability.

2011-06-17T22:16:00.005-04:00

Some things are preordained and I do not mean only philosophically. There is often a strong rationale that predetermines an outcome once a certain sequence of events is unleashed. Once the trigger of a loaded hand pistol is pulled then a bullet is released and if that hand pistol was directed to ones leg then that leg would be seriously wounded. It cannot be otherwise. Such logical conclusions always follow from certain actions and therefore these consequences cannot be considered to be accidental since they were designed to follow once an act is committed. To exceed the speed limit by passing a highway patrol is to expect a speeding ticket just as to fail to present a research paper on time is to earn a failing grade. This is not any different than to expect to borrow if the level of expenditures is to exceed the flow of income and this is exactly what is happening to the ability of some countries, such as Greece, to carry successfully their debt burden. The same exact logic applies to Lebanon. Lebanon has over borrowed and must face the consequences. The logic of default is just as impeccable and straight forward as that of pulling the trigger while aiming at a leg.

Historically, the Greeks were the first to develop the concept of tragedy. They even developed a particular genre where the events become totally complicated and appear to defy any solution when out of the blue a divine solution is presented through outside forces. This solution became known as Deus Ex Machina, a resolution by divine powers unrelated to the actual dynamics of the problem. I mention this in order to stress that in the Greek current debt crisis and to a larger extent in the case of Lebanon we do not have the right to depend on such an irrational and highly unlikely solution. Deus Ex Machina just does not exist in the real world. Lebanon has borrowed beyond its capacity to service these loans and the longer we persist in our denial then the bigger the problem will become.

I am not interested in asking why we borrowed and whether the decisions were proper or not. I am obviously not interested also in whether the borrowed funds were put to good use or not. All of these are academic issues that are not significant at this phase. We need to devise a way to manage the debt problem so that it will not crush us and crush all the hopes of the next generation. We have to look at the numbers objectively and allow these numbers to tell the extent of our financial woes. The details might overwhelm some but the logic is quite simple.

A country, any country, passes an annual budget that shows its planned expenditures and its planned revenue stream. Whenever the expenditures exceed the projected revenue then the deficit represents the amount that is borrowed. The sum of these annual deficits makes up the national debt.

With that in mind let us take a look at Lebanon. Each and every year for decades to come the projected level of expenditures exceeds that of revenue. The current level of annual deficit is almost $3 billion and that figure will rise every year if for nothing else but for the fact that our national debt will have to rise and consequently the required level of interest needed to service that debt. Almost 40% of all expenditures are allocated to debt service. This means that only 60% of our expected expenditures go to pay wages and run the basic government services. This relatively small figure carries great implications, it simply means that Lebanon is already running a very austere budget, there is no room for any additional cuts, and Lebanon has already cut to the bone. But some will point out to the fact that as the level of national debt rises every year so does the GDP and therefore the burden could stay the same. That would be true if the GDP is to grow at a faster rate than the rate of interest used to finance the debt. Lebanese debt, in general, carries an average interest rate of around 7%-7.5% although our growth rate cannot be expected to average even 4%. This growth rate might even be excessive given the potential for political instability and war in the region not to mention the lowered economic growth expectations worldwide.

So where are we and what should we expect? The Lebanese Debt/GDP ratio is approximately 137% and it is expected to grow every year for as far as the eye can see. One rather conservative scenario projects a growth of this ratio to about 163% by 2020 when the level of sovereign debt is expected to have ballooned to over $90 billion with an interest burden of about $6.7 billion or about 12 % of the GDP. That is unconscionable and is a ticket to perdition. The Lebanese people deserve better.
There is only one painless solution for those who believe in dreams; A Deus Ex Machina where a wealthy Western country and/or a group of Arabian officials ride down in the basket from the sky to write off a substantial portion of the Lebanese national debt, our Scarlet letter.

Mikati 1, Lebanon 0.

2011-06-14T20:53:00.003-04:00

Score one for Najib Mikati. He has managed to present a cabinet after almost five months of discussions that at a first glance saves his political future. Mr. Mikati has been able to restore a measure of respectability among his Sunni community in general but has won over the support of his fellow Tripolitans in particular. How could they oppose a cabinet whose head is from Tripoli in addition to two Karami family members (each representing an opposite side) and Mohammad Safadi? I only wish that Mr. Mikati’s survival instinct had not been achieved at the expense of Lebanon. Unfortunately in the calculus of Mr. Mikati personal good trumps general welfare instead of the reverse.

It must be clear that a self made billionaire who was elected to the Lebanese parliament on a ticket supported by March 14 does not have any major differences with the political views or the political beliefs of March 14. He probably has personal differences with the current leader of March 14, Sa’ad Hariri, and that is understandable. But to allow his political ambitions to make him act as an unprincipled politician who is ready to jump ship for the sake of personal gain is unfortunate and disappointing. It is apparent that Najib Mikati, his protestations notwithstanding, has been driven all throughout this period by promoting only his narrow self interest.

Lebanon, at this stage of its political life, could have used best a cabinet that is efficient, competent and effective. An easy and painless step in that direction would have been to stop the silliness of appointing ministers without portfolios. These are totally uncalled for, those appointed to such positions have nothing to do; no bureaucracy to run no projects to undertake and produce no outcomes to be measured by. Ministers with no portfolios simply make governance more complicated dn add to the fiscal burden of the state. The idea is the embodiment of nothing but waste and potential for corruption. The next easy and needed change in cabinet formation is the need to eliminate many and possibly all the cabinets with an annual budget of under $20 million. Can anyone come up with a reasonable scenario of what can be accomplished by a ministry whose annual budget is $ 8 million? Once the fixed costs and the salaries are paid what is it that is left over at the Ministry of the Environment? Enough to print a brochure? This is not to suggest that environmental issues are not important. They are. But does it do the environment any good to appoint a minister without appropriating adequate funds to do the job? If the means to perform a specific task are not available then why the pretense? May I suggest that under such circumstances it would be far better, and more efficient to have such areas set up either as an independent agency or simply as a division of another ministry? But the single most important thing that Mr. Mikati could have done from the first week was to form a cabinet of qualified, independent technocrats whose only aim is to strengthen democratic institutions and build democracy. That is what Lebanon needs. We need a cabinet to come up with a credible plan about how to handle the sovereign debt, create jobs, collect taxes, enforce the law and protect individual human rights.

Instead of the above cabinet, which would have been revolutionary and which would have forced all sides to reevaluate and rethink their political position Mr. Mikati chose to give us more of the same. He gave us a cabinet that is built on the same old fashioned narrow principles that have resulted in all the standoffs and inefficiencies that the country suffers from.

Then there is the question of timing? Did he really need five months in order to come up with the same tired formula or were there other forces at work? Was it only a coincidence that the cabinet was finally formed essentially to favour HA’s allies at the expense of the president only when Damascus telephoned Babda’a? And what about the ever present STL indictments? The threat of these indictments seems to have shaped all Lebanese politics for the past five years. Could it be that Mr. Mikati does not want to be in charge when the indictments are issues? I guess time will tell but if the new cabinet fails to issue a ministerial statement and seek a vote of confidence prior to the release of the indictments that are expected during the first week of July then that would lend more credence to the argument that Mr. Mikati and the president caved in when they did in order to have a different care taker government whereby the ministries of Defense and Interior are under different control. Pity Lebanon, a nation that has no say in the formation of its cabinet and who’s PM has wasted an opportunity to help himself and help the country.

The Palestinian Refugees Deserve Better, Much Better

2011-06-05T09:18:00.005-04:00

It is that time of the year when the Arab world rediscovers the Palestinian people and their just cause. Alas the discovery does not last for more than a few hours during which politicians make their speeches and compete with each other in an effort to establish their political concern and awareness. We have been going through this ritual for over 60 years and there isn’t anything that anyone can show for these efforts. One cannot help but feel sorry for the Palestinian people since with such friends who needs any enemies.

The Lebanese, in general, have been possibly the worst opportunists and exploiters on these occasions. I have no doubt that there are some very sincere Lebanese who truly believe that the Palestinian people have been unjustly treated and must be supported in their struggle for an honorable settlement. But I am so very disgusted when I hear the disingenuous sentiments expressed in support of the Palestinian struggle by those who have consistently exploited them and abused them. The crocodile tears shed on this occasion are a convenient cover to argue against the Palestinians through a shrewdly constructed rationale that argues that the Palestinians should be abused and discriminated against; they should be deprived of many of their human rights and educational opportunities in order to preserve their right of return. We discriminate against them because of our love, concern and support for them. This strange logic is similar although it predates the Vietnam policy of “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.

Does our duplicity know any bounds? Would we want to be treated like we treat the Palestinians? After all isn’t that the best guide for action: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? Let us play a mind game if you will: Let us imagine that a group of people invaded Lebanon and that half the population decided to flee the war for a variety of reasons. They sought refuge in a number of neighbouring countries till the hostilities end. To their surprise when the war was over they were not permitted to go back. Would we then want these refugees to spend the next 63 years living in the hastily erected temporary refugee camps that were set upon their arrival or would we expect their host countries to treat them like they treat any other immigrant? Wouldn’t we expect and even insist that the hosts make every effort to alleviate their suffering and to integrate them into their respective societies and economies? Shouldn’t they be allowed to own property like all other inhabitants and enjoy the same privileges and protections of the law of the land? And wouldn’t we insist that if they choose then they should become citizens of their adopted countries of residence so that they will be able to exercise their right to vote and thus participate fully in shaping the society in which they are an integral member?

I am confident that our answers to each and every one of the above hypothetical question is in the affirmative. Not only that but we would expect all people anywhere in the world to be treated that way whether they are Iraqi refugees, Vietnamese refugees, Somali refugees or Armenian refugees, just to name a few groups. We will never sanction that we be treated differently than the population where we sought refuge and most importantly we will not accept the argument that we need to be discriminated against for our own good, as if love of country and adherence to moral values and principals are best promoted through mistreatments and opprobrium.

And finally let us repeat one more time what many studies have made abundantly clear: The right of return will not be diminished or watered down in any way form or fashion if the mistreatment and abuse of the Palestinians comes to an end either through acquiring the citizenship rights of where they live or the right to be permanent legal residents with all the rights enjoyed by all other residents.

Lebanon and the Lebanese must right what has been wrong for 63 years. The shameful treatment of the Palestinian refugees is a blot on our national character and history, a blot that we have the moral duty and the obligation to ameliorate by admitting our past errors and by offering the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon full equality under the law in each and every sphere. We also need to offer citizenship to those that want it. Nothing else will do.