Friday, October 16, 2009

Lebanon needs security and freedom


Published in Daily Star on September 17, 2009

East Meredith, New York

In Lebanon the rulers are proud of existing freedoms and the reformers are obsessed with national security.

With no results yet, the Lebanese have been waiting all summer for a new cabinet of ministers to emerge. For the people its feels like going through a ten-month pregnancy.

Lebanon’s sectarian formula of power sharing offers a demographically shrinking Christian community the prestige of the country’s presidency. A Christian President designates a Muslim Prime Minister, a Sunnite. But the Prime Minister, as the chief of cabinet, has more power than the president. The current chief of parliament, a Shiite, has less formal power than the prime Minister or the President, but his alliance with a strong militia, (Hezbollah) gives him disproportional power.

In a way, the formal equilibrium in power sharing among the representatives of the four religious communities (Shiite, Sunnite, Christian and Druze) serves national stability, but this balance also seems to weaken national leadership, stifle efforts for reform and maintain sectarian tension. Too much energy is spent on political calibration of power.

Since the end of the civil war, Lebanon has faced a number of crises: a series of political assassinations, a devastating war with Israel in 2006, an 18 month strike that crippled the economy. And now, a young designated Prime Minister is having difficulties in forming a new post-election government without securing approval of regional and international powers, powers which have too much influence on domestic politics.

However, Lebanon remains unique in the region. Despite weak national security freedom thrives. There is suspense in Lebanese elections. Politicians win with narrow margins. Criticism of the government is a national sport. Capitalism thrives. Students organize lively political rallies. Thinkers publish controversial ideas. Unconventional art and theatre are appreciated. People dress fashionably; women can chose to wear daring western styles or affirm their identity through traditional dress. How long will these freedoms last?

The freedoms which Lebanon enjoys disappear during national upheavals. The civil war lasted 15 years, from 1975 to 1990. In this domestic war survival of the individual citizen trumped both freedom and national security.

All Lebanese want political reform. National debt has climbed to dangerous levels and is growing. Decent politicians take a back seat allowing opportunist leaders to run a country which lacks the discipline of law and order. A sectarian system of power sharing is bound to fail in the future because demography, the system’s underpinning, has already changed radically. Lebanon’s borders with neighboring countries are porous. Israeli air force violates Lebanese skies on a regular basis.

The situation ought to change, but reform occurs only when the reformer has a better system to replace the old one. The opposition is a unique alliance between Hezbollah – a political party with a strong militia- and the Free Patriotic Movement, FPM, lead by General Michel Aoun. Other minor parties play a secondary role in the opposition.

Observe the inconsistencies in the opposition camp. A “patriotic” party is in alliance with a militia-based party, which many view as threat to the sovereignty of the state. Moreover, a secular Christian “Movement”, FPM, is in alliance with a Shiite “Party of God”, “Hezbollah”. Furthermore, the Lebanese opposition calls for political reform with major backing from Iran and Syria, two countries where the priority of national security is used as a pretext to marginalize freedom. But the opposition remains popular because those who rule appear less credible than those who challenge the system.

This political marriage of convenience is less based on common ideology than on political benefits. A Shiite movement looks “national” in scope and less tribal as it partners with FPM, a secular Christian party. In return, FPM gains electoral weight as it joins a militarized party that represents the largest faith community in the country.

The March 14 bloc is also a pragmatic alliance which lacks consistent ideology, charismatic leadership and confidence. This alliance is also considered pro-Western internationally and pro-Saudi regionally.

Critics of the majority bloc passionately argue that the opposition is a solid partnership across the religious divide; such critics claim that this reform front is a genuine political mass movement to save Lebanon from a future sectarian civil war. Some observers believe that a Christian-Shiite populist alliance has the potential to evolve into a full national liberation movement to free Lebanon from external hegemony and to reform it internally.

Following the logic of the opposition requires an overdose of positive thinking. The popularity of Aoun may be an awakening that rejects the current sectarian power sharing formula, a formula which gives Christians only a temporary guarantee of power.

To some extent, Lebanon owes its flair for political freedom to well established Western educational and cultural institutions, particularly to the heritage of French and American schools and universities. The free political system of Lebanon is structurally geared to be friendly to the West.

But Lebanon’s connection with Iran and Syria through Hezbollah is growing. Regardless of its past contributions to Lebanon, its critics argue that Hezbollah’s militia today intimidates other parties and the state, gives excuse to other groups to organize secret armies, opens the Shiite community leadership to external influence and reinforces sectarianism. Hezbollah’s Shiite composition, its clerical leadership and its symbols appear sectarian.

Can Lebanon undergo reform without losing freedom? The chances are slim since the two major reform movements do not share the same vision of the future. Lebanon deserves a new political system which integrates freedom with security.

.

.

Thursday, October 01, 2009

A new approach to foreign aid




East Meredith, New York - The American University of Beirut (AUB), from which tens of thousands of Arab leaders have graduated over the last 140 years, is a shining example of foreign aid put to good use. What distinguish the graduates of AUB are not only leadership and a sense of service to the Arab world; graduates of this New York-chartered university are often also strong believers in American culture and ideals.

But foreign aid to poor countries is not always put to such good use. Donors can reach the hearts and minds of recipients when aid creatively addresses human needs such as education, employment, gender equality or health. Unfortunately, however, aid has also been used as compensation for damage done in punitive wars, and has often been squandered through corruption on the side of the donor or recipient. In
Iraq, for instance, the Center for Global Development's Commitment to Development Index (CDI) of 2008 calculates that only 11 cents of every dollar actually goes to aid because of wide scale corruption–a great disappointment for the Iraqi people.

Regrettably, in
Iraq, as in many other countries in the Middle East and South Asia, the bulk of foreign assistance is military-based. Military aid encourages developing countries to depend on weapons to achieve security. Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey receive the lion's share of US foreign assistance, mostly for defense contracts that ultimately benefit US companies and dull the sensitivity of the recipients to peace and reconciliation. Israel and Egypt alone consume over half of the US foreign aid budget.

In absolute volume–over $25 to $30 billion dollars annually–America spends more than any other country in foreign aid. Despite the impressive quantity, however, American aid is scant in relation to its national wealth.
America donates about 0.016 of its gross national product, according to Robert McMahon at the Council on Foreign Relations but, according to international standards, every donor country is expected to spend about 0.7 per cent of its gross domestic product.

Over the past decade, though–especially in light of 9/11–the
United States has realized that the status quo must change. As a result, there has been serious progress reforming the process of American foreign aid delivery. New literature on state building, such as Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's foreign and humanitarian aid expert Thomas Carother's Aiding Democracy Abroad, has challenged the dominance of politics in foreign aid. Think tanks and economists that favor trade and foreign investment as strategic methods for wealth building and poverty reduction argue that foreign aid is of no real long-term value to donor or recipient countries. Development experts are also speaking up about the need to improve the level and effectiveness of humanitarian aid while improving other avenues of development.

The new US approach to foreign aid parts with the practice of linking help, first and foremost, to US "strategic" needs, which often translates to rewarding autocratic regimes with humanitarian or military assistance for political compliance.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation, a
US government agency that started in 2003 under the George W. Bush Administration, ties massive foreign aid that comes from tax dollars to the competitive performance of the recipient country. Only countries that invest in human development, respect the rule of law and exercise free market principles are eligible to receive large government grants in human investment.

The popularity of the MCC has increased
US commitment to development and improved the quality of empowerment initiatives. Reform-oriented countries like Mali, Senegal, Gambia, Morocco, Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia are among the Muslim-majority countries which have received MCC support or are expected to be awarded large US grants in the future.

While
America tries to improve its image in the Muslim world, it is slowly realizing that providing aid for programs that will benefit a country's people, not just the state, can help immensely.

Extricating the
United States' development-oriented assistance fully from its strategic political and military objectives will take time, but US investment in agencies like the MCC–and the countries it benefits–demonstrates that it is on the right track.

###

* Dr. Ghassan Rubeiz (grubeiz@comcast.net) is an Arab American commentator on issues of development, peace and justice. He is the former secretary for the
Middle East of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. This article is part of a series analyzing Western policies in the Muslim world written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews),
29 September 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.