FACT FINDING REPORT

THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF LEBANESE AMERICANS

July 2004

The National Alliance of Lebanese Americans NALA, represented by its president Toufic Nassif as well as Ziad Nassar and Toufic Baaklini undertook a fact-finding trip in Lebanon July 26-29. The trip was intended to assess the political and economic conditions on the ground in light of the upcoming critical election season and within the context of regional developments.

NALA’s formal discussions included:

Presidential candidate MP Boutros Harb
Presidential candidate MP Nayla Mouawad
Presidential candidate MP Nassib Lahoud
Presidential candidate MP Ghattas Khoury
Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfier,
Prime Minister Rafic Hariri
Ex-President Amine Gemayel
National Liberal Party leader Dory Chamoun
A working group from the Qurnet Shahwan Gathering of center right Christian politicians, including: Samir Frengieh and Dr Fares Suied, also co-organizers of the Beirut Declaration.
Human rites activist and international lawyer Mohammad Mograby

It is important to note that the four presidential candidates are engaged in cross-confessional political groupings whose members are in agreement on the issues discussed. Those groupings include some key Moslem political figures, such as Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, Ex-Prime Minister Omar Karami (Tripoly), Ex-Speaker of Parliament Hussein Husseini, Ex-Prime Minister Salim Al-Hoss, and others.

As expected NALA found almost absolute consensus on the need for substantial change due to the untenable conditions the country has reached. Also, NALA found a substantial consensus among the various parties regarding the direction the country should take as well as the approach to be taken. All appear committed to a pragmatic approach that achieves freedom and sovereignty for Lebanon and revives democracy, economic prosperity and respect for human rights without resorting to confrontational tactics that could result in more harm than good.

The formal discussions were confirmed by the observations of the NALA executives during their stay in Lebanon in June and July. Those observations included informal discussions with numerous political figures, business and civic leaders, who expressed the same concerns and aspirations.

Furthermore, over the course of two months the NALA executives had the opportunity to witness numerous public discussions and statements from diverse political parties and business leaders that further re-enforce the alarming conditions in Lebanon and the critical nature of the upcoming elections and the need to see a real concrete change.

LEBANESE CONDITIONS

After initial opposition and apprehension, the majority of Lebanese acquiesced to the 1989 Taif accord on the premise that international guarantees, particularly from the US and Saudi Arabia, would insure that the Syrians would withdraw and allow the Lebanese to proceed in defining and implementing the necessary reforms to revive Lebanon’s political and economic vitality.

Furthermore, the peace process provided hope that Lebanon would have a much better chance at reviving its democratic system and economic prosperity in a peaceful Middle East.

Fifteen years later, Lebanon is experiencing the exact opposite of what it had been promised and hoped for. The peace process has given way to increased hostilities that is destabilizing the whole region and fueling the rise of fundamentalism. The Taif accord has not been implemented and international guarantees have not materialized to provide Lebanon with even the minimum safeguards against political and economic depletion.

Lebanon today is completely under the control of the Syrian regime that has aggravated internal divisions and used those to tighten its control over Lebanon, depleting the country’s economic and political systems. The Lebanese watch in desperation as their constitution is repeatedly violated and their political system abused to deny the people of any true representation.

Today, barely 10% of the Lebanese Parliament members are truly representative of their voters. The rest are affectively appointed by the Syrian regime to provide cover for continued Syrian occupation and grant legitimacy to Hizbullah’s virtual state-within-a-state. They have siphoned tens of billions of dollars from the Lebanese economy to fill Syria’s coffers and their own pockets as well as fund the rise and expansion of Hizbullah’s operations.

Meaningful dialogue and political cooperation is strictly forbidden beyond empty pretenses. Attempts or discussions of real reforms are stringently opposed with brutal consequences in some cases.

After some initial economic growth due mainly to individual initiatives at the end of the war, the Lebanese economy settled into a state of stagnation stifled by extreme corruption, insecurity and constrains on freedoms. The Lebanese now suffer a very high rate of unemployment and underemployment where earnings do not meet basic needs.

Syria’s absolute control and continued internal political paralysis as well as the potentially explosive operations of Hizbullah and Sunni Fundamentalists in and around Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Tripoly and Saida now pose a real threat of economic and political collapse that threatens Lebanon and its neighbors and regional stability.

Notably, the immigration rate since the Taif accord has exceeded the rate during the war, as people loose hope in the future of Lebanon and the region.

Under such conditions, the Lebanese are all in agreement that the upcoming elections must signal a quantitative change in Lebanon’s political structure that ushers in the revival of the country’s political and economic life.

Of particular concern is the overwhelming feeling of disenfranchisement of the people that view Hizbullah’s reign along with the general rise of fundamentalism in the region with extreme concern. For the Christians, the US war on terror is considered the last chance at a meaningful future in the region.

Most Lebanese Moslems who are inherently opposed to fundamentalism fear that they will be unable to face the fundamentalists without their Christian partners and quietly place the same hopes that the US war on terror will effectively turn the tide and allow Lebanon to finally regain its modern institutional political life.

The presidential elections are viewed as the litmus test that would determine all that follows. Should the international community, particularly the US abandon the process to Syrian dictate, it would send a very negative signal to the Lebanese and the region, with potentially dire consequences.

The Lebanese have made it crystal clear that they can no longer tolerate the current conditions in Lebanon. Those with the ability to leave are already making preparation. Those are the upper economic classes whose departure will only exacerbate conditions for the rest of the population.

The majority will be unable to leave and could be pushed into outright defiance when faced with the dire prospects of continued Syrian occupation and abuse. Even an unsuccessful uprising could be devastating, as it could consolidate the fundamentalist’s hold on the country with regional repercussions, similar to the unsuccessful opposition to Syria in 1989.

PM Hariri has stated to NALA in private and publicly that he will not participate in Lebanese politics if Lahoud’s mandate is extended or a similar president is appointed by the Syrians.

Several MPs have stated that they will not even run for office in Spring of 2005 if the presidential elections prove that nothing changed. They see no point in continuing the charade of participating in a bankrupt and paralyzed system that only serves to suffocate Lebanon.

Business people have specifically indicated that they are refraining from making any business commitments in Lebanon and many are divesting their investments in preparation for leaving if things do not change. Some have even refrained from paying their children’s school tuition as they plan to be on the first plane out if the constitution is amended in September signaling in another 6 years of economic and political paralysis.

The Patriarch expressed almost absolute hopelessness as he raised his hand in resignation to the perception that the US will once again acquiesce to Syrian domination of Lebanon with the resultant oppression of the Lebanese. He expressed a dangerous exacerbation with conditions and an explosive level of poverty and deprivation.

It is also telling that all members of Parliament and the Cabinet as well as the president himself have been extremely critical of the Governments performance in public, proclaiming themselves the defenders of the people against Government excesses. Many went to the extent of declaring publicly that the Lebanese Government has no say in the course of events, clearly stating that the Parliament and Cabinet vote by remote control as directed from Damascus.

These statements indicate the dangerous level of discontent whereby politicians feel impelled to absolve themselves from responsibility. While almost no one in Lebanon is willing to absolve the politicians from responsibility, those statements only re-enforce the public knowledge that the Lebanese Government is merely a puppet that has no control over its own actions.

The Beirut Declaration was born in this light in June and had been under substantial pressure and at risk of being still born had it not gotten the boost it received from the news of its positive reception in Washington after the NALA meetings with the NSC. Now the effort has proceeded further with meetings in Saida in July and a planned meeting in the Southern Suburbs of Beirut hosted by a prominent Shiite Imam. Intellectuals, political activists and common citizens of all walks of life are signing on to the declaration as it nationally gathers steam.

SYRIA

The Syrian regime realizes the gravity of the situation in Lebanon as well as the seriousness of US pressure and Israeli threats. However, the Syrians lack the experience and flexibility to independently chart a path out of the corner they have painted themselves into.

Economic collapse in Lebanon, especially when coupled with political disintegration, would have devastating consequences on Syria, which derives a large part of its income from Lebanon. Yet, the regime fears that freeing the Lebanese system to allow it to thrive would threaten its control over the country and thus its ability to siphon funds from the country. Their inexperience with free economies prevents them from recognizing the fact that a free economy would produce larger returns than a suffocating economy.

Furthermore, the Syrians realize the threat they face from Islamic fundamentalists should they gain ground in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Yet, the Syrian regime has for so long hitched its wagon to the fundamentalist movement that it has become completely dependent on the movement and fear that abandoning it would strip it of the political and economic life lines it now depends on.

As such, the Syrian regime is itself experiencing a state of paralysis, as it is unable to chart a way out of its troubled spot. Unfortunately Syrian paralysis works to empower the fundamentalist movements as they take advantage of Damascus’s inaction to enhance their positions.

It is now highly unlikely that the Syrian regime can unilaterally terminate Islamic fundamentalist movements without risking major upheaval in Syria and a potential collapse of the regime.

Syria is no longer the watchdog it once was, and is much more open to solutions that would eliminate these threats and allow the regime to survive relatively intact.

Syrian Good Will

The Syrian regime has been under extensive pressure to show progress on issues of human rights, political and economic freedoms, particularly from the US and the EU with which Syria has been try to forge a Euro-Med agreement. The Syrian have not been able to make much head way in this regard as the regime understandably fears that freedoms would open the way for fundamentalists to rise to power.

It has been suggested by Ex-President Gemayel, and agreed to by others, that Syria allow those freedoms to flourish in Lebanon at this time as a show of good will towards the international community that prove its sincerity in implementing reforms in Syria in the long run. The Syrians can safely show this good will at no risk to their regime, and further benefit from revived freedoms in Lebanon to help gradually liberalize the Syrian system.

This can be the carrot that buys Syria time to introduce reforms at a rate and in a manner that would not destabilize the country.

IRAQ

As the Iraqi interim Government struggles to subdue a growing insurgency, it is also struggling to define a political system that would be acceptable to all Iraqis and that would guarantee peaceful coexistence.

The Iraqis have been looking at Lebanon as a potential blue print and sending delegations to learn more about multi-ethnic and multi-religious political systems. Concurrently, the Iraqi Jaish-el-Mahdi of Muqtada Sadr has also been working closely with Hizbullah to learn how it too can rise to dominate Iraqi politics. These contacts to some extent tie Iraq’s future to that of Lebanon.

Furthermore, the common belief in the Middle East is that Allawi is destined to become another dictator; only he will be a US ally as opposed to Saddam, which is fueling anti-American feelings throughout the region. Should the US fail to support the democratic movement in Lebanon, and in so doing reduce the potential for democracy in Iraq, it would undermine American credibility specifically as it relates to introducing freedoms and democracy in the Middle East.

THE ARAB WORLD

The Arab world at large is suffering from rising fundamentalism that is directly challenging the legitimacy of regional governments. Internally those governments are struggling with two unappealing choices. If they introduce meaningful reforms into their systems, they risk simultaneously opening the door for fundamentalists to rise to power while being accused of succumbing to American dictate. On the other hand, if they reject reforms, they would be accused by the same fundamentalists of doing America’s bidding by preventing self-expression to stifle Islamic movements.

As such, Arab countries are eager to see reforms take place in other countries that would show progress without any direct threat to their rule. Arab regimes are also eager to see a reduction in the power of fundamentalist movements to reduce their risk.

US POSTION

With the WMDs and Al-Qaida links to Saddam effectively eliminated, the only political argument left for the US to justify its war in Iraq is the drive to promote democracy and freedom in the Middle East. Yet, that argument is not believed in the region where it is most critical to be accepted. The Arabs in general still believe the only reason for the Iraqi war is Oil and political hegemony.

To most Arabs, Lebanon is the crucial test of US intentions in the region, especially in light of recent strong statements coming from Washington. Should the US fail to carry through its drive to sustain the democratic process and allow Lebanon to descend into autocracy, even under the guise of constitutional amendments, then the credibility of the US in promoting democracy is irreparably damaged. No one would believe that the US wants to implement democracy when it is not willing to safeguard existing democracies.

As such the upcoming presidential and Parliamentary elections could stand out as a historical milestone in US diplomacy in the Middle East. They can shore up US credibility and serve as a blue print for democratic reforms in Iraq and the rest of the region. Or, they can serve to re-enforce public antagonism to the US that views the US as an aggressor only interested in domination and cheap oil.

LEBANESE CONSENSUS

NALA’s discussions and observations have shown that in spite of the severe constraints on political discussions and cooperation, the Lebanese have managed to find common ground and reach agreement on a substantial range of issues that set the stage for the revival of freedoms, the rule of law and rebuilding a modern political system that can be a model for other states in the region.

However, uncertainty about the international community’s seriousness and its long history of backtracking at the last moment is keeping the Lebanese from openly declaring their intentions. They fear that once again the US and other Western powers will abandon them half way with devastating repercussions. As such it is important to provide unequivocal support for freedoms and democracy in Lebanon.

The key points of agreement among the people with whom NALA met that allow the Lebanese to make the quantum leap from a crippled occupied territory into a fully functional country are:

Constitutional Amendment

With the exception of a few political figures whose personal future is connected to that of President Lahoud, there is unanimous opposition to altering the constitution to serve individual aspiration for renewal. All who met with NALA insisted that amending the constitution affectively puts the country on the road to dictatorship where presidents will continuously renew their mandate for life.

Parliamentary Elections

There is almost unanimous agreement that the election law has not been fair and must be amended to be more equitable and allow for more accurate voter representation. The current law has been designed to sideline many political movements and install a Parliament that predominantly owes its allegiance to the Syrian regime rather than the voters.

In spite of the overwhelming demand from the public and political establishment for years to establish a fair electoral law, there has been no real movement in that direction. All who address the issue, including those with whom NALA met, insist publicly that the Syrians have prevented the establishment of a uniform electoral law and will only introduce amendments at the last minute as they see their interests dictating to insure their continued control over the Lebanese parliament.

Syrian Relations

While no one aims for confrontation and all seek the friendliest relations with Syria, there is a consensus that the current situation is untenable and is creating explosive conditions in Lebanon.

Economic Agreements

Existing economic agreements are one-sided and are serving to exacerbate Lebanon’s problems with negative effects on both countries. Those agreements must be amended to better reflect the interests of Lebanon.

Strategic and Military Agreements

Those agreements also are viewed as one-sided and contrary to Lebanon’s interests, whereby Syria is granted free reign in Lebanon without any checks or controls, which primarily serve to protect illicit operations and help siphon funds from Lebanon’s economy. Those agreements must be amended to limit or even eliminate Syria’s military presence in Lebanon to truly strategic needs.

Syrian Meddling in Internal Lebanese affairs

All agree that Syrian interference in internal Lebanese affairs serves no other reason than to protect illicit economic benefits of the people involved and has no national justification, Lebanese or Syrian. Such interference is the main cause of government paralysis that has brought the country to the edge of the economic and political abyss.

This issue was most succinctly described by PM Hariri, when he insisted that he can no longer find the national interest in any of the issues that the Syrians get involved in, where all he can see is the protection of personal profits.

It is agreed that Syrian relations must not extend to internal affairs that are not directly related to Syria.

Hizbullah

There is unanimous agreement that the role of the “resistance” has long ended and now Hizbullah’s autonomous operations have become a serious economic, political and security burden on Lebanon that must be brought to an end. However, no one believes a military confrontation is the solution, lest Lebanon become another Algeria.

There is also a consensus that the best approach is political, whereby the excuses for Hizbullah’s operations and the means that facilitate its operations be removed. Without the excuses for military activity and lacking the financial means to cultivate a following, Hizbullah will quickly lose its appeal to most of its followers and be cut to size as a small political party within the Lebanese political system.

The main excuse for Hizbullah’s continued military operations is the Shebaa farms, which can and should be resolved through the United Nations. A good portion of Hizbullah’s funding now comes from the Lebanese Government through auspiciously social and economic funds that end up used by Hizbullah to replace Government services.

Hizbullah’s external funding must also be curtailed by the international community.

Al-Qaida and other Sunnis Fundamentalists

There is unanimous concern about the rise of Sunni fundamentalist movements in close coordination with Hizbullah. Those movements, including Al-Qaida affiliates Isbat Al Ansar and Al Jamaa Al Islamiee have found safe haven in Palestinian refugee camps and are serving as a primary conduit for recruiting and dispatching Sunni fundamentalist fighters to Israel, Iraq and elsewhere. Their close cooperation with Hizbullah and Syrian protective umbrella makes the issue so much more dangerous.

All have affirmed the need to end those operations in more effective means than the current pretenses, including the need to bring Palestinian camps under some level of Government authority. It is unacceptable to anyone that Lebanese territory be used as a refuge from Lebanese authority.

Political Reforms

It is deemed imperative that the Lebanese political system be reformed to more accurately reflect the will and aspirations of the people particularly in the areas of transparency, judicial independence and public empowerment.

Economic Reforms

There is unanimous agreement on the need for economic reforms that allows the Lebanese economy to realize its full potential and capitalize on the heightened interest from Arab and Western businesses and investors. The focus is on transparency, legal protection and open markets.

President

There is unanimous consensus that the next president must have a level of independence yet not be antagonistic to Syria to initiate meaningful discussion with the Syrian regime to correct the current lop-sided relations between the two countries. The profile presented by NALA in December 2003 meets the expectations and aspirations of all those with whom the NALA team met.

Furthermore, various parties, particularly the Qurnet Shawan Group and PM Hariri, insisted that an agreement between PM Hariri and Partiarch Sfeir, with US and international support, in regards to the next president would effectively guarantee the results and prevent the Syrians from torpedoing the process. Such an agreement would effectively bring together the majority of the Lebanese political players.

Behind the scenes contacts have already begun and there is substantial agreement on the way to proceed further. The process only needs international support to come to life.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The solution as it immerges from NALA’s discussions and assessments that defuses the explosive conditions in Lebanon and begins affectively reversing the rise of fundamentalism and introducing democracy and freedom in the Middle East is as follows:

An agreement is reached between Patriarch Sfeir and PM Hariri on a list of 3 or 4 presidential candidates that meet the necessary criteria of integrity, independence and acceptability. This will automatically include the majority of the independent political forces in Lebanon. This process has already begun.

The US provides concrete support for this effort to insure the Syrians do not torpedo the process and revert to appointing their own president. US seriousness is critical to the success of the effort, particularly if coupled with international support.

Syria is given a face saving exit that preserves the regime, where it is:

Allowed the pretense of involvement in picking the most acceptable candidate from the list.
Allowed to unilaterally declare its intent to begin repositioning its forces into barracks in the Bekaa valley in preparations for full withdrawal.
Declare a hands-off approach to Parliamentary elections, particularly defining the electoral law.

The international community closely watches parliamentary elections including electoral law and preparations to insure proper representation in Parliament.

The new Government and Parliament initiates clear political and economic reforms that eliminate corruption and defuse the explosive politico-economic conditions in Lebanon.

The new Government initiates real internal dialog and discussions with Syria on correcting bi-lateral agreements.

Syria is pressured to show good will by:

Initiating immediate settlement of the Shebaa farms border with Lebanon as a prelude to a UN permanent resolution for the issue.
Cutting off financing and military supplies to Hizbullah and other terror organizations.
Initiating honest re-evaluation of Lebanese Syrian agreements, which President Assad himself has declared in need of serious revisions.

In this context, the Lebanese provide an ideal regional proving ground and a showcase that proves US intentions and grants an operational base for broader regional reforms.

US sponsorship of this process is crucial to its success. It is critical that the Syrian regime realizes the seriousness of the situation and not be allowed to once again defraud the US into unfulfilled agreements.

Should this fail and the Syrians extend the mandate of president Lahoud or appoint a similar president, the results will be devastating for Lebanon, the region and US diplomacy.