Three Keys for a Stable Lebanon in 2024

King Fahd and Crown Prince, Prince Abdullah, welcoming Lebanese President Amin Gemayel and Lebanese Prime Minister Shafiq Al-Wazzan. - File Photo
King Fahd and Crown Prince, Prince Abdullah, welcoming Lebanese President Amin Gemayel and Lebanese Prime Minister Shafiq Al-Wazzan. - File Photo
TT
20

Three Keys for a Stable Lebanon in 2024

King Fahd and Crown Prince, Prince Abdullah, welcoming Lebanese President Amin Gemayel and Lebanese Prime Minister Shafiq Al-Wazzan. - File Photo
King Fahd and Crown Prince, Prince Abdullah, welcoming Lebanese President Amin Gemayel and Lebanese Prime Minister Shafiq Al-Wazzan. - File Photo

Affiliations and allegiances vary, but what we lose remains the same: the nation and the state.

However, first and foremost, there is Gaza - not the piece of territory, the Palestinian people enduring death, pain, hunger, and deprivation amid the relentless onslaught of the Israeli machinery, which has turned killing into a craft. This is a moment to stand in solemn respect before the gravity of a tragedy that has claimed tens of thousands of civilians, killed or wounded. It is a testing moment for the international community, which is called upon to stop its war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinian civilians - children, women, and the elderly - or rather, the Palestinian state.

It is also a testing moment for the Palestinian nation. It is called upon to give rise to a national, unifying, liberating, and liberated representative authority. This representative authority should be solely committed to the cause and loyal only to Palestine, and it must impose itself as the sole negotiator authorized to represent the Palestinians. This is the natural gateway to ending the tragedy and granting the Palestinians the rights they are entitled to. Anything less would render it illegitimate, regardless of its achievements or heroic actions. It would be lacking in both national and international trust, and thus effectiveness, due to its sectarian and regional affiliations, and perhaps national affiliations that go beyond Palestine.

We now urgently need to put an end to this narrative that is lethal to the Palestinian cause and end the divisions among the top brass to allow for a united authority and people. Egos must be put aside to ensure that the cause triumphs. Israel would be the primary and ultimate beneficiary of a failure to do so; it thrives on Palestinian divisions and blood and would be able to hinder any regional and international Arab support.

Israeli leaders have said it loud and clear: they categorically reject the establishment of a Palestinian state. That presents a crucial, and what may be the last, opportunity for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian National Council to convene, break free of their constraints, unite the Palestinian people, and apply pressure to ensure the emergence of an independent Palestinian state that can reunite its people - all of its people - including those in the diaspora, much like Israel has done since its establishment in 1948...

And now, to the matter at hand...

The lessons of history regarding the disintegration of states and political entities are clear. The problem, in the past in some parts of the Western world, and both the past and present in the Arab world, is ambiguous belonging and unstable allegiance to the concepts of nationhood and statehood.

Regardless of its form, or belonging - whether to an individual, a party, a sect, a religious doctrine, or an imported or nationally entrenched ideology, it comes at the expense of allegiance to a domestically cohesive and internationally recognized homeland. Belonging/allegiance to a just and accountable state that is inclusive, shared, unifying, and united state signifies governance rather than imposed rule. It reinforces the authority, centrality, and legitimacy of the state. In contrast, allegiance to a party, person, sect, or external forces becomes burdensome. It creates divisions, undermining genuine citizenship and replacing it with various forms of subjugation, allegiance to imported or newly devised doctrines, and subservience to a person deified by loyalists.

This kind of allegiance lacks credibility and effectiveness. It is neither stable nor durable. Rather, it inevitably harms civilization and humanity. As a former party leader and the son of its founder, I say this: if a party does not serve the nation, it becomes a burden on the nation, operating within the homeland but against the nation’s interests.

Alien ideologies, cheap partisanship, and blind allegiance collectively and individually lead to the slow demise of societies and states.

Alien ideologies, cheap partisanship, and blind allegiance collectively and individually lead to the slow demise of societies and states. The contemporary experiences of the Muslim Brotherhood, with its conflicts, divisions, and wars, remain a clear testament to this. Fascism, Nazism, and communism also established a concept of loyalty to a party, even to individuals like Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. That was eventually recognized by the dictator Franco, who, albeit belatedly, thus allowed for the transition from his authoritarian regime to the one of national historical legitimacy represented by the Spanish monarchy, creating stability in Spain that endures to this day. That is also reflected, albeit differently, in the confrontation between capitalism and communism, which saw both cold and hot wars, as well as direct and proxy wars.

Both in the Arab and internationally, regimes have raised populist slogans, which, while perhaps appealing on the surface, are deceptive. They promote unity, but their actions prove divisive. They claim to be developmental, but they are foreign-backed, and ultimately, they are sectarian and destructive. They left the Arab world fragmented until some parts of it eventually woke up and decided to embrace civilization and modernity more broadly. There are numerous examples, from the ostensibly socialist Baath Party, which in reality was sectarian - Sunni in Iraq and Alawite in Syria - to the Houthis in Yemen.

President Hafez al-Assad bidding farewell to President Amin Gemayel at Damascus Airport (Archival).

 

I write this based on the Lebanese experience. This nation has paid a high price for its diverse allegiances and the adoption of foreign ideologies. At times, some Lebanese factions fell into these traps, undermining Lebanon's stability and peace.

In 1958, Nasserism shook the project for Lebanese unity, destabilizing the domestic balance. In 1969, the Cairo Agreement Lebanon’s sovereignty between the Lebanese state and the Palestine Liberation Organization. In 1975, the naturalization project emerged, leading to war and the rise of the Lebanese resistance. In 1989, the Taif Agreement allowed for the imperfect restoration of the state, its pillars never fully solidified due to the varied allegiances in the country, which served the interests of the Syrian regime overseeing the political system. It also paved the way for allowing the Iranian Revolution to establish a strong foothold in Lebanon that has undermined its politics, particularly concerning the concept of allegiance to the nation.

At best, the multiplicity of loyalties in Lebanon has introduced belief systems that are alien to and from democracy, and it has derailed institutions, creating presidential and governmental vacuums and hollowing out institutions.

At best, the multiplicity of loyalties in Lebanon has introduced belief systems that are alien to and from democracy, and it has derailed institutions, creating presidential and governmental vacuums and hollowing out institutions.

Presidents are elected only after foreign negotiations allow for domestic settlements. Governments are formed based on non-constitutional consultations, and even minor appointments require prior agreements.

The Taif Agreement, which became part of the constitution, did a lot to extinguish the flames of armed conflict. However, it also created a political problem, especially in terms of the constant need it created for a foreign backer, or perhaps a set of backers, to ensure that the three centers of power (government, presidency, and parliament) come to an agreement. This is due to disagreements over fundamental questions about our allegiance, political entity, identity, and political system. Each sect has a project for Lebanon that demands external intervention, which has been at best political, often military, and usually a combination of both.

This is what's happening today with the Quintet for Lebanon, which is nominally holding discussions with domestic Lebanese actors but is, in reality, negotiating with Iran, to reach common ground that allows the election of a president for the republic. The lesson, here, is that what matters is not whether the Nasserist Movement, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Syrian and Israeli armies, and the Iranian Basij withdraw from Lebanon. Rather, the Lebanese must withdraw from foreign dependence and reject the foreign oversight over its political system and its implications for Lebanon and its people.

Today, Lebanon a three-dimensional approach is needed to ensure the rise and stability of the state in Lebanon:

Firstly, Hezbollah must be transformed into a political project. That requires the disarmament of its militia, just as the other militias were disarmed following the Taif Agreement. The political ideology of Hezbollah should change from striving for domination over the state to adopting a culture of equal and balanced participation within it.

Secondly, we must prevent the naturalization of Palestinian refugees who fled Israeli wars, the latest being the war on Gaza. That required ensuring their right of return stipulated by UN Resolution 194 and redistributing the surplus Palestinian population to other Arab countries.

Thirdly, we must prevent the permanent settlement of Syrian refugees and work to take them back to Syria by redirecting the international aid they receive in Lebanon to the Syrians in Syria, instead of using it as bait to keep them in Lebanon indefinitely.

Based on the above, we arrive at a fundamental, two-sided conclusion: On the one hand, it is essential to protect the sanctity of religion in its sublime role in connecting believers and their lords, especially given the sectarian plurality of our societies. On the other hand, we must refrain from “dragging” God into the political fray or exploiting his name for political gains.

Two types of religious exploitation for personal or party interests come to mind: one instills fear and another offers incentives. Both serve the political authorities, either violently or benevolently. Whether the stick or the carrot is used, this exploitation comes at the expense of religion, society, and the individual. Both forms use coercion or deception in the name of a religion or doctrine to undermine the values we commonly refer to as democratic values and republican principles.

Religion is not a political solution. It becomes a problem in belonging, even an existential problem if it is misused or hijacked by politics.

The time has come for unwise systems to fall...

The time has come for the rule of law and the implementation of good governance in every respect and for the triumph of freedom, justice, equality, human rights, and welfare...

The time has come to constitutionalize political systems and humanize politics. The early seeds have begun to bear fruit, and there is no turning back.

So, let us come together to reform the charter for life.

 



What Makes Greenland a Strategic Prize at a Time of Rising Tensions? And Why Now? 

A person walks on a snow covered road, ahead of the March 11 general election, in Nuuk, Greenland, March 9, 2025. (Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via Reuters) 
A person walks on a snow covered road, ahead of the March 11 general election, in Nuuk, Greenland, March 9, 2025. (Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via Reuters) 
TT
20

What Makes Greenland a Strategic Prize at a Time of Rising Tensions? And Why Now? 

A person walks on a snow covered road, ahead of the March 11 general election, in Nuuk, Greenland, March 9, 2025. (Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via Reuters) 
A person walks on a snow covered road, ahead of the March 11 general election, in Nuuk, Greenland, March 9, 2025. (Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via Reuters) 

When US President Donald Trump first suggested buying Greenland in 2019, people thought it was just a joke. No one is laughing now.

Trump’s interest in Greenland, restated vigorously soon after he returned to the White House in January, comes as part of an aggressively “America First” foreign policy platform that includes demands for Ukraine to hand over mineral rights in exchange for continued military aid, threats to take control of the Panama Canal, and suggestions that Canada should become the 51st US state.

Why Greenland? Increasing international tensions, global warming and the changing world economy have put Greenland at the heart of the debate over global trade and security, and Trump wants to make sure that the US controls this mineral-rich country that guards the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America.

Who does Greenland belong to? Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, a long-time US ally that has rejected Trump’s overtures. Denmark has also recognized Greenland’s right to independence at a time of its choosing.

Amid concerns about foreign interference and demands that Greenlanders must control their own destiny, the island’s prime minister called an early parliamentary election for Tuesday.

The world’s largest island, 80% of which lies above the Arctic Circle, is home to about 56,000 mostly Inuit people who until now have been largely ignored by the rest of the world.

Why are other countries interested in Greenland? Climate change is thinning the Arctic ice, promising to create a northwest passage for international trade and reigniting the competition with Russia, China and other countries over access to the region’s mineral resources.

“Let us be clear: we are soon entering the Arctic Century, and its most defining feature will be Greenland’s meteoric rise, sustained prominence and ubiquitous influence,” said Dwayne Menezes, managing director of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative.

“Greenland — located on the crossroads between North America, Europe and Asia, and with enormous resource potential — will only become more strategically important, with all powers great and small seeking to pay court to it. One is quite keen to go a step further and buy it.”

The following are some of the factors that are driving US interest in Greenland.

Arctic competition

Following the Cold War, the Arctic was largely an area of international cooperation. But climate change, the hunt for scarce resources and increasing international tensions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are once again driving competition in the region.

Strategic importance

Greenland sits off the northeastern coast of Canada, with more than two-thirds of its territory lying within the Arctic Circle. That has made it crucial to the defense of North America since World War II, when the US occupied Greenland to ensure that it didn’t fall into the hands of Nazi Germany and to protect crucial North Atlantic shipping lanes.

The US has retained bases in Greenland since the war, and the Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Force Base, supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the US and NATO. Greenland also guards part of what is known as the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) Gap, where NATO monitors Russian naval movements in the North Atlantic.

Natural resources

Greenland has large deposits of so-called rare earth minerals that are needed to make everything from computers and smartphones to the batteries, solar and wind technologies that will power the transition away from fossil fuels. The US Geological Survey has also identified potential offshore deposits of oil and natural gas.

Greenlanders are keen to develop the resources, but they have enacted strict rules to protect the environment. There are also questions about the feasibility of extracting Greenland’s mineral wealth because of the region’s harsh climate.

Climate change

Greenland’s retreating ice cap is exposing the country’s mineral wealth and melting sea ice is opening up the once-mythical Northwest Passage through the Arctic.

Greenland sits strategically along two potential routes through the Arctic, which would reduce shipping times between the North Atlantic and Pacific and bypass the bottlenecks of the Suez and Panama canals. While the routes aren’t likely to be commercially viable for many years, they are attracting attention.

Chinese interest

In 2018, China declared itself a “near-Arctic state” in an effort to gain more influence in the region. China has also announced plans to build a “Polar Silk Road” as part of its global Belt and Road Initiative, which has created economic links with countries around the world.

Then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected China’s move, saying: “Do we want the Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea, fraught with militarization and competing territorial claims?” A Chinese-backed rare earth mining project in Greenland stalled after the local government banned uranium mining in 2021.

Independence

The legislation that extended self-government to Greenland in 2009 also recognized the country’s right to independence under international law. Opinion polls show a majority of Greenlanders favor independence, though they differ on exactly when that should occur. The potential for independence raises questions about outside interference in Greenland that could threaten US interests in the country.