Lebanon’s Presidency and the New World Order

Elias Aoun
There are many dark predictions, but they can all be transcended by taking a different path, making wiser decisions, so that the dark plots do not have to unfold. Achieving a constructive outcome requires awareness of what is possible (both positive and negative), good intentions, and an enhanced decision-making process by widening the source of information upon which those decisions are made.
It has been said that politicians need to analyze the impact of their decisions on at least seven generations before making any decision. Probably what is mostly needed today is a value standard: do we care about future generations so that our actions aim to better rather than worsen their lives? What is more important: political power or respectful co-existence? What is more enduring: bigotry, hatred, and endless quarrels or playing a collective, constructive role in where we are going? While everyone’s eye-sight is on the issues being debated, should not we instead be far-sighted and consider the outcome planned not for the issues but as a consequence to the confrontation on the issues?
For Washington, Paris, the Vatican, and other regional and international power-brokers, what is at stake in today’s Lebanon is certainly more than the presidency of a small country. For the Lebanese, what should be at stake is their existence as a sovereign nation.
If we look back at the past two years, whether it is diplomatic gridlock, war, or assassinations, the beneficiary has always been more UN resolutions, more UN troops, and more international involvement.
For example, why did Syria insist on extending Lahoud’s term for three years – giving a pretext to issuance of UN Resolution 1559 calling for “free and fair” election – when Syria could have easily chosen another “friendly” president for a full term and avoid the international tension on both Beirut and Damascus? Why all peaceful solutions to the Hezbollah weapons issue (whether it is the “Border Guards” proposal or the FPM-Hezbollah Understanding) have been rejected and then use the Israeli military option to then justify more UN troops on Lebanese soil? How many Lebanese patriots were assassinated to facilitate adopting the International Tribunal, and how many assassinations were “added” to an international investigation that has yet to offer “the truth”?
The outcome of all major incidences has always been more internationalization. While many Lebanese, including myself, thought at some point that international involvement is beneficial to resolve seemingly never ending conflicts around the world, it is now evident that the “internationalists” of all sides (American, Israeli, Lebanese, Syrian, etc.) are preventing “nationalist solutions” to justify further international involvement. The question then becomes, to what end?
In seeking to unmask certain agendas, one option is to review past official statements and analyze their potential applicability to the current situation.
In a speech at the Middle East Peace Talks in Madrid (1991), Soviet President Gorbachev stated: “We are beginning to see practical support. And this is a very significant sign of the movement towards a new era, a new age.... We see both in our country and elsewhere... ghosts of the old thinking.... When we rid ourselves of their presence, we will be better able to move toward a new world order...relying on the relevant mechanisms of the United Nations.”
In a 1991 State of the Union address, President George H.W. Bush said: "What is at stake is more than one small country [referring to Iraq]; it is a big idea - a new world order.” In a speech before the Economic Club of New York, he stated: "My vision of a new world order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function."
In his 2004 New Year speech, Pope John Paul II called for “the creation of a new world order.” (Associated Press, Thursday, January 1, 2004, report posted at 14:21 GMT)
Just recently, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated: “A new world is emerging. It is a new world order with significantly different and radically new challenges for the future.”
Certainly, we are told that such a “new world order” is aimed to further the cause of peace and “to save the earth”; that it will be based on “the rule of law”, the “dignity of man and equality among nations.” What we are not told are the scary details. No high ranking official is going to stand before a public audience and declare: “We want to take away your sovereignty and constitutional rights” – although that is their intent. The proof is evident from their actions as seen by the events of the last two years in Lebanon: more United Nations, less Lebanese nation.
Former CIA director / CFR Stansfield Turner said on a CNN program (late July 1991) that where the United Nations “is deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign nation.... is a marvelous precedent (to be used in) all countries of the world..."
On May 21, 1992, during a Bilderberg meeting in Evian, France, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declares: “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
Obviously, there are many quotes that could be listed. The point is: the core of the New World Order is to abolish nationhood, national sovereignty, and submit all citizens and states to a single global authority – with the United Nations being its police force. In the current era of globalization and economic integration, sovereignties and borders are perceived by the “internationalists” as obstacles.
Most people view the political impasse as between Opposition and Loyalists, Syrians and Lebanese, Lebanese and Israelis, etc. However, the true confrontation should be viewed between the “internationalists” (from all sides – who want this global government and create the environment that justify more international involvement) and the “nationalists” (from all sides as well – who need to better reach out for one another, become more vocal, and save their country’s sovereignty and constitutional rights).
Currently, with regard to Lebanon’s presidency, there are certain scenarios that, if they materialize, would justify more international involvement and less Lebanese sovereignty. On the other hand, the “nationalists” from all sides must, of course, prevent these scenarios from developing and take measures that would sustain constitutional standards and unified governmental institutions.
While diplomatic initiatives and “presidential consultations” seem to be plentiful, one simple element which would justly resolve the impasse seems to go unnoticed – that is, restoring to everyone what rightfully belongs to them. Reinstate the Constitutional Council to adjudicate on the eleven contested parliamentary seats, and then the rightful parliamentarians would vote for president.
What will save Lebanon at this juncture is to do what is right. If we continuously think in terms of what will benefit this individual, this political party, or this foreign country, then we may never reach solutions because what benefits one will be perceived as a “victory” over another. However, if we all think in terms of what is the right thing to do in this situation, what rights belong to what individuals, then the solution would become evident and a unifier.
The “presidential solution” must be based on restoring violated rights and constitutional norms. Relying on Bkerke to offer a “presidential list” or name a president has no constitutional foundation. Doing so, would render the Lebanese Parliament and constitution meaningless; it would constitute not just a continuous attempt to “erase” the political leadership of the Christian community, but another step toward erasing the political leadership of other communities as well.
Those who declared their candidacy to the presidency have individually the right to do so. Neither Bkerke nor anyone else is justified to unilaterally “erase” any candidate’s name and “make a list” of selected few that the Parliament should only consider. Such a measure is disgraceful and humiliating. Based on what authority is Bkerke making political decisions (without having received a single vote to represent anyone) instead of the politicians voted into parliament?
In the Church’s version of a “New World Order,” and according to Jesuit beliefs, “there is but one supreme authority in the world, and that is the Pope.” All governments are “illegal” without the Pope’s “sacred confirmation.” By delegating to Cardinal Sfeir the authority to choose the president, or make a list of who can or should be president, then that constitutes a public and official acquiescence by certain politicians to Vatican rule over Lebanon – therefore, acquiescence to no sovereignty.
For the past two years, many “made in Lebanon” solutions were rejected, while international “solutions” were readily accepted. This scenario inevitably led to more UN control and internationalization. On the presidential issue, many who refuse to abide by constitutional standards seem willing to accept Bkerke’s choice. Why?
In the words of the Superior of the Jesuit Order when giving the oath to a novice: “You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces and states that were at peace, and incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous …. [so] that THE CHURCH MIGHT BE THE GAINER IN THE END…”
After months of “insidiously plant[ed] seeds of jealousy and hatred between [Lebanon’s] communities”, the Church is perfectly the gainer in the situation. Many look to Bkerke for a “solution” instead of the rightful representatives of the people. Here again, the objective is the same: less constitutional government, more internationalization, more Vatican control.
Whenever there is any form of confrontation, do not only ask about the issues causing the confrontation; rather ask what outcome is intended from that confrontation. Those who accuse the United States, Syria, or Israel in undermining Lebanon need to read the words of Archbishop James Quigley (1903): “When the United States rule the world, the Catholic Church will rule the world” (VaticanAssassins.org). Does having three U.S. presidents (Bush I, Bush II, and Clinton) on their knees before the corpse of John Paul II during his funeral say anything about who is in charge?
For Lebanese leaders, what is happening may not be 100% their fault. However, a mark of leadership is to assume a 100% responsibility to resolve the problems regardless of whose fault it is. To all Lebanese, especially the Parliamentarians, the future is ours to make. On that basis, what future do we want: a new world order and servitude, or a constitutional republic and freedom?
Sometimes a crisis is an opportunity to reinvent who we are. Lebanon reached its current position by either making the wrong decisions or allowing others to decide on our behalf. The best way to move forward and ensure that we continue as a nation is to assume responsibility for our own fate, cultivate respect for everyone’s existence, and preserve constitutional rights. By choosing love over fear, connection to one another over materialism, service to one another over control, then we become a better people and a better country.