The effect of Education level on Income Distribution in EU

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

The Interaction Between Civil Society and International Re-lations – The Case of Lebanon

This section will describe the political history of Lebanon from its establishment in the ending of World War One until its independence from Syria in 2005. The main focus will be on the civil war and its reasons. Civil societies and international relations are ac-counted as essential for the explanation of the tensions in Lebanon.

Birth of a state

Lebanon was born, as we know it today due to the ending of WW1 and the distribution of the Ottoman Empire among the winners. France was offered Lebanon in 1920 and seized a part from Syria even to expand Lebanon’s territory. Most confessions in Leba-non gathered in one crucial meeting that included Christian Maronites, Orthodox, Ar-menian, Muslim Sunnites, Shiites, and Druze etc. to establish Lebanon, as we know it today. (Young, M 2010:19)
Lebanon gained its independence in 1943 from France once the citizens required auton-omy over their state that was supported by Winston Churchill. The French detained the highest officials within the Lebanese parliament and only by common actions of all re-ligious parts of the Lebanese were they released and the independence was realized. The patriotic atmosphere showed that Lebanon was the main actor and not each confession. The independence required a new constitution and a new rule of law (Workmall 2003). The constitution stated that the President should be Christian Maronites, Head of par-liament should be Muslim Shiites and the Prime Minister should be Sunnites. The ratio within the parliament would be six positions for Christians for every five seats for Mus-lims. Most positions in the political sphere was given according to religious believes (Young, M 2010:22-23). This division was about to play a major role in the multiple wars to come. The Christian Maronites were strong advocates of the independence and opposed any interference from Syria, yet the Muslims required the reunion of both countries. This constitution was originally a pact between most politicians but it was never written; yet it is known today as a unique system recognized as “confessional-ism”. Lebanon was supposed to be independent from all foreign policy that was required by the Christians while the Muslims were to give up their demands to unify with Syria. This pact known as the “national pact” was dependent on the independency of Lebanon and the working relation between all religious parts.
The main principles of the National Pact were:
• Lebanon recognized as an independent democratic republic
• Lebanon enjoys an Arab face yet its different characteristics should remain its ties with western cultures
• Lebanon is a vital part of the Arab world and must uphold a healthy relation
with them without division or partialities
The ideology was clear, solidarity and unity towards common goals (Salibi, K 1988:186-188). Lebanon joined the UN in 1945 and was recognized by all member states. More than 150 000 Palestinians immigrated to Southern Lebanon due to the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 (Encyclopedia of the Orient 2002).

The Arab League

Kamil Chamoun was appointed as the new President in 1953 after the short “White” revolution that took down President El-Khoury, in peaceful manners, due to accusations of corruptions.
The same year a great Arab leader was born in Egypt that was about to play a major role in the instability of the Middle East, Jamal Abd el- Nasser (Salibi, K 1988:197-198).
Lebanon was an open country for international interferences and influences especially due to the Cold War between the United States of American and Soviet Union. The Ar-abs were divided into two parts; some required Arab unity while others required the protection and adaptation of westernized norms and values. The rise of communism in the Arab world forced the US to intervene and sponsor a treaty written by Turkey, Paki-stan and Iraq, known as the “Baghdad Alliance” in 1954. The Egyptian who were the biggest force within the Arab League refused any pacts made outside their alliance, and therefore excluded Iraq from it. Lebanon was also divided into parts were some wanted to join the Arab League while others wanted westernized protection and “Baghdad Alli-ance”, including the Lebanese President Kamil Chamoun. In 1955, he declared during a visit to Ankara that Lebanon and Turkey share the same foreign policy yet he rejected to join any pact, a decision which was about to play a major role in the development of plenty of wars to come. The Arab defense alliance included Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria sponsored by Soviet Union.
Egypt wanted to regain its positions in the Suez Canal that was occupied by British and French Forces. This erupted a war in 1956 between these parties along with Israel. Kamil Chamoun played a major role in solving this problem by inviting them to a meet-ing with a peaceful outcome (Young, M 2010:24).
The Muslims in Lebanon rejected the constant interaction of President Chamoun with western countries especially since the eruption of the war in Egypt and required imme-diate stop to these communications. The growing popularity of El-Nasser increased the incentives to propagate against the non-members of the Arab League and soon ultima-tums were proposed to either join or accept the consequences (Salibi, K 1988:197). This gave birth to the Eisenhower’s Principle in 1957 that was a proposal by the US presi-dent Dwight Eisenhower to help any country that faces threats from the Soviet Union and its allies. This principle was suitable for Lebanon who began to fear the Arab League and communism and therefore Lebanese-American collaboration was estab-lished to ensure the protection of Lebanese independence according to President Chamoun (Korbani, G 1991:19-20). The foreign policy was not only the single reason of tension between Chamoun and the opposition, the latter also required more parlia-ment seats due to the increasing number of Muslims in the country. The rejection of this proposal forced huge amounts of demonstrations to take place and many collisions were made between security forces and the demonstrators. The demonstrations did not de-crease in number once it was announced that the oppositions leaders lost their mandates in the parliament due to lack of votes. This news boiled the feelings of the demonstra-tors due to their accusations of corruption and election faults (Young, M 2010:24-25).
The regional events were cumulating as Syria accused Lebanon of conspiring against it through the “Baghdad Alliance”. Turkey immediately sent troops to the Syrian Northern Border to protect Lebanon in case of a Syrian Attack, while Egypt sent an army to Da-mascus and declared a union in February 1958. The opposition, known as National Un-ion Bloc, tried to force President Chamoun to resign through civil disobedience. The Arab League supported the opposition. It was as if the Arab unity was more important than the Lebanese unity (Salibi, K 1988:188 – 190)! The Lebanese army stood on the President side and struggled to remain unified since religious and ideological believes could divide the army. Fouad Chehab was the general of the Lebanese army and had an efficient role in maintaining control over the situation. He barely took part on Kamil Chamoun’s side; instead he took a position to limit the violence that was about to occur within this revolution and defended public utilities such as the harbor, airport, and Pres-idence palace etc. (Workmall 2003).
The opposition was increasing in force and the army barely limited this expansion. Pres-ident Chamoun sent a complaint to the International Security Council in which he ac-cused the Arab League of interfering in Lebanese matters and hindering stability. After the fall of King Faysal in Iraq, President Chamoun feared the loss of an ally and re-quired from the western countries to interfere immediately causing the US marines to be sent to Lebanon (Young, M 2010:25).
31st of July Fouad Chehab was appointed as the new President since Chamoun’s term was ended. The Chehabian rule was to prioritize the National Unity and to remove all threats of civil war. The laws implemented during his days are still used today; he also established many institutions to provide all the needs for all Lebanese. Time of pros-perity was promised (Workmall 2003)!

Right & Left wing

The Arabs established in 1964 the Palestine Liberation Organization to reassure Pales-tine as an Arab nation. After the defeat of Syria, Jordan and Egypt during the 6 days war in 1967 against Israel, PLO was lost by the Arabs and now belonged to the Palestinians only under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. PLO started their training camps in Jordan but eventually moved to Lebanon, due to Jordan’s expelling of Palestinian fighters, which was in its prime of growing due to the stability brought by the Chehabian rule. Charles Helou was elected after Fouad Chehab due to the ending of the latters term, yet Helou was a follower of Chehabian rue. Palestinian camps were established already in 1948 and were controlled by the Lebanese army up until 1967. After that, operations were fulfilled from Lebanese territory against the Israeli occupation force (Hirst, D 2010:88-94). Lebanon was punished by Israel for the actions of PLO by attacking Bei-rut’s airport. The Lebanese army interfered to end the assaults of Palestinians and mul-tiple battles were spreading all across the country. Charles Helou and Yasser Arafat met in Cairo to negotiate an agreement to end the fighting (Young, M 2010:24-26).
Once again Lebanon was divided into two parts, the ones against Palestine and the ones against Israel. The religious beliefs were now transformed into ideological beliefs, as the class system within the society forced people to protest to obtain more democratic rights. A right and a left wing were created, consisting of all different religious confes-sionals, yet wealthy Christians dominated the right wing and poor Muslims dominated the left (Salibi, K 1988:190).
The right wing rejected the Cairo agreement that included the right of PLO to own armed forces and territorial gains to battle against Israel. This was understood from the right wing as violence against Lebanese sovereignty (Hirst, D 2010:121).
It was decided in Cairo that Lebanon would not be a confrontational zone against Israel, yet the actions of the Arabs were totally contradictive (Young, M 2010:25).
The Syrian Defense Minister Hafez El Assad overthrew President Nour El Dinh Atassy and ruled the country for more than 40 years. On the other hand, Lebanon elected Presi-dent Soulayman Franjieh who had close relations with El Assad and the Chehabian Course was lost (Schiff, Z 1984:195).
The first extensive Israeli invasion of South Lebanon was in 1972 due to the repetitive battles between PLO and Israel and the opening of PLO’s headquarter in Beirut. The left wing in Lebanon joined the cause of PLO and the Lebanese army was forced to at-tack both sides. Many Arab states declared economic boycott on Lebanon due to the army’s extensive use of violence on both Palestinians and Lebanese (Lebanon Wire 2010). President Franjieh immediately stopped all actions against the PLO and their al-lies to prevent Lebanon from undergoing poverty and even more instability. This opened patterns for the right wing to establish their own forces, known as the Lebanese Phalanges (Salibi, K 1988:188).

Civil War 1975-1990

And so it begins

The Lebanese Phalanges Party was established by Pierre el Gemayel in 1930’s that was of Christian majority and main followers of President Chamoun (Salibi, K 1988:188). They acknowledged the lack of action of the army and therefore chose to take it in their own hands. The Phalanges Party was supported by the US and Israel. The right side consisted of the Phalanges Party, Free Patriots Party, under the leadership of former President Kamil Chamoun and Lebanese Forces. The right wing used to receive weap-ons through the Lebanese Army since the President was of right wing origin.
Left wing was composed of Amal; a Shiites Muslims group who felt left out of social, economic and political reforms, established by an Iranian mullah, Moussa Sadr, elected by the Iranian Shah (Delafon, G 1989:251). Also, it consisted of the Socialist Party and the Lebanese Communist Party who both consisted mainly of Christians and Druze (Petran, T 1987:167-168).
The PLO had an “expansionist outlook” to leave their camps and expand their territories into other Lebanese areas. This was believed to be the reason behind the start of civil war according to the right wing. It was not a war against the Palestinians wanting to re-turn back to Israel, it was a war against the Palestinians seeking to occupy Lebanese sovereign territory to establish a new Palestine according to Pierre el Gemayel (Bachir-spot 2011). The Palestinians are believed to account for up to 400 000 in Lebanon. They are denied neither citizenship nor work permit. Most of the Palestinians had a Marxist outlook, yet the lack of rights and necessities erupted a fundamentalist Islamic sense within their society (US Department of State 2005).
Lebanon was officially divided into pro- and anti-PLO, yet some battles did not even include PLO. It was simply about supremacy and who will lead the country in the fu-ture. The left side demanded substantial political reform by abolishing political sectari-anism and offering equal mandates for all confessionals (Petran, T 1987:167-168).
The official date of the Civil War start was the 13th April 1975, a date which will for always be remembered by its effected. Gunmen shot at Pierre el Gemayel, and PLO was accused, triggering a small massacre in Ain al-Remmaneh led by Christian extremists. The Arab hand could not hinder or even limit this war. The parliament resigned and the country was heading towards a dark period and President Franjieh appointed a military government (Young, M 2010:26).
Syria was the main country acting as a mediator between all parties in Lebanon. Rachid Karameh was appointed prime minister and hope was restored along with the parlia-ment with the help of Syrian intervention. The relative calmness did not last due to Syr-ia’s involvement and fights carried on as the killings were based on ID cards, different religions, different ideologies and different villages all lead to mass murder. This is the darkest period in the Lebanese history (El-Khazen, F 2000:297-314)!
In 1975, Egypt signed a peaceful agreement with Israel known as Sinai 2 and the first named left the Arab League. Syria was left alone to handle the situation in Lebanon. PLO and the left requested help from Syria to limit the attacks of the right who were on their way to announce victory. The Muslims left Beirut’s East area while the Left area was still highly mixed as many Leftist leaders and members were Christians. At this time, the army was split into ideological beliefs and loyal soldiers followed respective leaders. The left was insisting on President Franjieh’s resignation but the latter collabo-rated with Syria to implement a new constitutional act that allowed more just mandates between different confessions. Yet the left felt that the solution was insufficient and the battles went on. Syria showed their willingness to intervene militarily in Lebanon with the approval of the US due to the failure of all diplomatic alternatives (Young, M 2010:26).

Syria Intervenes

The pace of events accelerated in Lebanon, regional and international factors exceeded their role in the developments. The right wing alliance was directly supported by Israel through economic benefits, weapons and military training. The right wing was interact-ing with both sides of the coin; only by the approval of Syria could they receive a newly elected favorable president. President Elias Sarkis was elected and immediately began his diplomatic tours to improve the left’s relation with the President seat (Hirst, D 2010:121). After the failure of all diplomacy, Syrian Forces entered Lebanon on 1st June 1976 without any approval from any Lebanese side. It was a clear agreement between Syria, Israel and US to stabilize the atmosphere in Lebanon. All three parts wanted mainly to exclude PLO from Lebanese war while other Arabs, such as Egypt who estab-lished the organization, wanted their protection (Young, M 2010:26).
An Arab summit in Cairo shaped Arab Prevention Forces (APF), with the objection of Iraq and Syria, to prevent any foreign intervention. This peaceful solution did not hold for a longer while, and Lebanon returned to its conflict since Syria on one hand wanted to control the Palestinians while the Arabs, lead by the new Saudi Arabian superpower in the region, wanted PLO to have free movement in both Syria and Lebanon. Syrian forces assassinated Kamal Joumblat, the leader of the Left wing, probably since he was the main criticizer of Syrian politics (Hirst, D 2010:121).
Syria wanted more power in Lebanon and formed an alliance with PLO while ending their relation with the right wing after their knowledge of collaboration between the lat-ter and Israel. The war between the Right and Syria began and Israel invaded Lebanon from the South to hinder the approach of Syrian and PLO troops (Schiff, Z 1984). Inter-national Forces sent by the UN were quick to respond to this conflict and sent troops to the Southern border (Young, M 2010:26). Israel withdrew but not before forming a Southern Lebanese Army (SLA), mostly Christians, to control the area. SLA were paid, trained and equipped by the Israeli government. Israel diverted the flow of the Litani River in Southern Lebanon towards Israel due to the latters water deficit. The Litani River satisfies more than 40 % of the Israeli water consumption and leaves Lebanese demand vulnerable (Geographical Review 1993:229). Up until today, this is still a ma-jor issue in the Lebanese-Israeli conflict. Syrians also withdrew once APF regained their stabilizing stand in Lebanon but eventually they withdrew also leaving a vulnerable yet hopeful nation behind them.
Bachir El Gemayel, son of the Phalanges Party establisher Pierre El Gemayel, formed the Lebanese Forces, a unifying force of all the right wing Christian parties with direct contact with Israel (Rabinovich, Itamar 1985:91).
The Shiites Muslims, belonging to Amal, had enough of all transgressions by PLO and therefore demanded them to unarm. This led to the kidnapping of Amal’s leader, Moussa Sader, and another conflict arose since the Shiites accused Libya of kidnapping their leader for the Palestinian cause. Libya was along with Egypt, before the latter’s agree-ment with Israel of ceasefire in Camp David agreement, the main supporter of PLO (Hirst, D 2010:129-131).
During this time, Iran formed the Islamic Republic of Iran, a Shiite nation who will play a major role in the increasing strength of Shiites in Lebanon and the formation of Hez-bollah (Salibi, K 1988:213).
Lebanon was transformed in the beginning of 1980’s into controlled zones shared by Syrians, Palestinians, Israelis and the multiple Lebanese militias allied with them. Pres-ident Sarkis was trying to make adjustments but he had no influence at all.

Israel’s Wrath

The Iraq – Iran war casted a shadow on the Lebanese war on the international scene. Syria took the opportunity to bombard the Lebanese Forces next to the Syrian-Lebanese borders forcing Israel to intervene on behalf of the right wing. Israeli invasion began on June 4th 1982 to end the constant threats of PLO and Syria once and for all, after the murder attempt of the Israeli ambassador in London by PLO (Young, M 2010:26-27). The Shiites enjoyed the presence of Israeli troops to end the constant bullying of PLO in the region, but the brutal Israeli military tactics transformed this optimism into pure an-ger. The Shiites felt oppressed by Israel and SLA and mobilized to finalize this coercion (Norton, R 2007:33). Iran sent 1500 warriors from their national revolutionary guards from a direct order from Ayatollah Khomeini. Their main goal was to train radical Mus-lims and promote others, mainly from the already established but less Islamic, Amal Movement, to fight against Israel and to establish an Islamic Sharia in Lebanon. This was the first appearance of Hezbollah, a force to recognize in future events, especially today (Hamzeh, A 2004:25). Southern Lebanon was occupied with less resistance due to the collaboration with the Southern Lebanese Army. The only threat was PLO and few of their remaining left alliances in the South. Yet the Israeli army did not stop at the 40 KM line from the border, which is the distance required for the reach of PLO mis-siles, instead they continued the invasion into the surroundings of West Beirut. This “lie” created tensions between the right wing and Israel, and the first named did not assist in the invasion as promised (Hirst, D 2010:135-136). The US Foreign Minister, Al-exander Hague, and his staff including Philip Habib of Lebanese origin played a major role in negotiating cease-fire agreements between all parts, especially Syrians and Israe-lis without any approval (Schultz, G 1993:106-108).
The Lebanese Forces’ leader, Bachir El Gemayel, became a candidate for the presiden-cy and was accepted by most parts due to his increasing maturity in the political sphere. Syria was one of few opposing him along with PLO due to his former collaboration with Israel. Bachir was no longer the Christian leader anymore but the Lebanese one ever since he realized that the war is not a Christian – Muslim war, rather it is based on regional, international and ideological issues (Schiff, Z 1984).

Beirut Falls

West Beirut was surrounded for three months until PLO, Syria and Israel reached an agreement of accepting the return of multinational forces consisting of French, Italian, British and American troops in Beirut and especially a US commitment to protect the Palestinian refugees in the region. The multinational force stayed for only 2 weeks and three weeks after the election of the new President in September 14th 1982, Bachir El Gemayel, he was assassinated in a car explosion (Washington Report on Middle-East Affairs 2006). This caused low fighting spirit for the Lebanese and along with the Syri-ans and PLO out; Israeli army invaded West Beirut with no struggle but left it short af-ter due to international pressure. The multinational responded immediately and returned their troops after the occurrence of massacres of the defenseless Palestinians in Beirut (Schultz, G 1993:106-108). The Lebanese Parliament elected Amine El Gemayel for President, older brother of Bachir, who was an American – Israeli candidate. President Amine El Gemayel pinpointed the importance of developing public institutions for a functioning society. Syria along with their ally Soviet Union felt left out and weakened in the Middle East region. Soviet Union offered Syria military forces along with coop-eration with Iran to balance the power in the region (David, K 1988:4). Hezbollah was born with the support of Iran and their first attack was against the American Army base next to Beirut’s International Airport with a car bomb that killed 241 marines. Vice-President George Bush Senior visited Beirut immediately and utilized the term “terrorism” to explain the actions of Hezbollah, this is a term that will be used more frequently in the future (Boyle, K 1983).
The multinational forces withdrew and left the matters into Syrian hands. President Hafez El Assad showed clearly his commitment to not offer anything freely for Israel and US. The fights in Lebanon between Lebanese Forces and the Left wing erupted and the Lebanese army was split once again. The Lebanese Forces were not able to hold the South from Amal, now lead by Nabih Birre, and Hezbollah guerillas and withdrew their forces to East Beirut. The Sunnites was a major factor within the left wing since the be-ginning of war, yet through the increasing capitalistic ideology, especially with the in-fluence of Saudi Arabia, they were excluded from alliances with the far left.
Syrian-Iranian interests were colliding in the events of Amal and Hezbollah battles. The increasing power of Hezbollah reduced the influence of Amal militarily due to the eco-nomical and armed advantage received from Iran (Salibi, K 1988:214). Amal was sup-ported by Syria to end PLO’s influence in the region. Syria returned to Lebanese soil in February 1987 after being absent for more than 4 years. Prime Minister Rachid Karameh resigned from his position due to the occupation and the inefficiency of gov-ernmental policy. He was later on murdered and Samir Geagea was accused for it (Hirst, D 2010:129).
By the year 1988, after thirteen years of war in Lebanon, more than one hundred thou-sands citizens were killed. President El Gemayel’s term was about to end and a new President was to be elected (Norton, R 1991:458). Yet the presidency election was not a Lebanese decision rather of regional and international interests, especially Syrian, Israe-li, American and Iranian. After multiple negotiations and refusal of candidates, especial-ly between Syrian and American delegates in Damascus, a provisional government was announced with Lebanese Army General, Michel Aoun, as Prime Minister, a direct blow towards the Sunnites who are entitled to that spot according to the National Pact in 1948 (Harris, W 1997:203). This provisional government was implemented to elect a new president in the nearest future, yet General Aoun did everything except of that (Delafon, G 1989:254). He acknowledged the importance of abolishing the roles of the militias; the government and the army are to be the main role takers within the state. Michel Aoun recognized the sovereignty allegeable for Lebanon and announced war against Syria to withdraw their troops, with the help of Iraq, Syria’s traditional rival. The Arab summit introduced a tripartite committee including Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Algeria who prioritized demanding Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s President, to stop sup-porting Syria’s enemies and instead find cease-fire agreements suitable for all parts (Harris, W 1997:208-209).

Table of Contents
1 Introduction
3 Theoretical Framework
3.1 Income Level
3.2 Income Distribution
3.3 Education
3.4 The effect of Education level on Income Distribution in EU
4 Method & Data
4.1 Theil Index
4.2 Measuring the hypothesis
4.3 Concluding the section
6 Results & Discussion
7 Conclusion
List of references
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT