Sunday, September 6, 2015

Will Expats Boycott the Lebanese Government?

Over the past few weeks, scenes broadcast from Lebanon have reached the far corners of the globe. Lebanese expats from Australia to Argentina have seen the waste management calamity in Lebanon and protesters demanding accountability while the government offers no response or solution—only tightening security measures. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the expats are indeed concerned if not alarmed by the situation. So much so, that many of them launched their own protests in London, Paris, New York, Boston, Washington, and other global cities expressing their frustration at the government’s mishandling of the crisis. Why are the Expats so incensed? Who are they supporting? And what are they beginning to call for?

To begin with, one has to keep in mind that the Lebanese expats in themselves are not uniform. They represent different regions and backgrounds in Lebanon, diverse points of view, varying levels of education, and disparate attachments to the homeland. And yet, they do indelibly share one common trait; and that is their exile from their homeland. Generally, their departure was linked to opportunity, which implicitly was absent in Lebanon, and had to be sought elsewhere. For opportunity to be lacking within the context of Lebanon, essentially means that in all likelihood the expat was not part of the patron political system that would have offered a slice of the country’s spoils. Meaning, most expats never received benefits from the incumbent system. Instead not unlike many citizens in Lebanon, expats have had to pay a heavy price, leaving behind their lives, homes, friends, and loved ones.

But why would expats even care; after all, the crisis may be thousands of kilometers away and does not affect them in their daily lives? They are exasperated for two reasons. First, they know that the political system and elite responsible for the current crisis is the very same one behind their own exile. In fact, most of the people in power now have been there since the 1980’s, with minor exceptions. Second, expats have come to the sad realization that the slow dismemberment of the Lebanese state by this ruling elite now poses an existential threat to their own dreams of ever returning to a viable homeland. It is one thing for some public official to get a policy or another wrong and of little consequence. It is of an entirely different dimension altogether to see the slow but sure crumbling of a country to which one hopes to return one day by an intransigent system controlled by an elite few.

And so the question of who expats support is one not difficult to answer. They are naturally against the incumbent political class; and they are for those who are calling for change and for solutions to real problems. To Lebanese expats who live in free societies with basic citizen rights, it has become incomprehensible to see fellow countrymen’s rights being abused back in the homeland—be it the right to live in a clean and healthy environment, the right to hold public officials accountable, the right to ask for government transparency, or the right to vote. These are basic demands that expats have grown accustomed to in North and South America, Europe, Australia—even parts of Asia and Africa. To see them denied back home now, means they will continue being denied to expats upon their eventual return; and this is unacceptable.

So what are the expats beginning to call for? They are calling for the return of basic rights to all Lebanese citizens, which would provide for a responsive and accountable government, meeting the people’s needs. This means having rights that provide for a healthy, prosperous, and happy life, with opportunities, social justice and security. Expats believe anything less than that, would mean perpetuating the existing corrupt system and cause more national pain, which would destroy their dream of returning one day. Perhaps this explains why some Lebanese expats are beginning to call for a boycott of the Lebanese government, through a halt of investments and repatriation of funds (which is backbone of the national economy); while others are threatening that if the government does not hold accountable the ministers of environment and interior for the mishandling of the crisis and rather remains intransigent; they are even ready to relinquish their Lebanese citizenship altogether. In the current sad state of the nation, expats really would have little to lose. To Lebanon, however, whose livelihood depends so much on expat remittances, the cost may prove to be immeasurable.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Taking Advantage of Lebanon's Waste before it goes to Waste

Early in 2014, Lebanon faced a garbage crisis due to community complaints of an overfilled dump in the area of Naameh, which services the nation's capital, Beirut. The crisis was averted after an agreement was reached between the protesters and the incoming Prime Minister, Tammam Salam who confirmed that as soon as he is in power (he was sworn in that February), he will “establish an emergency committee to fix the situation as soon as possible.” Fast forward 18 months, the same Prime Minister and cabinet, having never fulfilled their promise to solve the issue, are now scampering to manage an even larger garbage crisis. Not only has Naameh been shut down again, but other regions in the country have revolted and refused to become new destinations for Beirut's garbage. While the capital's streets as well as those of neighboring regions have been contaminated with massive pile-ups of garbage, the Lebanese civil society has begun piling up it's own pressure, launching the "You Stink" campaign, in protest of the government's mishandling of the crisis. They recently began transferring some of the garbage piles to the front porches of buildings where cabinet ministers live. Several police face-offs have resulted.

The international community for its part has also registered concern. The British ambassador declared that had his country faced such a garbage crisis, the government would very likely have fallen. Meanwhile, it was being reported that his German counterpart offered Lebanon to pick up it's garbage and send it to Europe for the cost of $70 - $100 per ton of garbage, as compared to the staggering $147 per ton it was costing Lebanon under its current contracts. Under increasing pressure from all sides, the government urgently issued RFPs for new garbage collection contracts (Leaving one wondering what they had been doing for the past 18 months). But while bidders await adjudication, environmental groups and concerned citizens have begun voicing complaints and concerns that the measures being taken by the government are merely diversionary tactics, and will not get to the root of the problem.

The first complaint is that in Lebanon, the issue is now larger than just garbage; and includes the entire cycle of what happens to waste. Experts point to the fact that in developed nations only 5% of the total waste now goes to the dumps as garbage. The rest is all recycled or made into compost to be used in agriculture or even to produce energy. By simply contracting new garbage collection agencies and keeping all the old methods intact, not only would it not solve the dumps running at overcapacity, it would not optimize waste management nor will it resolve several reported environmental issues in the areas around the dumps.

The second complaint is that of existing over-capacity dumps being left in their current state with little if any environmental oversight or care--be it with respect to the radioactivity they emit, the temperature rises they cause, or the black liquid seepage that could end up in the nation's water supply. Protestors are asking whether any of these new potential contractors are equipped to handle this crucial element?

The third concern and corollary to the previous one has to do with the modern mining of trash that many nations have delved into, realizing the wealth of material that could exist in old dumps. Everything from Steel to wood to plastic can be mined, separated, and monetized. The idea here is to assure old dumping ground and the communities around them, that they will be mined, cleaned, and reduced in both toxicity as well as volume.

The fourth complaint is that the paradigm being used currently as well as those being put out for contracting are archaic. Whereas old methods included separation of materials at the source (different bins for different garbage type), modern equipment makes it easy to separate material in real time, avoiding the initial cost of separation or the need for multiple collection cycles and trucks. Instead, new technology allows the collection of garbage and its separation into recyclable material, compost, and trash. It's all done on the go. Experts in Germany say that in the long term, this is the most efficient and least expensive method. They recommend that nations who are about to deploy national waste management systems look into these as opposed to expired methods and paradigms.

The fifth concern is that of economic development. Lebanese jobs could be created from collection to processing, mining, and recycling. In talking with one trusted expert in Germany, he summarized it succinctly in one phrase: The environment is good for business. So before Lebanon decides to ship off these jobs Asia, Germany, or anywhere else, protestors are insisting that the government take a look closer to home for solutions that can involve and help the Lebanese themselves.

The last but certainly not least of complaints is that of lack of decentralization. Naturally, all Lebanese regions produce garbage and most have expressed a willingness to deal with their own waste. The primary problem is Beirut's trash, which rightfully no one wants to contaminate their backyard with. So the question is how to involve the disparate Lebanese regions so that they can share in the cost but also in the benefits that proper waste management offers.

In voicing the above complaints, protestors are presenting positive ideas that can create more harmony between the capital, Beirut and the regions, whereby the national waste management becomes fair for all, decentralized, economically viable, and above all environmentally sustainable. The German offer to collect Lebanon's garbage while appreciated should raise a question mark in the mind of Lebanese policy makers. How come one of the world's richest and advanced nations can offer to collect Lebanese garbage at HALF the cost that we have been paying all these past years, including shipping it to Europe? And what is the current government going to do IMMEDIATELY to assure that the paradigm and technology, which will be contracted for a comprehensive waste management solution will in the short, medium, and long term extract every possible efficiency yielding a clean, environmental, and rewarding process for all Lebanese regions? Protestors are awaiting the government's reply. If it comes back negatively, then in all likelihood many of these protestors will revert to asking the government to take the British ambassador's advice.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

On the Merits of Criticizing the Lebanese Government and Demanding its Resignation

There are some in Lebanon who claim that criticizing the government implicitly weakens the state without helping much. Given the current situation in the country and the region, the government cannot do much better, they claim. It is an interesting argument, and one whose detractors would quickly respond to by claiming that in fact no government could do much worse, pointing to protracted crises in water, electricity, sewage, public education, the economy, and national security. How could any self-respecting government stay in place if it cannot deal with any of these issues?

The fundamental question that begs itself, however, is: Does criticizing the government help or hurt the state? The answer indelibly must begin by highlighting a key difference: A state is not defined by a single government, but rather all its governments and institutions past, present, and future. Therefore, having a strong state is one thing, while assessing the government and justifying a mediocre performance in the name of safeguarding the state is another. One could very well argue, for instance, that only through constant government performance monitoring and accountability can any nation hope to build a stronger state. Whereas, protecting inefficient governments from any form of criticism is the surest way to mediocrity and a debilitation of the state. So perhaps the real question here is this: Is one not implicitly calling for a stronger state when asking for the changing of the guard of an underperforming government?

Another question to ask here: Who stands to benefit from having no political criticism in the name of "safeguarding the state" and why? History has shown that typically, dictatorships and autocracies use the "weakening of the state" argument to fend off critics, imprison, or banish them. For such systems, criticism of any form is seen as a threat to the existence of the state, simply because such systems assume that the government and the state are amalgamated into one big blob. And since these systems have no use for political opposition, the "weakening of the state" argument gets used often to justify clamping down on any form of dissent. Interestingly, while no dissent historically gave an impression of monolithic power, it has proven to be quite hollow. The Soviet regime, Latin American juntas, and Arab dictators all tried to get away with it and failed.

More plural societies who allow for criticism tend to do better with social experiments continuously yielding new ideas and energy through the constant changing of the guard. In time, this heterogeneous approach tends to create a stronger core and a stronger state. Unfortunately, in the case of Lebanon, which is also a relatively plural society, considering the tragic state of national affairs, one needs to ask whether it is possible not to criticize the government and demand its resignation at a time when bad governance can be seen, heard, touched, and even smelled daily everywhere in the country. For instance, how can one not be critical when for the past 15 years electricity has been promised but not delivered. How about water shortage in some cities, while it floods other regions? What about the public teacher salaries issue which resulted in strikes and also remains unresolved; and the garbage catastrophe befallen the nation, with no collection for months. And last but certainly not least, what about the ill-equipped Lebanese security services being asked to face a very difficult regional security situation? What gives any government the right to expect not to be criticized for its failure to resolve any of these issues? What gives it the right to remain in office?

These questions were alluded to somewhat by the outgoing British ambassador to Lebanon, Tom Fletcher, declaring that his government would likely have fallen if it had simply faced the predicament of the ongoing Lebanese garbage crisis (let alone all the others). His statement is historically correct and many a British government has been laid to rest for much less an infringement. Indeed, some were even dispensed with at their zenith. The case of Winston Churchill being thrown out of office weeks after winning World War II (while the post-war Potsdam conference was still in session!) is a classic example. The British public thought that their future lay elsewhere and sent him home. To argue that all this change of government was intended to weaken the British state is foolhardy. In fact, the entire British empire, from China to the Americas, was built on the ashes of expired governments.

Lebanon's history and future will never rest on one government, but on an institutional revolving door. This government as others will have to accept criticism and respond to it. As it has shown itself unable to, then as others before it, it will have to leave by the revolving door, paving the way for another to come in- one better equipped to provide serious answers to the nation. The net result will not be a weaker but a much stronger Lebanese state.