America's Crisis and Lebanon's Reality

In the course of the dispute between Republicans and Democrats over whether to raise the debt ceiling and how to reach an agreement before time ran out, President Obama stated, “What’s clear now is that any solution to avoid default must be bipartisan. It must have the support of both parties that were sent here to represent the American people – not just one faction.” He added, “The debt ceiling does not determine how much more money we can spend, it simply authorizes us to pay the bills we already have racked up. It gives the United States of America the ability to keep its word.” He went on to talk about party loyalty and making the national interest a priority over the interests of the party. “The time for putting party first is over. The time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.” I’m not an experienced economist. I’m not even familiar with the bare minimum when it comes to the science of economics, but approaching this speech and its basic content from a political angle is a necessary and important matter.

America is the “biggest” and “strongest” country in the world. America is a country that, I think, has led and gained in importance in recent times. Specifically after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they became the leader of the world, the instigators of events, the decision makers and the creators of policies and trends. America wanted to disseminate its methods, policies and character throughout the world. After a series of setbacks, failures and falls abroad that have cost them politically, morally and financially, and have led to a deep domestic crisis, placing them at the brink of financial collapse), they are now in a situation that is not normal. There will not be normal repercussions for the global economy, politics, equilibrium or international finances.

What preoccupies me here, along with beneficial tidbits I remember from history and experience, is extracting lessons that teach us how to avoid this predicament. How can we avoid approaching the edge of collapse, and how can we deal with situations of this type without stubbornness, delusion or gloating?

The first decade of this century has already proved that the prescriptions of international organizations for developing countries and weak economies are not effective. They were hurried and improvised, and put forth from America’s perspective, America’s institutions and financial companies, as well as multinational corporations and their interests. And now is America itself facing the same crisis.

I now address the issue from the Lebanese perspective, with regard to the importance of Obama’s speech.

Lebanon is a country burdened with debt, but it has always been faithful to its political and financial commitments. It is never a day late in paying its debts. It faced troubles and difficulties, but it found the means and ways to fulfill its obligations. Despite a critical and difficult financial situation, and despite the negative and inflexible political position of a number of countries toward Lebanon, everyone resolved that this small country would not miss a day of repayment and would not be late to meet its debts or commitments. Many tried to pressure us, and many threatened to hurt our economy and weaken us.

Now the Americans are overwhelmed with debt, threatened with downfall, living with a serious financial crisis, and have seemingly no exit from it all. But in his speech Obama put his finger on the truth: Moving on is not something you can do alone.

An important second point: All countries are facing crises, debt and shocks to their economies. But officials and experts find solutions. The scene today in America is like the scene in Lebanon. Sharp division between the two parties has meant warnings from Obama and a large number of researchers and economic experts about the dangers of the situation and the need to reach an agreement before time runs out. If not, America will face the consequence of political, moral and financial bankruptcy because they will appear unable to meet their obligations and pay their dues. The political and financial arena will be shaken, effect the economy, and cripple the work of government. Here the president emerged to say, “The decision to solve the crisis does not come from the ruling party or from one party. The decision is a national decision. It must be bipartisan, from both the ruling party and the party in opposition.”* The question is not a question of majority rule, even if elected by the people. The question is a question of a large, national decision: Save the country and the people, or to let them both drown. This does not mean one side without the other. It is not possible to deal with schemes and chicanery or by settling political, electoral, partisan or personal scores. It is the same situation that Lebanon experiences. What I want to say here to the Lebanese people, all Lebanese, is that your situation is not unique; this is the situation that even America finds itself in. The Lebanese debt is a national issue and escape from it is a national issue. Oil wealth is a national issue, its investment, policies and management. Occupation and its opposition. Resistance and weapons. The international tribunal and reform. The fight against corruption. Religious and sectarian opposition and preventing fragmentation. These are all national decisions that stem from national policies that are not possible for individuals to solve alone, even if they have a popular or parliamentary majority. If we know the feelings, considerations and balance of our country, do we continue the policy of schemes, chicanery and competition, or do we move towards understanding? History moves, events change and vary, men change and views change. So it is not possible for anyone in any position to remain static and frozen with no meaning and no result. It is an invitation for dialogue and agreement before time runs out in Lebanon as well.

The third important point in the same vein is Obama’s statement that “the time for putting the party first is over.” This is an advanced mode of thought. Yes, between the interests of the party or the interests of the people, the fate of the country and its security and its stability, the focus should be on the second option. What it also confirms is that it is not enough to rely on a majority that a party gains in elections to make decisions. To make a meaningful, strategic decision it is not enough to rely only on the victory of the party in elections. The matter goes further than this. I have in mind here a senior leader from the east, a leader of a small party in comparison to Obama, the martyr Kamal Jumblatt, who addressed his party saying, “ “If you are asked to choose between your conscience and your Party, you should leave your Party and follow your conscience.” Obama reiterates this view today. Jumblatt had knowledge, culture and deep insight, along with the most experience of Lebanon and its surroundings. In the face of crises, he acted freely. How nice it would be if Obama and others were to succeed in this practice, and how urgently we need this today in Lebanon.