Malaysia's Industrialization from 1950

Just another WordPress site

Taif Agreement Lebanon Civil War

8. After consultation with the Prime Minister, give the cabinet formation decree. D. The problem of evacuees in Lebanon must be fundamentally resolved and the right of every Lebanese displaced since 1975 to return to the place from which they were deported is recognized. Legislation is passed to guarantee this right and to ensure reconstruction funds. Considering that the lebanese state`s objective is to spread its authority over all Lebanese territories by its own forces, mainly represented by the internal security forces, and given the fraternal relations that bind Syria to the authority of the Lebanese state within a specified period of two years at most, starting with the ratification of the Charter of the National Agreement, the election of the President of the Republic, the education of the cabinet of the national agreement and the adoption of political reforms. At the end of this period, the two governments – the Syrian government and the Lebanese government of the National Agreement – decided to redistribute Syrian forces to Al-Biq`a from Dahr al-Baydar to the Hammana-al-Mudayrij-`Ayn`Ayn Darah line and, if necessary, on other points that must be defined by a common Lebanese and Syrian military committee. The two governments also reach an agreement to determine the strength and duration of the presence of the Syrian armed forces in the aforementioned area and to establish the relations of these forces with the Lebanese authorities, when the armed forces are present. The Arab Tripartite Committee is ready to help both states develop this agreement if they wish. Beyond the text, Taif was largely marked by the way it was implemented after 1990, and the way Lebanon was governed both by its new leaders and by Syria, which exercised control – or guardianship – over the country. From the outset, many observers and critics of Taif have found that the government inadequacies described in the agreement were intentional for reasons of Syrian power. Taif`s international guarantors had unanimously agreed that Syria could impose a de facto protectorate on Lebanon and its political life.

Syria has fully exploited the leeway it has been given and has played a permanent and subtle balance between Christians and Muslims in general, between Maronites, Sunnis and Shiites in particular, and particularly between Sunnis and Shiites, which has fuelled many of the tensions that exist today. Taif Accord attempted to exercise the sovereignty of the Lebanese state on its internationally recognized territory and therefore had the provisions for the withdrawal of troops. At the time of the signing of the agreement, Syria has about 40,000 troops in Lebanon, which control about 65% of the country. Israel had a force of 1,500-3,000 in southern Lebanon in the so-called security zone. Israel had also relocated about 200,000 of its 2.7 million inhabitants to the controlled area. [fn] Sandra M. Saseen, “The Taif Accord and Lebanon`s Struggle to Regain Its Sovereignty,” American University Journal of International Law and Policy 6, No. 1(1990): 57, footnotes 2, 3. [/efn_note] Syria had accepted the principle of a possible withdrawal of troops from all Lebanese territory, but no withdrawal took place in 1989. Similarly, Israel continued its occupation. By reforming the Lebanese political system, the agreement restored the balance of power between the sects. The agreement is based on three guiding principles: the creation of a new balance between the unity of Lebanon and its political system and the diversity of the country`s political and social structure; the transfer of executive power from the Presidency of the Republic to the Council of Ministers as a collective body; and the principle of parity between Muslims and Christians in parliament, within the cabinet and at the senior levels of the civil service, regardless of future demographic developments.13 The agreement also called for the creation of a sectarian Senate guaranteeing the right of review of religious groups by granting them, after the de-confessionalisation of Parliament, the supervision of important national affairs and affairs relating to the pact; The introduction of administrative decentralisation; Overhauling the civil registry system; and called for the creation of a national committee to abolish the policy

Posted in Uncategorized.

Add a comment


Comments are closed.