Elie Aoun: Letter To The United Nations On Lebanon’s Maritime Dispute With Israel/إيلي عون: رسالة إلى الأمم المتحدة تتعلق بنزاع لبنان وإسرائيل على الحدود البحرية بينهما
Letter To The United Nations On Lebanon’s Maritime Dispute With Israel Elie Aoun/April 30/2021 إيلي عون: رسالة إلى الأمم المتحدة تتعلق بنزاع لبنان وإسرائيل على الحدود البحرية بينهما
On April 12, 2021, Lebanon’s Prime Minister, the defence minister, and the public works minister signed a decree that would add around 1,400 square km (540 square miles) in a potentially gas-rich area of the eastern Mediterranean claimed by Lebanon in its maritime dispute with Israel.
The following day, Lebanon’s President claimed that the decree must be approved by the full cabinet (and not just the three mentioned individuals) “due to its importance and the consequences.”
Although there is an acknowledgment for the decree’s “importance and the consequences,” and presuming that the President’s claim is true that the decree must be signed by the full cabinet, neither the President nor the Prime Minister made any genuine effort to hold a full cabinet meeting on this issue.
The present Lebanese political class is absent in practice – and, therefore, Lebanon cannot make a claim on Lebanon’s behalf. If a viable Lebanese government did exist, it would have taken meaningful measures to defend Lebanese claims. In the absence of a truly representative government of the Lebanese people to make a proper presentation of Lebanon’s rightful claims, any failure by that political class cannot be attributed to the will of the Lebanese.
Furthermore, Lebanese governmental absence from submitting to the U.N. a response regarding Israel’s claims should not be taken as indicative of the correctness of the Israeli claims. The United Nations should not rule in favor of a party if there is no meaningful opportunity to be heard for the opposing party.
Our Legitimacy to Speak on Lebanon’s Behalf
The absence of a governmental defence in a matter of extreme importance is a confirmation that the country has been hijacked by those who are serving a non-Lebanese agenda – necessitating the need for individual Lebanese to speak the Lebanese voice.
That voice must be heard by the United Nations if such an institution truly desires to attain justice regarding the Lebanese-Israeli maritime dispute or any other pertinent issue. Being Lebanese nationals, we have a great concern regarding what is taking place in our homeland – especially in terms of a breakdown in national values and the repeated intentional infliction of harm on social, economic, political, security, and environmental levels.
The politicians’ failure to adequately protect Lebanese maritime areas is one of many indications to the intentional abandonment of national ideals and resources in pursuit (by the Lebanese political class) of personal and foreign aspirations conflicting with the nation’s sovereignty.
This basic fact and others, provide a justification to address the United Nations directly since it is the party with influence to achieve a delineation of maritime boundary between Lebanon and Israel.
It is a justifiable right for any national to take whatever measures they deem appropriate for the defence of their nation, land, and people. Furthermore, it is evident that a situation (such as a potential loss of maritime areas to Israel due to Lebanese governmental mismanagement) may cause material and moral damage to our nation and its people.
The position that is being invoked herein aims at preventing unjustified confiscation of Lebanese resources (which are the property of all Lebanese), to prevent further harm from taking place, to compensate for any harm that has been inflicted, and to annul all the decisions and measures that abandon Lebanese maritime property to Israel (in the south of Lebanon) and to Syria (in the north of Lebanon). The Lebanese nationals are the legal owners of the maritime properties and the defenders of Lebanese sovereignty. It is our right to protect that ownership, participate in any decision related to it, and ward off any harm that might be caused to it.
Principles of Resolving Boundary Disputes
Negotiations between Israel and Lebanon on the disputed areas led to no results due to the fact that Lebanon faces a dual occupation – the first is by Hizballah which is seeking to implement a foreign Iranian agenda against the will of most Lebanese; the second is by a corrupt political class (both Christian and Muslim) with self-serving objectives and without any consideration to the well-being of the Lebanese population.
Therefore, a viable Lebanese government does not exit to represent Lebanese claims vis-a-vis Israel. Whenever there is a reliable leadership, resolving any dispute would be a simple procedure. To resolve disputed sovereignty over land, the relevant rules are based on human activity (who occupies the land and how it is administered).
To resolve issues of overlapping maritime claims between adjacent or opposite states, the relevant rules are those on the delimitation of maritime boundaries – such as Articles 14 and 15 of the “UN Convention on the Law of the Sea” and Article 6 of the “Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.”
As a general procedure, it is best to resolve the outstanding land sovereignty issue at first, followed by resolving the maritime boundaries at a second stage. By so doing one avoids the need for hypothetical arguments over the course of the maritime boundary.
Methods of Settling the Border Disputes with Israel
Since the process of resolving a border dispute is a straightforward one, and since the establishment of a complete and accurate boundary is not being implemented for obvious reasons, the possible outcomes may be one of the following options:
For the United Nations not to make any determination on the matter regardless of what documentation is submitted by Israel and to prohibit Israel from having any authority over the disputed areas – simply because Lebanon is not properly represented to make its case.
In the event that Israel decides to extract crude oil and/or natural gas, with or without the United Nations’ permission, from the disputed maritime area (or from any adjacent area to draw the commodities from the disputed area), then Lebanon shall be entitled to equal apportionment or half of the generated revenues.
The disputed area can be deemed as a “joint area” ruled by a joint Lebanese-Israeli non-governmental board entrusted to adequately invest the funds into meaningful national projects in each of the respective countries. This scenario may be implemented until a proper Lebanese leadership is in place to take adequate measures in restoring what is rightfully Lebanon’s. The same concepts are applicable to the contested maritime areas (in northern Lebanon) with Syria.
Conclusion
The Lebanese people are entitled to whatever resources lie on the Lebanese side of the maritime lines – regardless of how these resources are extracted or by whom. Any unilateral action by Israel or Syria, any UN decision favoring Israel or Syria without proper Lebanese representation, and any agreement between Israel or Syria and the treacherous Lebanese politicians are all void or voidable.
NOTE: Anyone can use this letter in their own name, or copy any information herein and send it to the UN Security Council or to whomever they choose.
