Analysis of the FPM-LF Declaration — Part 1
Elie Aoun
May 09/15
The purpose of my articles is not to insult, but to correct.
My loyalty is to The Truth, which is the path to true freedom. The reason we, as a country or as individuals, have not achieved what we deserve or are entitled to achieve is mainly because we had been deceived into believing and pursuing concepts which are not true. We have no enemy, except ignorance.
Following are my concerns on the FPM-LF Joint Declaration, intended not simply to criticize but to build for what is better. I have reservations on the context of the Declaration and its content.
Concern #1: The absence of Christianity
The Declaration between two Christian political parties failed to provide any plan, or promise any tangible plan, aimed at strengthening the Christian community or supporting its elements to achieve a better status. The word “Christian” is not even mentioned.
All that the Declaration refers to, and all the March 14 “eagles” and some independents talk about — dialogue, coexistence, authority of the state, United Nations, etc. — did not protect us in the past, nor will do so in the future. No one refrained from persecuting, killing, or displacing Christians simply because those Christians believed in dialogue and coexistence. No Middle Eastern Christian was protected when he relied on the authority of the state where he lives, the United Nations, or any international institution.
Concern #2: The misguided reliance on “international legitimacy”
The Declaration calls for “Respect for all the resolutions of ‘international legitimacy’ and commitment to conventions of the United Nations and the League of Arab States.”
We can find the conventions of the United Nations and Arab League. However, personally, I do not know what are “all the resolutions of international legitimacy” which are being respected. No list of these resolutions is provided, and no list will be provided even if we ask for it.
To believe in an international legitimacy is to believe in a right of an entity outside the Lebanese territory to rule or to govern the Lebanese or their affairs — which is contrary to the concept of true sovereignty and independence.
Moreover, there is another important concept to recognize when we discuss anything that is “international” — understanding the difference between “unalienable rights” and “privileges.”
“Unalienable Rights” are God-given rights, sometimes called Natural Rights. Man has no power to alienate — to dispose of, or surrender those rights. The United States Bill of Rights is an example of these unalienable rights.
The nations established with bill of rights and common law have had freedom, liberty and opportunity for all citizens. In these nations, the people have sovereign unalienable God-given rights, and the government is responsible for protecting those rights. The rights of personal freedom, individual liberty, and private property are granted by an authority higher than man; thus, this authority cannot be overruled by men.
On the other hand, documents issued by the United Nations view individual rights as a “privilege” granted by government — which means that these rights can be taken away.
Any “respect” given to any international or globalist entity, is a respect given to an enslavement system that eventually can and will take away whatever rights we have.
The disrespect given by the U.N. Special Tribunal for Lebanon in questioning Lebanese politicians and media personnel is only a small example — a result of Lebanese Cabinets that sold out the country to the globalists and a misinformed Lebanese public that views the United Nations and its entities in a positive light and refuses to recognize the infringement on national sovereignty and dignity by this and other international institutions.
As a Lebanese citizen, I do not respect the “international legitimacy,” the United Nations, or the Arab League — none of which has done anything to protect Middle Eastern Christians when needed.
I advocate self-reliance and the enactment of rights similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights and laws based on common law which historically have been proven to work and lead to a prosperous nation and a protected citizenry. There is no logic in pursuing anything else that has resulted in failure.
Part 2 — Analysis of FPM-LF Declaration
Elie Aoun
May 12/15
Concern #3: Misguided Political Thinking
The FPM-LF Declaration made reference to “national interest,” a “strong” president, and “empowering governmental institutions.”
In a recent interview with Voice of Lebanon radio station, Lebanese Kataeb leader Amine Gemayel also called on everyone to empower public institutions.
Firstly, who decides what is in the “national interest”? What could be in the national interest for one person, may not be for another. The proof lies in past military and political confrontations with each side claiming its views and actions are in the national interest.
Fascism says that government should do “whatever is necessary” to serve its “interests” — which allows lawmakers and military personnel to intervene anywhere and control anything. No exceptions. No limits.
Secondly, the false prevailing viewpoint today is that the government is our friend, our protector, and the solution to all our problems; all we have to do is simply empower it, and all will be well.
This political perspective, held by all Lebanese political parties, is contrary to what is actually true. In reality, governments are fundamentally predators. The larger and stronger they become, the more they will devour.
What is the alternative?
Instead of empowering the central government, we should empower the individual citizen and local or regional communities. Political power should be kept widely dispersed and limited.
Instead of speaking of “national interest” –which means different things to different people — we should speak in terms of defined national principles.
There are no better principles to establish a civilized nation than the principles of common law. History proves it. The present status of common law countries versus non-common law countries prove it. We cannot deny the evidence.
If Middle Eastern Christians lived in nations which had a Bill of Rights, their properties, lives, and liberties would have been protected. They would have the right to bear arms and organize local regional groups for their self-defense. In case their government fails to protect them, they would have arms and organized local groups to defend themselves. This is how Christians and all minorities can be protected — and not by theoretical talk about dialogue, coexistence, and full reliance on government or international entities.
In addition, a Bill of Rights and a common law environment does not breed terrorists.
All the declarations, dialogues, and political statements — of whatever source they may be — are of no value if the drafters fail to understand, or ignore, the connection between common law, peace, and prosperity.
Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were strong, had an empowered government, and acted in what they considered to be the national interest. We all know what was the outcome, in the absence of God-given rights that governments cannot take away.
Any government official should not be measured by strength alone, but by his dedication to the principles outlined herein. The closer an official is to a bill of rights and common law principles, the better he is for the country. The further he is from these principles, the more irrelevant he becomes in making any constructive contribution to the long-term well-being of the nation.
It is better to empower the individual than to sacrifice him for the “interest” of sect or state. It is better to live for a cause or a country than to die for it. It is better for a government to create the conditions for people to lead happy lives than the conditions of chaos and misery.
