Cedarwatch

Human Rights for Lebanon
www.cedar-watch.com
sstanto1@bigpond.net.au

  

DR SAMIR GEAGEA - TEN YEARS ON

LEST WE FORGET

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Tonight we are assembled to mark the tenth anniversary of the arrest, conviction and detention of Dr Samir Geagea.

His "crimes", in terms of what was charged and in terms of convictions obtained, stand in stark contrast to the popular appeal that he holds with all manner of people throughout Lebanon and the diaspora throughout the world.

Dr Samir Geagea's detention, now ten years on, has at all times been a period of intrepid incarceration, where his integrity and his insistence as to his innocence have never sapped his unfailing spirit to stand aloof from the rabble that constitutes the Lebanese Government, and with whom he will never associate, or come into any political compact.

Dr Geagea's tribute is separately published and available on Cedarwatch's website. 

It is within the purpose here tonight to extol the man that we know, to laud him, in terms of his achievements - they are many and well-renowned, for which we are grateful.

For my part, it is my singular privilege and honour to have acted as his human rights observer and legal representative, and for people associated with him who have been persecuted as refugees and who have been granted asylum throughout the world.

Cedarwatch was formed as a direct reflex in response to the incarceration and illegal and unlawful detention, and the gross miscarriage of justice sustained by Dr Geagea throughout his trials.

Geagea's Trials

It would not be apposite, nor the proper purpose of tonight's response in honour of Dr Geagea to trawl over the minutiae of his trials, other than to say that they are and were scandalous episodes of the grossest abuse as a miscarriage of justice ever witnessed by myself as a lawyer, practising in excess of 20 years at the New South Wales Bar.

In a recent decision, presided over by the then President of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, her Honour Justice Matthews of the Federal Court of Australia, in setting aside a refusal to grant refugee status to Mr Attef Al-Habr, in Matter No. 98/159, commented on the verdict and judgment of the Lebanese Judicial Council in convicting Mr Al-Habr and Dr Geagea of the murder of the late Danny Chamoun and his family as follows:

"84.   No Australian Court would ever have convicted the applicant on the basis of the evidence which appears, from the verdict, to have been put before the Lebanese Court.

 

88.    ...  In these circumstances, my findings can only be based on an assessment as to the integrity of the applicant's trial and the strength of the evidence against him.  In this regard, as will be clear from my earlier observations, I have number of misgivings.  The most serious of these arises from the unexplained delays, both in the laying of charges and the obtaining of relevant statements.  As to the laying of charges, a great deal happened in Lebanon between October 1990 and April 1994.  By the time the charges were laid against Dr Geagea and his co-defendants, 3½ years after the Chamoun killings, the Syrian-backed Government had every motivation to undermine the credibility of both Dr Geagea and of the LF.  I simply do not know whether the charges against the applicant and his co-defendants were the result of a genuine investigation or whether they were politically motivated.  But given the fact that they were not laid until three and a half years after the event, there is a very real possibility of the latter. 

 

90.   ...  In general the Court seemed to be much more accepting of propositions which favoured the prosecution than those which assisted the defence.  Indeed some of its findings were, on their face, quite surprising.  ...  Nevertheless, the same Court's refusal to accept Obeid's or Chahine's well-documented alibi defence in the church bombing trial indicates a disturbing failure to countenance the possibility that the prosecution case might be based on compromise material." 

 

 

In that regard, one must express the serious misgiving that if a senior and respected judge of the Federal Court of Australia was moved to so hold and find, in the case of Mr Attef Al-Habr, and to depart from the solemnity of the verdict and judgment of the Lebanese Judicial Council, then equally one would quite confidently express serious doubt that the verdicts of Dr Geagea were equally open and in fact were open to question on the basis of what the learned judge found concerning Mr Al-Habr.  After all, was he not a co-accused of Dr Geagea in the case of Danny Chamoun and did she also not express doubt on the rejection of the alibi evidence of Messrs Obeid and Chahine in the decision also under review, concerning the Church bombing at Our Lady of Salvation. 

Geagea's legacy will be the eternal torment, disdain and disgrace of the Lebanese Judiciary, the Prosecution and the Police, and all those responsible who have corruptly, disgracefully and illegally brought all the accused purportedly to justice and unlawfully imprisoned and continue to detain them, in breach of the law, and denial of due and fair process. 

To Dr Geagea's credit, he has at all times acted on the basis that the Lebanese must redeem their sorrow, not by perpetuating it but directing their sadness into altruistic thinking and actions.  His Lebanon is, for him, a beacon of hope and a role model for the people of all nations that are culturally advanced but industrially undeveloped and, in particular, within the region of the Middle East.

His aspiration is for a Lebanon to be governed democratically, cohesively, where all sects and manner of people will have due process and a full and free franchise to participate in an open and a popularly elected government. 

We, tonight, are to reflect on Geagea the man, and more importantly, Geagea the leader, the absent leader from Lebanon who, whilst incarcerated, remains the great hope of all of those oppressed, dejected and equally those who live in despair and desolation, spiritually, emotionally and economically, as a result of the imposition of the Syrian regime. 

 

 

Geagea, as Leader 

It is the quality of leadership that Geagea exhibits, and has exhibited whilst within the  community and since his incarceration, that is the theme of tonight's lecture.  

Geagea is the epitome of what leadership is required within Lebanon today.  We could not, as a community, tolerate a unity imposed by a totalitarian regime - such a regime that exists presently in Lebanon, as imposed by Syria is the very antithesis of what any democratic society should endure. 

With all our cultural, social and philosophical diversity, and with the range of complex issues dividing us, can we find that unity of spirit which is so essential for a vital and healthy society?  

In the search for that spirit to effectively ensure our society remains intact and is set free from the trammels of tyranny, Geagea is indeed a source of hope. 

When one speaks of Lebanon one asks: What kind of leadership does it need to create a citizenry united in its commitment to the greater good of Lebanon?

Unquestionably, it must have technical skills to ensure the processes of State function harmoniously.  In that regard, Geagea promises much and, if given the opportunity, would certainly give hope that he would deliver.  Unlike the "triumvirate" of Lahoud, Harriri and Berri, he stands in stark contrast as a person who could be entrusted with responsible stewardship of Lebanon's national resources.  He, in turn, would ensure the effective design and management of the structure of the State, with the transparent budgetary process put in place, thus giving the required knowledgeable and efficient leadership that Lebanon so sadly lacks today. 

One only has to hear and see the alleged sightings of Lebanon's purported return to its glory of old, to know that the myth is nothing like the reality.  It is often said that Beirut was once known as the "Paris of the Middle East", and the well-to-do Christian and Sunni quarters of the city, the capital of Lebanon, still manage to cast such a spell.  The Central Business District - a battleground on the dividing line between Christian East Beirut and Muslim West Beirut during the Lebanese war - has now been rebuilt by a construction firm whose largest shareholder is Lebanon's Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, a billionaire entrepreneur. 

In what is known as "Haririgrad" - that area of downtown Beirut - it is hardly representative of the country.  This is evidently made very obvious by taking a 10 minute drive to the city's southern suburbs, where a series of dingy, overcrowded slums would have you think you were in another country.  Where the hejabs are more common than miniskirts, liquor is hard to find, and you are less likely to see posters of Prime Minister Hariri than of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the 44-year-old Secretary-General of Hezbollah, the Party of God. 

It is this stark contrast that effectively typifies the distinction between leaders such as  Hariri who are nothing more than corrupt brigands, thieves and louts, preying upon the Lebanese economy, as opposed to the terrorist Islamic cleric, who equally does not typify Lebanon but certainly exudes a sense of presence that he is ethically and spiritually much more sincere than Hariri and his colleagues. 

Into that factoring of the equation of who and what is the better leader for Lebanon comes Dr Samir Geagea, as he represents the potent "third alternative".

When one speaks of leadership, it is also required that a leader be politically effective.  Qualities such as competence and advocacy, negotiation, networking, conflict resolution and the just allocation of scarce resources, together with the ability to balance difficult tensions, such as between autonomy and control, creativity and accountability, risk-taking and conservative practices, and long-term vision and short-term demands, are all very necessary considerations in the management of Lebanon.  Where are they to be found in the triumvirate?  Alas, nowhere, and equally so are they bereft in the Islamic fundamentalism that is the hallmark of Hezbollah. 

Is it any wonder that Geagea remains incarcerated because Syria realises he can provide the very necessary injection of independence and he will ensure that the stability of the national regime will be restored, as well as the confidence renewed in the hope that the nation can go forward. 

Geagea is a consummate character, in terms of his leadership skills.  He has the ability to respect people at all levels and this, in him, is an incredibly important quality of leadership.  He genuinely sees the need for people to be encouraged, to be enabled and empowered by supportive leadership to make their best contributions. 

How stark is the contrast to the leadership of Lahoud and his team? 

Geagea understands that leadership demands some basic, but difficult character traits, such as resilience, because there will be some irresponsible, as well as responsible challenges; tact, because conflict situations are invariably complex; trust, because leadership of a large organisation cannot cope alone; forgiveness, because everyone, including the leader, makes mistakes; hope, because there will be times of despair; and a deep love for the vision and the people served, because this motivates everyone. 

How is it, and why is it, that Geagea, as a leader gaoled, has never been forgotten?  In fact, his name is enough to stir the masses to attend religious services in his honour, in excess of 30,000, to commemorate and pray for his imminent release.

One does not hear of mass demonstrations to praise Harriri, or for that matter Lahoud, concerning their contribution to the nation or, more importantly, their pockets. 

In Geagea there is, more importantly, seen a need for a clear and coherent philosophical framework that inspires commitment and encourages people to share in the purposes and directions of the nation.  His vision is one that would project an idealistic portrayal of what the Lebanese nation would be, in a time frame of between five and ten years, and if so released, and able to participate in the democratic process, he would inject and present an opportunity for a deliverance of Lebanon from its economic woes and its psychological throes. 

Geagea is an icon who is prepared to ensure that the culture of Lebanon is not forgotten but shared, in its stories, myths and its images of cultural stability and versatility.  It is his example in standing resilient to defy the Syrian regime that has grounded in him, and in those who believe in him, a set of values that provide guidance in situations of conflict.  In short, his leadership is both confident and trustworthy. 

Geagea's values include and must be seen to encompass the following: 

•   respect for people;

•   respect for nation;

•   respect for the whole, as well as the part;

•   respect for the past, present and future; and

•   respect for justice, honesty and creativity. 

 

Such virtues and values are the credo of Geagea and are emboldened in his stance not to capitulate to the regime led by Assad.

Yet, Geagea is equally sensitive to the fact that no one person will have all these abilities.  He is keenly aware that strength in one area may mean a weakness in another.  He sees, as important, the need to create a balanced team leadership, providing each of the strengths and abilities required.

In Geagea's blueprint for Lebanon he has sought to ensure that the machine should not aim to be comfortable where everything is neatly defined, carefully controlled, and bureaucratically organised.  He is keenly aware that no government can so function, nor should it be seen to exist in such a useless utopia. 

Geagea's vision of Lebanon, democratically restored in terms of government, is one that understands the dynamics, the turbulence and the complexities of what Bill Gates described as "our decade of velocity".  Invariably, Geagea understands that since our knowledge is partial, and fallible, we cannot make perfect decisions. 

In contradistinction to what has been the hallmark of the Syrian-led regime, Geagea offers humility and open, creative minds to enable a leadership team to explore the best wisdom, and then to decide how to act.  This is what Lebanon lacks and vitally needs, at this present moment. 

Equally, Lebanon is plagued by the fact that because certainties are sometimes not possible, its present day leaders have failed to embrace a never-ending process of reflection, decision and action.  They have failed to engage, to create, and more importantly, have failed in making mistakes, to have learned from them, thereby ensuring that they are going not so much forward but backward, without resilience and, more importantly, without determination. 

Lebanon under Lahoud is the very antithesis of what Arnold Toynbee argued, that a civilisation, a nation and an institution would survive only as long as there was a challenge and the willingness to respond to this challenge.  Lebanon is both insipid and impotent.  This, for a nation famed as the cradle of civilisation, is a damning indictment on the present day leadership.

In Geagea, there is a vision inspired, there is a challenge which is compelled, together with an achievement that encourages the next challenge.  Here is a man who will stop at nothing to ensure that the effort of the action galvanises the people into a united community. 

It is important to distinguish between a community and a society.  A society provides a well-organised structure for people to exist together, to pursue their own individual interests, providing they do not harm others.

In a community, there is a commitment to the greater good.  People encourage, support and empower each other because they share in the community.  Respect and trust shape negotiations.  Resolutions emerge from an affirming dialogue and are agreed upon because they serve others and the well-being of the whole. 

Lebanon has no such society, nor does it share in the existence of such a community.  When someone else wins, the community approves - alas, this is not the case in Lebanon.  Victories and losses are shared with a caring respect, but not so in Lebanon. 

This is never more so seen than in the corrupt bureaucrats and the pariahs that constitute the Lebanese public service.  They are neither time-servers, nor are they  acting in the interests of society and, more importantly, the Lebanese society, in whose service they are retained.  They have, sadly, learned from the equally sad example of their Syrian masters. 

In Geagea, there is an opportunity to recover a commitment to such idealism.  He would certainly re-invigorate in political leaders the opportunity to engage honestly, with the strategically important issues, and not use them as an opportunity to grandstand for political advantage.

Hopefully, the Lebanese populace would see that if leaders such as Geagea, and those who are responsibly minded to ensure a return to Lebanon's full and free sovereignty, would require an end to blind party loyalty, mindless invective, crude personal attacks and the cessation of posturing with political promises, all of which would have to end. 

In Geagea, there would be an incredibly powerful return of the nation to the people, on the basis that he, as a leader, would ensure that power brokers would give as much power as possible to the populace, thereby empowering them to use their talents to the maximum, unlike those who are enslaving them at present. 

Lest we should think that this is a recipe for anarchy, or a protocol for foolhardiness, ignoring the plight of those less fortunate - test the proposition by asking oneself what would be better than the regime presently in power?  The answer lies in the provision of structures, policies and procedures, to enable the Lebanese people to guide their activities and to affirm the potential of everyone - Christian, Muslim, Druze, Jew and Atheist.  In short, all the peoples of Lebanon would come under the one umbrella. 

The release of Geagea is so obstinately opposed by Syria, and the Lebanese regime, because they know that he would accord to all people the freedom to build their own strengths.  If that occurred, how wonderful - incredibly wonderful - would Lebanon be as a nation, embracing ideals that would transform its society into a values-based community.  

One should understand that the return of leaders such as Geagea, and the restoration of democracy, would require the need to hold conflict between what is and what might be, in terms of a creative tension.  There would also be the need to continually check, challenge and enhance the hierarchies of values.  Equally, Lebanon would need to be positively aware of the requirement to inject the vitality of hope into its national experience and, more importantly, to learn from the trials and tribulations of the past, so she can fully celebrate the banquet of life.

The lesson for Lebanon is that she will never fully succeed, but it is the journey that makes the difference; and it is those who are entrusted, as the tour guides of the people who are making the journey, that will be the real lynch-pin in whether it succeeds or fails. 

Along with Geagea and other leaders, there is a need to ensure that Lebanon's artists, poets and visionaries - so vital for society to extricate them from the ordinary with dynamic and new symbols - are equally freed and allowed to flourish.  Lebanon needs her managers, engineers and accountants to keep her people mindful of the resource limitations and the organisational demands of both the ordinary and the extraordinary.   

In people such as Geagea, and the return of leaders who are equally minded, Lebanon sees a need for care-givers, builders, sowers and reapers, to return to the harvest sooner rather than later. 

Ultimately, Geagea, as a leader, and those Lebanese who thirst for leadership as his followers, require his release, so that they may partake of the liberating philosophy, whereby leaders are engaged but not in total control.  Some control is necessary, but not the totalitarian engagement that is presently the hallmark of the Lebanese government.  The current regime literally closes off the dynamic contributions of others, thereby ensuring the profiting of the minority and the deprivation of the majority. 

You may b e forgiven for thinking this is an altruistic philosophy, and one in which Geagea is a pivotal player, but nevertheless, people must have hope and sentiment must spring forth from their hearts, because it empowers everyone to maximise their creativity within a values-based frame of purposeful meaning. 

Geagea's release is the embodiment of an action philosophy, ensuring that leaders learn as they go, integrating and refining their wisdom with their actions. 

The continued incarceration of Geagea, ten years on, is a wicked and a telling testament.

In Geagea's plight, so too is Lebanon's misfortune for the masses who are deprived of their democratic rights and denied their sovereignty.  It is bemusing to note that the patriarch, His Beatitude, Cardinal Boutros Nasrallah Sfeir, the Bishop of Beirut, expresses a sentiment shared by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, the Bishop of Rome, who recently exhorted the Lebanese Ambassador to ensure that Syria is reminded that it should leave Lebanon, so that Lebanon can be restored to its true sovereignty.  What a shame other Bishops are not so minded to speak out with the wisdom and the courage so ably exhibited by the Papal Primate and his dutiful Cardinal. 

Geagea is the epitome of Gramsci's aphorism - "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will".  His resolve is unshakeable and more is the pity that he has not gained the support of many more people who share the ideal of a free, sovereign and independent Lebanon. 

Geagea's determination not to come out of gaol, and thereby succumb  to the hypocrisy and, in effect, become a hypocrite of the present day regime, serving in it and under it, is again a mark of the man's exemplar, in terms of his ethical resolve.  He chose not to allow himself to be subdued, nor, even though he is in gaol, to be subjugated.  He was, and remains defiant to the end. 

In solitary confinement, he stands splendid in isolation. 

He epitomises what Lebanon is and what it was seen to be when Richard Prele wrote, in his work: An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror (Random House, 2004), when he said, describing an oppressed society and in terms which would ably apply to Lebanon, the following:

"Take a vast area of the earth's surface, inhabited by people who remember a great history.  Enrich them enough that they can afford satellite television and Internet connections, so that they can see what life is like across the Mediterranean or across the Atlantic.  Then sentence them to live in choking, miserable, polluted cities ruled by corrupt, incompetent officials.  Entangle them in regulations and controls so that nobody can ever make much of a living except by paying off some crooked official.  Subordinate them to elites that have suddenly become incalculably wealthy from shady dealings involving petroleum resources that supposedly belonged to all ...  Deny them any forum or institution - not a parliament, not even a city council - where they may freely discuss their grievances.  Kill, gaol, corrupt, or drive into exile every political figure, artist or intellectual who could articulate a modern alternative to bureaucratic tyranny ... [Ensure]  that the minds of the next generation are formed entirely by clerics, whose own minds contain nothing but medieval theology and a smattering of Third World nationalist self-pity.  Combine all this, and what else would one expect to create but an enraged populace ..." 

This, of sorts, and to a considerable degree, is the emasculated edifice that now represents and constitutes Lebanon.  It is, and does, tear at the heartstrings to think of what Lebanon was, what it has become and why it cannot return. 

Leaders such as Samir Geagea are fated to a life of hardship, such is their sacrifice and their commitment.  It is a sacrifice that Geagea willingly undertakes. 

Tonight we commemorate him, we commend him, but we do not commiserate for or with him, such is his stance and buoyed are our hopes that his deliverance is imminent. 

In concluding, could I refer to the fact that we are commemorating an anniversary which is nothing more than marking time in the life of Dr Geagea whilst in custody. 

However, what is time in this context? 

"Time", says Jorge Luis Borges, "is the substance I am made of.  Time is the river that carries me away, but I am the river ..." 

 

This exemplifies Geagea, for he and ourselves are but movements in this river of time, our actions are extended in time, as are our perceptions, our thoughts, the contents of consciousness.