Many countries in the region gripped by conflict are at a crossroads for recovery and reconstruction. In this regard, the experiences throughout history of numerous war-torn nations, both industrialized and developing, have highlighted the harsh and intolerable challenges of the recovery, reconstruction, growth and development process, be it at the infrastructural, economic, social or security level.
Indeed, the postwar experiences of Europe on one side and those of Lebanon on the other highlight the heavy burden of such responsibilities, especially in the absence of resources needed to finance and carry out the reconstruction and recovery mission.
Postwar Europe would have resulted in a tragedy had it not been for the massive foreign aid and consistent external assistance that was provided over several years. World War II brutally impaired the economies of Europe, leaving many in a horrific state: cities and factories demolished, transport links severed, agricultural and industrial production disrupted and many refugees dislocated.
In fact, in 1947, Europe’s economies, well below their prewar levels, were recuperating slowly.
But Europe was provided with large grants mainly through the Marshall Plan which enabled it to rapidly overcome its recovery difficulties.
On June 5, 1947, U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall addressed the graduating class at Harvard University with his recommendations that became known as the Marshall Plan, recorded in history as the most successful civil-reconstruction project of the 20th century.
His proposal, as he said “was directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.”
During the short period of the plan, the 16 nations benefiting from it experienced a dramatic increase in economic production with an economic growth of between 15-25 percent. Industrial and agricultural production sometimes surpassed prewar levels. Poverty and starvation experienced by so many displaced persons vanished instantly while standards of living improved drastically. All this led to a long-lasting period of social peace and prosperity in the history of modern Europe.
No doubt that the Marshall Plan was designed to offset the spread of communism in Europe, while contributing greatly to the economic divide between the rich West and poor East. Also, many have accused the U.S. of practicing “economic imperialism” by bonding the Western nations of Europe to them just as the Soviet Union dominated the East.
Nonetheless, the Marshall Plan accelerated the developmental process in Europe. It also played an important role in European integration as it removed trade barriers. In 1957 a few years after the Marshall Plan, the European Economic Community was formed with the signing of the Treaties of Rome, a development within Europe that continued to expand to ultimately form the EU.
Many argue that the Marshall plan could be replicated for developing countries. This remains questionable given the fact that the plan may be unique as it was a product of unusual mixtures: the huge wealth of the U.S. after the war, the production capacities and natural resources of Europe, the closely similar laws, governments, institutions and “culture” of Western Europe and the U.S., and finally the “prodigy” of postwar leadership on both sides of the Atlantic.
Here, the Lebanese model can serve as another example of postwar recovery. In the early 1990s, Lebanon was economically isolated, its human capital scattered throughout the world and its infrastructure demolished. It was also agonizing from a lag of 20 years during which the rest of the world was moved forward while the country was mired in chaos and destruction. The years of war and turmoil between 1975 and 1990 had a drastic effect on the Lebanese economy and society at the political, administrative, educational, military and security levels. According to the World Bank, the total damage of physical assets amounted to $25 billion.
Total direct and indirect losses suffered by Lebanon exceeded $100 billion, coupled with rising rates of inflation and unemployment, curbing confidence in the Lebanese pound. The total collapse of the state, the complete illness of the civil service and the resulting limitations on all private sector activities made Lebanon lose its competitive advantages in the Arab world.
In 1992, during his first speech at the AUB graduation ceremony, martyr Rafik Hariri – just like Marshall – publically expressed for the first time his political and economic vision for Lebanon, knowing that he was acting on it before, during and after the war’s end through his emergency plan at the human and infrastructural levels as well as his efforts toward realizing the Taif Accord. Hariri had a clear scheme from the beginning to return Lebanon to its previous status as the region’s touristic and commercial hub.
Hariri’s plan relied on reconstruction as a short-term task coupled with a long-term development policy, while ensuring the government’s capacity to achieve its social obligations such as education, pensions and health coverage.
To accomplish this, he was confronted with three options: The first was to wait for international donations before starting reconstruction, an avenue he believed was futile since it would not meet the needs of such a ruined country and would aggravate the deficit and public debt, among other emerging problems.
The second option was to reduce expenditures and increase taxes massively, which would have led to an economic decline and a severe recession while threatening social harmony and national reconciliation.
The third option was the Hariri choice, that of growth, development and construction. It mainly focused on rapidly restoring domestic and international confidence in the Lebanese economy, and founding an environment conducive to capital inflows and investment. This called for dependency on local loans and an influx of capital from abroad while persistently seeking international financial aid.
Although foreign aid was arriving in insufficient amounts, Lebanon relied on itself and borrowed domestically and internationally, and was therefore able to launch its reconstruction program and rebuild its political institutions. Consequently, the Lebanese pound was stabilized and strengthened and inflation reduced. Social service programs were also made along with re-establishing security throughout the country. In short, Lebanon has dramatically changed to a fully functioning state.
Lebanon’s example can serve as another model of postwar recovery for many developing countries in constant turmoil, given that their people are determined to work together to revive their nations and put them at a higher state of development, whereby the rule of law, democracy and private property and initiative are respected by all and equal opportunities are shared by all.
At the end, it remains up to us to learn and build on such legacies as Harirism and Marshallism, or else we are doomed to languish in eternal chaos.
Dima El Hassan is the director of programs at the Hariri Foundation for Sustainable Human Development.
No comments:
Post a Comment