A brief of tonight’s news bulletin:
Michel Aoun’s statements, in the recent period, are a tragic irony. To justify the failure of his term, the President of the Republic goes back decades every time, holding others responsible for what he and his pledge have brought, and what the Lebanese have achieved. Even after sixteen years, the resident of Baabda does not forget the martyred Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. He holds him accountable for the country’s economic crisis, claiming in front of an expatriate delegation that economic policy in the 1990s was what led to the country’s destitution and reliance on a rentier economy, which doubled its debts and reduced job possibilities. Certainly,“talks are in vain.” But, if the president had given his comments some thinking, wouldn’t he have regretted expressing himself?
Assume that the martyred president’s economic program was a failure; then, why did Lebanon enjoy its greatest period of prosperity? Why was job available to anyone? Why has Lebanon, despite Syrian rule, been a center for development and reconstruction, as well as a commercial and economic hub competing with other world capitals? Rather, why was the 1990s the best decade in terms of economic development, as it reminded everyone of President Camille Chamoun’s era of affluence? No! President, arrogance does not operate here. I admit that the problem is in your century, and that there is no economic program in place to pull Lebanon out of its slump. Unfortunately, your hate for the martyr Prime Minister reminds us of President Emile Lahoud’s hate for him, who, once he took office, dismissed Rafik Hariri from the cabinet’s Presidency, causing the country to plunge into an economic collapse.. The parallel between Aoun and Lahoud does not end there; he too promised the expatriate delegation that he would not quit and that no one could disturb his position. Did Aoun’s ultimate goal at the conclusion of his political career become to personify Emile Lahoud?
