Lebanese American University The Power of Silence: Impunity and Accountability in Lebanon By Michelle Bouchebel Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International Affairs School of Arts and Sciences May 2014 © 2014 Michelle Bouchebel All Rights Reserved ii iii iv To my beloved father, mother and brothers v AKNOWLEDGMENTS This research would not have been possible without the help and assistance of many people. First, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Walid Moubarak who devotedly guided me throughout the whole process of producing this thesis. I am also very grateful to Dr. Marwan Rowayheb and Dr. Makram Ouaiss for being members of my thesis committee. Thanks also goes to the Lebanese American University for all the support this institution offered me throughout my graduate studies, Finally, special thanks go to Martti Antola, Christalla Yakinthou, my family and my friends who were always there for me throughout this process and offered motivation and support. vi The Power of Silence: Impunity and Accountability in Lebanon Michelle M. Bouchebel ABSTRACT The Power of Silence: Impunity and Accountability in Lebanon by Michelle Bouchebel explores the extent to which transitional justice mechanisms could help to strengthen accountability and the rule of law in Lebanon and suggests several options for the kinds of transitional justice mechanisms that could be explored, taking into account the current political context of the country. The study draws on, and seeks to contribute to, literature on transitional justice as well as literature on the Lebanese civil war and its aftermath. In an effort to assess the feasibility of implementing transitional justice mechanisms in Lebanon, the study develops four criteria: political feasibility, impact on rule of law, economic viability and potential for quick wins. Applying these criteria, the study argues that judicial reform targeting the independence of the judiciary; security sector reform targeting the behavior and mindsets of both the Internal Security Forces and the Lebanese Armed Forces, and adopting a bottom-up, civil society-led informal truth process, could be expected to produce some tangible results in the short to medium-term. It further argues that their vii real importance lies in the normative change they would bring to Lebanese politics with regard to dealing with the past: towards a more just and more equal society and away from a culture of kleptocracy and muhasasa which have dominated the post-war reconstruction and reform efforts in the country. Keywords: Transitional Justice; Rule of Law; Impunity; Accountability; Corruption; Lebanon. viii Table of Contents Absract vii Table of Contents ix List of Abbreviations xi Introduction 1 Transitional Justice, the Rule of Law and Democracy 9 2.1. What is Transitional Justice? 10 2.2. The Five Pillars of Transitional Justice 13 2.2.1. Criminal Prosecutions 14 2.2.2. Truth Seeking 20 2.2.3. Reparations 23 2.2.4. Institutional Reform 25 2.2.5. Vetting and Dismissals 26 2.2.6. Transitional Justice beyond Established Mechanisms 27 2.3. Why Transitional Justice Matters: A Case for the Rule of Law 28 2.4. Conclusions 32 Transitional Justice in the Former-Yugoslavia 35 3.1. Background of the Conflict 37 3.2. The Case of Croatia 42 3.2.1. Croatia and the ICTY 43 3.2.2. Carrots and Sticks 46 3.3. Rule of Law in Croatia 49 3.3.1. Cornerstones of the Rule of Law 51 3.4. Conclusion 53 The Case of Lebanon 55 ix 4.1. The War and Its Consequences 56 4.2. Unsuccessful Reconciliation Attempts 60 4.2.1. Taif Accord 60 4.2.2. The Amnesty Law 66 4.2.3. The Doha Agreement 68 4.2.4. National Dialogue 71 4.3. Transitional Justice Efforts 75 4.3.1. Reparations Program 75 4.3.2. Truth Commissions 78 4.3.3. Geagea Trials 82 4.4. Effect of Post-War Settlements on the Rule of Law 85 4.4.1. From Warlords to War Heroes 85 4.4.2. Political Corruption in State Institutions 87 4.4.3. Reoccurrence of Violence 91 4.4.4. Rule of Law in Lebanon 93 4.5. Conclusions 96 Alternatives for Lebanon 98 5.1. Possible Transitional Justice Efforts in Lebanon 103 5.1.1. Judicial Reform 105 5.1.2. Security Sector Reform 107 5.1.3. Improving Accountability of State Institutions 112 5.1.4. Bottom-Up Approach 116 5.2. Conclusions 120 Conclusion 123 Bibliography 128 x List of Abbreviations AI Amnesty International CA Courts of Accounts CIB Central Inspection Board CLDH Lebanese Center for Human Rights CPI Corruption Perception Index EU European Union FPM Free Patriotic Movement GTCRP Greensboro Truth and Community Reconciliation Project ICC International Criminal Court ICRC International Committee for the Red Cross ICTJ International Center for Transitional Justice ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia IDP Internally Displaced People ILO International Labor Organization ISF Internal Security Forces KLA Kosovo Liberation Army LAF Lebanese Armed Forces LF Lebanese Forces LNP Liberal National Party LTA Lebanese Transparency Association NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization xi PLO Palestinian Liberation Organization PSP Progressive Socialist Party SCSL Special Court for Sierra Leone SFRY Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia SSA Stabilization and Association Agreement SSR Security Sector Reform STL Special Tribunal for Lebanon TI Transparency International TRC South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission UN United Nations UNAC United Nations Convention Against Corruption UNGASC United Nations General Assembly Security Council UNODOC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNOHCHR United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights UNSC United Nations Security Council UTP Unofficial Truth projects WTO World Trade Organization YPA Yugoslav People‘s Army xii Chapter One Introduction ―We should not forget the war, but we should also not become its prisoners, nor should we impose it on the new generation. Today’s youth have a right to forget and we have a right to remember. I am concerned that they will make the same mistakes because we have not studied all of the war’s consequences. Perhaps we abandoned this more quickly than what was needed.‖ —Ghassan Salame (Barak, 2007, p.49) Wars usually have a start date and an end date, but the suffering of the people who have been directly or indirectly affected endures long beyond a conflict‘s timeline. During times of war, mass human rights violations occur and their consequences affect not only the victims themselves, but also tend to be transferred onto subsequent generations. People who are physically, sexually, morally and economically abused, abducted, displaced, kidnapped, disappeared and even killed, have rights considered by international law to be universal, which must be respected by their governments. The consequences of wars do not only affect victims, on the contrary, they spill over to the society and country as a whole, often destroying a country‘s entire infrastructure. In the aftermath of a conflict, war-torn societies can be faced with shattered state institutions, depleted resources, minimal levels of security, if any, and a divided and distressed population. The absence of oversight over state institutions often also leads to corruption and the embezzlement of resources. If the judiciary is weakened or undermined, then a culture of impunity prevails and laws are no longer obeyed or 1 enforced. This, in turn, amplifies mistrust in the government and structures of state, and leads to the absence of the rule of law (United Nations Security Council [UNSC], The rule of Law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies, 2004). In the post-conflict period, significant attention is often given to repairing the material damage caused by war – rebuilding houses, roads, schools, hospitals and other essential infrastructure – and to demobilizing, disarming and reintegrating former combatants into productive employment. These measures may be sufficient for rebuilding a state, but are they sufficient for rebuilding society? Can they provide answers to questions such as: How to deal with the violent past? How to deal with the consequences of war and the atrocities committed during war in a way that would facilitate rebuilding an inclusive, democratic state? How to deal with the perpetrators of atrocities? How to safeguard the rights of the victims of conflicts and compensate for their emotional and material losses? How to reconcile between conflicting parties in a sustainable manner? Who are to be held accountable and by whom? How to rebuild respect for the rule of law and public confidence in the government and state institutions? How does transition happen? The short answer is no, they cannot. This seems to have been also the conclusion of the international community, inasmuch as with the end of the Cold War and the growing number of intra-state conflicts (as opposed to the inter-state conflicts which had constituted the majority of conflicts in the past), a new field of study was created to deal with the ―full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society‘s attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, 2 serve justice and achieve reconciliation‖ (UNSC, 2004, art. 8). That field of study is transitional justice. The concept of transitional justice can be defined as ―an umbrella term that covers a range of disparate practices to address a violent past in a period of regime transition‖ (Barahona De Brito, 2010, p.360). It gained more prominence in literature in the late 1980s as a result of authoritarian regimes in Latin America and Eastern Europe, notorious for their systematic human rights abuses, being replaced by democratic ones (InternationaL Center for Transitiona Justice [ICTJ], 2013).