With the idea of “neutrality” currently gaining traction in Lebanon, it remains essential that the population realizes the choice it entails. 

State neutrality describes a political choice of non-alignment in armed conflict. 

The neutral nation state obtains the right to not have its air, land, or territory violated, in exchange for not aligning with any belligerent states involved in armed conflict. 

Neutrality as a state policy has been codified in international law and conventions since the 19th century. The stance typically requires both an INTERNAL AGREEMENT, stipulated in the Constitution, and an EXTERNAL AGREEMENT, whereby neighboring states recognize the neutral state’s right not to have its territory violated. 

State neutrality is NOT a choice between favoring one particular international alliance versus another. It essentially entails a choice between Lebanon remaining a constant battlefield or becoming a free, neutral state that can even act as a mediator to regional conflicts, like Switzerland or Oman. 

Small countries located at the extremities of strategic geopolitical locations often end up being used in one of two different ways: either as vassal states, or as neutral buffer states. 

Lebanon’s geographical properties, as a tiny coastal, mountainous country located at the crossroads of Europe, Middle East and Africa, place the country in this exact dilemma. 

During the Phoenician era, Lebanon was at the intersection of competing Egyptian, Greek, Hittite and Assyrian spheres of influence. 

Over the last century, Lebanon has become a battleground for competing French, Syrian, Israeli, Egyptian, American, Palestinian, Libyan, Soviet, Iranian, Saudi and Turkish influences. 

Being used as a battleground for foreign interests is the flipside of the same coin that enables Lebanon to be a diplomatically successful, stabilizing bridge of the Middle East. One brings chaos and human tragedies. The other brings peace, harmony and prosperity. 

SO WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON? 

عربي