The blast that flattened a large section of Beirut just over two weeks ago ripped apart the lives and property of countless people. It also created a pivotal moment for the international aid system: Donors and agencies can choose to be complicit in a power structure that supports the ruling junta, or they can take a principled stance that helps us rid ourselves of our corrupt leaders and rebuild the better Lebanon we all know can exist.
Since the end of the civil war in 1990, foreign donors and aid agencies have proven a key pillar of financial sustainability for successive Lebanese governments. Yet in the wake of the 4 August explosion at the Beirut port, calls by the Lebanese people for these groups to cease funding for their government have grown to a crescendo, as they take to the streets and protest corruption.
Major donors have already pledged approximately $300 million and have been keen to suggest that aid to respond to the port blast should not fall under the control of the Lebanese government, and the UN has asked for more than $500 million more.
These stances are principled and admirable. Yet since the post-civil war reconstruction effort began in 1990, donors and aid groups have worked hand in hand with the very same government they now decry as illegitimate and unworthy of aid. In the process, they have become partially complicit in the creation of parallel bureaucracies that have replaced government services in Lebanon, and channelled funds through government agencies immune to oversight, in effect turning a blind eye to rampant clientelism.
If various parts of the aid system are now serious about cleaning their hands of Lebanon’s so-called government, they will have to navigate the minefield of Lebanese politics, geopolitical interests and, perhaps most importantly, the moral question of what is the most efficient and effective way to deliver help to those Lebanese who need it most.