A Maritime Future for Lebanon? (1)
Thanks to multilateral cooperation projects initiated within the global framework of the Union for the Mediterranean, could Lebanon become what it deserves to be, a maritime Lebanon? The question requires deep reflection and an exhaustive vision of the situation in which the country struggles in this regard…
« For the French, the sea is what they have at their backs when they look at the beach » (Eric Tabarly). France is a maritime state that it misunderstands. The translation of this specificity into a political and budgetary reality is weak. Replace France with Lebanon. It is a maritime state - its history is there - which has not yet made the necessary political and institutional choice. Unifying maritime projects would sustainably bring together all communities. It has the assets. The « common good » would be « the » beneficiary.
The history of maritime Lebanon dates back to the Phoenicians (- 3,000 / - 500 BC), a period of the foundational base of port cities (Byblos, Sidon, Tyre, Arwad), of commercial activities with Egypt, Cyprus, Greece, North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, of offshore navigation, and shipbuilding. The trade of cedar wood, Tyrian purple, glassware and handicrafts contributes to the country's wealth, reinforced by a Lebanese coastline that opens onto the Western Mediterranean.
From - 500 BC until the 7th century, maritime activities developed under different dominations – Achaemenid Persian, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine. The Romans in particular used and developed naval bases. The commercial and logistical capabilities they offered allowed for connections with the empire's trade routes. It was during this period that maritime law was created. Not sovereign, certainly, Lebanon was nonetheless a maritime hub.
From the 7th to the 15th century, a long medieval and Islamic period, the ports of Tripoli, Beirut, Sidon, and Tyre had significant activity with the entire Mediterranean basin. During the Crusades, they were strategic stakes; coastal fortifications have left visible remains. Maritime competition between Muslim and Christian powers made Lebanon a zone of both exchanges and military confrontations.
During the Ottoman period from the 15th century to the dawn of the 20th century, the ports remained active despite a loss of importance. Only Beirut stood out and provided the interface with Damascus, Aleppo, and Southern Europe.
In the 20th century, Beirut modernized and became a regional hub. Maritime trade developed.
The fact remains that modern Lebanon has not completed its maritime transformation. The country relies heavily on sea supplies for most of its trade and provisions. Nevertheless, the absence of its own merchant navy, limited naval capabilities, and insufficient coastal surveillance prevent it from living up to its maritime past, its potential, and its needs.
Yet, how many hopes could be fulfilled thanks to the sea. Agreements concerning the delimitation of maritime borders and the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) with Israel, then with Cyprus, have been signed; they make it possible to consider the safe exploitation of offshore resources. Lebanon is a country of the sea; it is time for this maritime state to become capable of exploiting its potential.
Lebanon's maritime challenges
The challenges of the maritime vocation of the Land of the Cedars depend on several parameters that have been neglected by the authorities for too long.
Maritime sovereignty and security, major issues for the surveillance of territorial waters, the EEZ, and maritime borders, as well as for the fight against military threats, trafficking, and illegal fishing, receive little support.
Furthermore, Lebanon has a critical maritime dependence: 80 to 90% of imports pass through the sea; the vital port of Beirut has been in a weakened position since August 2020 - slow reconstruction and contested governance; the port of Tripoli, an alternative hub, is underutilized and too close to Syria; Sidon and Tyre have only limited regional functions. The challenge is technical, institutional, and political.
Regarding offshore resources, the hope is real but long-term. The potential is uncertain and depends on foreign companies, while the security of installations, attractiveness for investors, the legal framework, and political stability must be defined and assured. Exploitation will only be guaranteed by reliable and credible maritime capabilities.
In addition, taking into account the environment (fighting pollution), means of ensuring maritime safety (sea rescue), to which is added the protection of the coastline, are essential.
It must be noted in this context that maritime governance is imperfect: absence of an integrated national strategy; multiplicity of actors (Lebanese navy, Port Authorities, Ministries of Transport, Defense, and Environment). It is evident that strategic coordination between these actors needs to be perfected.
In summary, Lebanon suffers from a somewhat difficult maritime situation: a short and dense coastline, a fragmented maritime strategy, a very weak merchant navy, a limited and defensive military navy, no naval industry, no regional influence.
Possibilities exist
Lebanon has a beautiful and rich maritime history, but what strategy is being pursued in this area? Negotiations on the EEZ do not answer such a question. However, the potential exists. Malta and Cyprus are two maritime countries with a territorial extent comparable to that of Lebanon. They nevertheless have a developed maritime flag, attractive regulation, and an ambitious and effective maritime strategy. They thus prove that even small countries can be important maritime actors.
A maritime Lebanon, an illusion ?
Despite chronic political instability, low public investment, and recurrent security unrest, the assets that would allow Lebanon to develop its maritime vocation do indeed exist: an exceptional geographical position, a historically structuring coastline, human capital, and a potential maritime diaspora. In such a context, what strategy should be developed to give new life to this vital sector?
Next article: Maritime projects in Lebanon, with the Union for the Mediterranean?