The concept of Self-determination and Lebanon

When U.S. President Woodrow Wilson delivered his Fourteen Points in January 1918, he sought to articulate a vision for a just and lasting peace following the devastation of World War I. Central to his vision was the principle of self-determination, the idea that “peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent.” Wilson’s words resonated far beyond Europe, inspiring independence movements globally by groups that shared a common identity and sought to gain a say in their own affairs. Yet, as the post-war order took shape, this promise of national freedom was selectively applied. While Wilson’s rhetoric offered hope to peoples under Ottoman and colonial rule, the realities of French mandate control, sectarian division, and continued foreign intervention denied Lebanon genuine self-determination rights.

The mandate era and the illusion of independence

At its core, Wilson’s principle of self-determination was influenced by Enlightenment ideals of liberty and governance by consent. It’s the belief that international peace required the reorganization of global politics around nations rather than empires. However, despite its universal tone, self-determination in practice was constrained by Western geopolitical interests. The postwar peace negotiations at Versailles were dominated by the victorious powers, who applied Wilson’s doctrine primarily to Europe. While Eastern European nations such as Poland and Czechoslovakia achieved sovereignty, the peoples of the Arab world, who had fought alongside the Allies against the Ottomans, were excluded from this right.

Lebanon’s fate was determined not in Beirut but in the corridors of European diplomacy. The Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916) and the San Remo Conference (1920) carved up the former Ottoman territories into British and French zones of influence, contradicting domestic calls for self-determination. France claimed Lebanon under the League of Nations Mandate, justifying its rule through a “civilizing mission” narrative and its historical ties with the Maronite Christian community. The new borders of “Greater Lebanon,” drawn by French officials in 1920, united Christian, Muslim, and Druze populations under a single state whose boundaries reflected colonial strategy rather than national identity. Lebanon’s supposed independence, therefore, was imposed from above, a case of externally engineered sovereignty that served imperial rather than popular interests.

This inconsistency set the stage for decades of external manipulation in Lebanon. The French Mandate institutionalized sectarianism through political structures that privileged certain communities, embedding divisions that would persist long after independence. By the time Lebanon gained formal sovereignty in 1943, its political system, anchored in the confessional National Pact, was still rooted in the legacy of colonial control.

Lebanon’s modern struggle for true self-determination

Lebanon’s postcolonial experience exposes the limitations of self-determination. True self-rule requires not only political independence but also freedom from external coercion and economic dependency. Lebanon achieved neither. During the Cold War, it became a battleground for regional and international powers, Syria, Israel, Iran, Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, all pursuing influence through local proxies. The Syrian military presence (1976–2005), multiple and ongoing Israeli occupations, and the enduring power of Tehran-backed Hezbollah, underscore how Lebanon’s sovereignty remains divided among foreign patrons.

The 2005 UN Watch statement reaffirmed the Lebanese people’s inalienable right to self-determination and full sovereignty over their territory, emphasizing Lebanon’s right to an independent state free from foreign occupation. It condemned Syria’s interference and occupation, along with the presence of armed groups backed by Syria and Iran, as violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty and international law, urging the international community to support Lebanon’s political independence and territorial integrity. However, if Wilson’s vision of self-determination was rooted in the belief that nations could govern according to the will of their people, Lebanon stands as a tragic counterexample. The UN 2005 statement proved to be short lived, and Lebanon once again fell into the same historical loop.

Yet Wilson’s idea continues to hold moral power precisely because it exposes such contradictions. The Lebanese experience invites a re-examination of what self-determination means in a world still marked by asymmetrical power. Genuine self-determination for Lebanon today would entail more than the absence of occupation. It would require achieving economic independence from external creditors and reclaiming a collective national identity that transcends foreign alignments.

Lebanon has become so accustomed to external influence that it now defines nearly every aspect of national life. Whether it’s reconstruction, from the “Thank You Qatar” campaigns after 2006 to the 3RF initiative following the Beirut explosion, or reforms shaped by international donor conferences like CEDRE and Paris I, II, and III, Lebanon’s progress has become contingent on outside intervention.

We continuously hear phrases such as Lebanon is a failed sate, dysfunctional government, colonial product, but never self-determined or independent. As Lebanese Independence Day looms closer, it’s time to ask ourselves, what are we celebrating?

Wilson’s Fourteen Points promised a world where nations could freely determine their destinies. For Lebanon, that promise was deferred, first by colonial mandates, then by regional entanglements and international dependencies. The story of Lebanon thus reflects both the aspiration and betrayal of Wilsonian self-determination: a principle that inspired liberation but too often served as the language of empire.

That being said, if self-determination is a right for all, why must Lebanon remain an exception? Lebanon’s long struggle for genuine self-determination can still become the foundation for renewal, if its people reclaim the principle not as a foreign promise but as a national project. True independence begins when sovereignty is no longer granted from abroad but built from within. A new beginning is on the horizon for the country, one filled with challenges but also with the desire of self-determination, independence, and freedom.