The Patriarch’?s latest decision to protect President Lahhoud is not only morally indefensible, it’?s also a strategic mistake that will reduce the church’?s influence.

When the Council Of Bishops announced a few days ago that the Presidency’?s fate should be left to constitutional channels, most Lebanese understood the message: The Patriarch is against dethroning President Lahhoud by force.

The Patriarch’?s logic, on the surface of it, is a sensible one: As a guarantor of the role and influence of the Christians in Lebanon, it would be irresponsible for him to allow for a precedent where the most senior Christian in the land (the President), is kicked out of office and humiliated.

But as Sarkis Naoum, one of Annahar’s most senior and most objective journalists, argued a few days back, the Patriarch is in fact unwittingly reducing the influence of the Christians in the long run.

Naoum noted that Lahhoud’?s international and local isolation has “?let the grass grow on the road to Baabda Palace”?. Most international diplomats and envoys are getting used to visiting Mr. Seniora and ignoring President Lahhoud. If Lahhoud stays as President, the argument goes, people will get used to that state of affairs and the Presidency will soon become a de-facto powerless institution.

In other words, The Patriarch might think he’?s giving President Lahhoud some strength, but in reality, Bkirki is the one weakned by the current Baabda resident. People who previously did not dare criticize the Patriarch are starting to voice (although politely) their frustration. Sarkis Naoum went as far yesterday as saying that the patriarch was played by President Lahhoud.

If Patriarch Sfeir doesn’?t undo his latest move, the coming winds of change are going to take Bkirki’?s prestige and influence with them.

How times change; we finally got to see the day where Syrian high officials come to Lebanon, pay their respect and go back.

London based newspaper Al-hayat wrote today that Prosecutor Detlev Mehlis has submitted an official request to Syria for interviewing six of its top security officials (including Bashar’s brother in-law) in Monte-Verde, Beirut, as the sole place for such interviews.
This is seen as a rebuff to Damascus’ declaration yesterday that Mr. Mehlis can interview anyone he wants as long as it’s done in Syria.

Syria, it seems, didn’t read the UN Resolution 1636 properly; here’s clause 11-c:

The Commission shall have the authority to determine the location and modalities for interview of Syrian officials and individuals it deems relevant to the inquiry;