Nabih Berri’s words sound good, but can he deliver?

(Photo: The Daily Star)

“Now I say despite all that has passed, forgive us, let us all accept presidential elections through consensus and through a quorum of two-thirds, and the opposition will drop its demand for a national unity or expanded government before the elections,”

Thus declared Nabih Berri, our Speaker of the house, his latest initiative.

On the face of it, a change of heart of this magnitude -letting go of the opposition’s most objectionable demand- deserves to be rewarded with an equally significant concession, especially that everyone, not only Mr. Berri, wants to “save the country”.

But March 14 shouldn’t rush to hug Mr. Berri and should instead indulge their cynical instincts.

The Lebanese want more than ever to agree among themselves, and Mr. Berri is more desperate than anyone for a settlement, but March 14 has the right to ask: What has changed since his last initiatives?

It’s obvious that Syria’s meddling didn’t go away. Only yesterday one of Assad’s pawns accused Mr. Seniora on Live TV to want to kill Sayyed Nassrallah. Does that sound like a Syria that wants an internal settlement? How can Mr. Berri convince us that Syria no longer dictates what he does?

More suspicious is the suddenness of the U-turn. What happened to the opposition’s mantra: “A National unity government is the only, I repeat, the only, solution?”

Watching Iran has made us believe that its proxies often use tactical friendliness (Palestinian Unity government, the hiwar in Lebanon, and recently Muqtada El Sadr’s 6 months unilateral ceasefire in Iraq) to negotiate power-sharing arrangements only to break them later and take over completely. Why is it different now Mr. Berri?

Nevertheless, March 14 shouldn’t be hostile to Mr. Berri and they should explore together his proposals.

Complete disregard of his offer is bad negotiation etiquette and could be damaging politically (Is Mr. Berri right?  does March 14 want to control the country?). Moreover, March 14 needs Berri’s help to diffuse potential minefields (Syrian lackeys and Aoun)

Perhaps something good could come out of this delicate dance, but it would be wise not to hold your breath.

Speculations abound on whether Saad Hariri’s silence is an indication of hesitation and incompetence, or a planned withdrawal to clear the air for compromise.

Peeking in?

Nothing symbolizes the Future Movement’s state of soul-searching more than the performance of Johnny Abdo on Future TV yesterday: Just a few minutes after praising Walid Jumblat for his “Moral Clarity” and supporting his stances on conducting a half+1 quorum for electing the next President, the ex Intelligence chief and Hariri loyalist went back and said that the best realistic outcome would be a “crisis management” President. In other words, a compromise President.

The more March 14 presidential candidates announce their programs and appease Hezbollah (Boutros Harb’s announcement today mentioned “protecting the resistance” and “the crucial Two-Thirds Quorum”), The more Walid Jumblat’s threats of convening a half+1 quorum ring hollow, regardless of the fact that the letter of the constitution allows for such a scenario.

So where does Saad Hariri, leader of the Future movement stand?

By keeping his silence (although he’s not distancing himself too much as his media still showcases Jumblat’s and Geagea’s statements), Hariri might be trying to prepare the grounds for a Saudi-Style compromise (which proved disastrous in the case of Palestine). Seniora’s statements in defense of Hezbollah against the Human Rights Watch yesterday point in that direction, and even the French now seem to prefer compromise.

March 8 members are sensing an opportunity. Hezbollah’s Mohammed Raad announced a few days ago that they are waiting for the position of a “certain source”, referring to Hariri, to see where the country is heading. Michel El Murr called Hariri’s silence “a great national stance”, not to mention Nabih Berri’s constant optimistic rhetoric.

The “American Wing” of March 14 is furious. Amine Jemayyel told Assafir that Lebanon has become a loony bin. Walid Jumblat warned that you can’t compromise with those who don’t accept the notion of Lebanon and Micheal Young is already criticizing Hariri. 

The Americans also appear to be feeling the heat. Their Humvee donations to the Army can be seen as a bribe and Mr. Feltman’s declaration that Lebanon is a “strategic partner” looks more like sizzle than like beef.

Nobody really knows which of Johnny Abdo’s two instincts is correct. But no matter what choice Hariri will eventually make, only history will be able to tell if compromise or confrontation was the right way to go.

The Orange presidential aspirant defines the term “compromise candidate”.

A heading in tayyar.org caught my attention today : “Aoun To MBC: I don’t think we’ll reach November 24 without agreeing on who the next President will be”

Now the word ‘agree’ in Arabic (natafaham) can also mean ‘compromise’, so I thought: Could it be? Aoun wants to compromise?

I went ahead, eager to read the transcript of the interview with MBC for signs that the great general could have made a great concession, until I hit a wall:

When asked if he thinks a compromise candidate could be reached, (Ra’ees Tawafuki), this is how he replied:

Translation (Mine):

To us, a compromise candidate is someone who has a program, has the ability to abide by it and force it on others. Everything else is a waste of time.

You have to give it to Mr. Aoun. Only he can compromise with you and force you in the same breath.

Or perhaps he’s just wasting our time.