Bilal Y. Saab, a Senior Research Assistant in Foreign Policy Studies, Saban Center for Middle East Policy wrote a paper on the current Lebanese stalemate.
“The most probable outcome for Lebanon”, he writes, “is agreement among warring political camps over a consensus presidential candidate, but disagreement over the future political program, essentially prolonging the current political crisis.”
Read the synopsis of his paper for more on his reasoning, or, if you’re subscribed, the entire thing.
The American Secretary of State just announced that there shouldn’t be any compromises on the principles of Sovereignty and independence when selecting the next President. Is she right?
(Cartoon from The Guardian newspaper)
The statement should make many kiss-and-makeup advocates in Lebanon nervous. The principle of “compromise” has been making headways in the Lebanese mainstream and is acceptable to a large percentage of the population and the media. Even the Maronite patriarch reportedly said that he will only accept a compromise candidate.
“Compromise” is seductive in Lebanon because many people would gladly pay a piece of, say, the International Tribunal, as the price for stability and the resumption of normality, with the country’s economic situation leaving many uneasy.
Ms. Rice effectively joins the ranks of the March 14 “hawks” like Mr. Jumblat who argue that one can never have security at the expense of justice, and that one shouldn’t sell out one’s revolution, especially if it was based on the principles of sovereignty and freedom.
Lebanese “realists” on the other hand argue that compromise is not such a bad idea, as they accept that Syria still controls some levers of power in Lebanon and remains capable of wreaking havoc, and that it would be unwise to provoke her by choosing a hostile president (although both March 14 candidates hardly pose any threat to Syria).
It is too easy for the opposition to blast Ms. Rice as standing in the way of a collective Lebanese Hug. But one should remember that most of what she said is correct. For example, President Lahhoud and the opposition keep reminding us that they want to roll back the decisions Seniora’s (“illegitmate”) government has taken. Ms. Rice is not committing balsphemy when she says that the next President “needs to be committed to resolutions that Lebanon has signed on to”.
**update**
As expected, Syria has blasted Rice’s comments and accused her of “blatantly interfering in Lebanese affairs“
To Amir Taheri, a famous commentator with an Iranian background, there is no doubt who Ahmadinejad’s choice for the Lebanese Presidency is.
The one with the bigger smile gets to chose the president.
Writing in the English website of Alsharq Al Awsat, a Saudi newspaper, Mr. Taheri chose to ignore Lebanon’s big story -the “summit” meetings between Hariri and Aoun in Paris- and is presenting Mr. Aoun as the Iranian’s president’s only choice:
Earlier this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dispatched his Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki to Damascus with a single message: Tehran wants Aoun and no one else as the next President of Lebanon. Believing that he is pushing the US into retreat across the chessboard, from Afghanistan to Iraq and passing by the Caspian Basin and e Levant, Ahmadinejad hopes that a spectacular success in Lebanon would enhance his own prospects for winning a majority in the Iranian general election next spring.
According to Mr. Taheri, even Syria will be strong-armed by Iran to Accept Aoun:
In Ahmadinejad’s analysis, Syria, now a virtual client state of the Islamic Republic, is trying to keep the option of switching sides open. One way to block that option is to commit Syria to a direct and clear confrontation with the United States and its Arab allies over who should be Lebanon’s next president. The man most likely to provoke such confrontation is Aoun whose election would amount to a clear defeat with the current Lebanese majority
How credible is Mr. Taheri’s article?
I personally find it hard to believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad would vouch so aggressively for someone who might eventually turn against him, as Mr. Taheri himself concedes. The objective of a symbolic victory over the US could well be on Mr. Ahmedinejad’s to-do list, but I doubt that Aoun is the best vehicle for implementing it.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS