The internal negotiations are part of an opaque and complex process that leaves the people clueless and powerless.

A round table minus the table…

We know Mr. Hariri is talking with Mr. Berri. We also know that Mr. Hariri is talking with Mr. Aoun. That’s all. With the exception of a few clarifying statements here and there, we the Lebanese are in the dark when it comes to negotiations on who the next President will be.

Messrs Hariri and Berri are often portrayed as the doves who are willing to make compromises “if Lebanon’s highest interests are served”. They are both influenced by Saudi Arabia and that new entrant to doveland, France. The other parties, namely Hezbollah, Jumblat and Geagea are often portrayed as hardliners who represent the interests of outside parties (USA on one side, and Syria & Iran on the other) who are bent on playing the zero sum game of Middle Eastern hegemony.

All this results in a process so delicate the slightest unknown might break it. Occasionally some light is cast (like Mr. Ghassan Tueni’s insinuation of the inclusion of a third March 14 candidate). But in general, the Lebanese really can’t tell with certainty what will happen after November 24, as any of the extremes is likely.

Nevertheless, game theory and self interest suggest that the most plausible outcome will be a last-minute settlement. Paradoxically, that is the only thing most of the Lebanese seem to agree on.

Are the Americans swimming against the tide in the upcoming Lebanese election?

Cartoon by Armand Homsi, Annahar November 6, 2007

There seems to be an emerging international consensus on the idea of a “compromise” President. The French Minister of Foreign affairs, Mr. Kouchner said yesterday that “The only solution would be to find a candidate that everyone agrees on”. Patriarch Sfeir made a moral equivalence between those who vote “unilaterally” for a simple majority, and those who skip the vote. The Saudi king is also looking for “consensus”.

The maverick in this international field is America. Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad, the American Ambassador in the United Nations said yesterday that there was nothing wrong with choosing a president using a simple majority. The American Secretary of State had said that she was against a compromise in this issue. Is the American position justified?

The American position, echoed by the Majority’s presidential hopefuls, is the right one if it is intended to send a credible threat to Syria and to the opposition to strengthen the majority’s bargaining power. The simple majority is the “nuclear option” of this negotiation, and it should only be used for tactical purposes. It would be wrong if this were the official policy regardless of what the internal negotiations yield.

In the next post, I will talk about those internal negotiations.