Condoleezza Rice: No Compromise On Lebanon

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”