The Current Situation Regarding The Lebanese Presidency

Lebanese President Emile Lahoud is under intense pressure to resign following the charges against four of his security chiefs. Many MPs and opposition activists are calling for his resignation. Nevertheless, Lahoud has reiterated his decision to stay on as president until his term expires in November 2007. Whether that may happen or not is up for debate.

In Paris this week, members of the anti-Syrian majority in the Lebanese Parliament, particularly majority leader Saad Al-Hariri and Druze leader Walid Junblatt, have held discussions regarding the election of the next president. US Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman has met up with Al-Hariri and Junblatt in France in an effort to find a suitable replacement to Lahoud.

The Lebanese constitution explicates that the president of the republic must be a Christian Maronite, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the chamber of deputies a Shia Muslim. The constitution also states that the deputies in parliament must elect the president. Since Saad Al-Hariri controls the majority of seats, he will play one of the biggest roles in determining the next president. However, how long that may take isn't entirely up to him.

When the Lebanese constitution was amended last September under Syrian influence, it was meant to extend Lahoud's term for another three years. Since the president is only entitled to sit one six-year term, Lahoud's term would have expired last November since he took office in 1998. However, as a result of the amendment, Lahoud has until November 2007 to vacate the presidency. Saad Al-Hariri and Walid Junblatt are advocates of ensuring Lahoud's demise before the additional three years are up.

Getting Lahoud out of office may come in different ways. For starters, Lahoud can simply resign if he wishes to, but he has made it clear that he intends to stay on and complete his term in office. However, An-Nahar Newspaper announced that if Lahoud is indicted by Mehlis in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri, he might resign. Lahoud has continuously stated that he has no blood on his hands and thus, it would be expected that even if he is indicted, he will challenge the indictment and refuse to step down. Lebanon's parliament would then have to decide whether it wanted to go ahead with proceedings to impeach the president.

The constitution states that in order to impeach the president, a two-thirds majority is required in the Chamber of Deputies. This could cause trouble for Saad Al-Hariri and his allies. Al-Hariri's bloc controls 72 of the 128 seats and thus, only 56%. Michel Aoun's coalition controls 21 seats and therefore 16%, while the pro-Syria faction holds 35 seats, which means they control 27%. Thus, it is obvious that if Al-Hariri and Aoun were to join forces, they could impeach Lahoud. However, strained relations have emerged between the two.

When Michel Aoun returned to Lebanon following a 15-year exile in France, many had expectations that he would join the established Syrian opposition, but before he even arrived in Beirut, some were criticising him. Aoun and Junblatt were the first to kick it off with Junblatt describing the General's return as a tsunami, while Aoun struck back at the Druze leader by calling him a taxi driver. As time went on, Al-Hariri and Aoun fell out as well. Aoun began making it obvious that he believed Al-Hariri's political methods were corrupt. It led to a division within the Syrian opposition, with some analysts believing that Aoun had struck a deal with Damascus.

Aoun has indicated that he may desire the chance to become Lebanon's next president. He may even be the favourite choice among the Americans and the French because they believe his attitude towards disarming Hizbullah is efficient, although it is not known how he may plan to carry that out. However, it has been reported that Jacques Chirac might not be keen on him. During their meetings, both Al-Hariri and Junblatt expressed their anxieties regarding Aoun's desire for the presidency. They figured that it might not be the best idea to have one general succeed another. There are reports that an attempt at reconciliation between Al-Hariri and Aoun is being discussed. This may even be brought up when Saad Al-Hariri meets President George Bush in New York this week.

Believing that Aoun may prove to be a capable leader in implementing UNSC Resolution 1559, both Bush and Chirac may press Al-Hariri to resolve his differences with Aoun and support his candidacy for the presidency. Even if they do reach an agreement, it still may not be that easy for Lahoud's impeachment to go through.

Aoun's coalition is made up of Christians, some of whom had close ties to Damascus. Thus, it would seem difficult for those who had worked with Syria to turn against Lahoud since these deputies are close associates, or in some cases, relatives of the president. The only way out of this dilemma is probably to reach a compromise, with the possibility of Damascus being involved. The fact that Lahoud still has close ties with Syria indicates that Damascus still has a role in Lebanese politics. After all, they have the power to demonstrate any unhappiness with the Lebanese government by closing the Syrian-Lebanese border, as they did earlier this summer.

Therefore, it seems that Washington, Paris and Damascus may play a role in finding a successor. One factor that many in the Lebanese government are considering is that they cannot chose a president who is vehemently opposed to the Syrian regime. They would have to choose someone like Fouad Siniora, who is part of the coalition against Syrian interference in Lebanon, but not necessarily against the Syrian government itself. This fact may pretty much rule out Samir Geagea's chances of becoming the next president, which is if he had any intentions of running. On the other hand, some suggest that Aoun has hinted that he may be willing to set aside the events of the past, such as his war against Syria towards the end of the civil war, and reconcile his differences with Damascus. The fact that he has joined forces with allies of Damascus may be testament to that fact.

The priority right now for many is to get Lahoud to resign his post. Washington has made it clear that it doesn't see Lahoud's presence on the Lebanese political stage as relevant anymore. The fact that both Lahoud and Al-Hariri are going to New York to represent Lebanon separately makes it clear that one of them isn't welcome. Since most members of the international community, especially Washington and Paris, will hold meetings with Saad Al-Hariri, it makes it obvious that Lahoud's legitimacy is fading dramatically, if it has not faded away completely by now.

Since it is blatant that Syria can influence Lebanese policy through its borders, since it only opened them after Prime Minister Siniora promised not to allow Lebanon to become a base for opposition against Syria, it is clear that Damascus also needs to show its approval of the next president. Despite the differences between the Al-Assad government and Al-Hariri's bloc, reconciliation must take place between the two leaders in order for Lebanon to have a smooth transition of power from Lahoud to the next president.

By now, it may be that the following factors may have to be taken into consideration when selecting the next president:

1. the Lebanese people in order to avoid the current status of internal tension;
2. Washington;
3. Paris, since it is Lebanon's closest European ally;
4. the Al-Hariri bloc in parliament;
5. Aoun's faction;
6. Cardinal Sfeir since most Maronites look up to him;
7. and Damascus.

If Lahoud manages to stay on until his three years are up, then Aoun's faction may not be as important, since a reconciliation is only imperative if Al-Hariri wanted Aoun's support to impeach Lahoud. Nevertheless, the days ahead for both Lebanon and Syria are filled with curiosity. It is very important for the Lebanese, in order to avoid instability, to address these seven factors immediately so as to be prepared for when the Mehlis Report comes out.

Will Bashar Repeat His Father's Surprise?

Many news sources have indicated that President Bashar Al-Assad will not head the Syrian delegation to the United Nations' summit in New York next week. Although this appears to be the case, the official Syrian news agency SANA has not ruled his visit out completely:

Syria Does not Confirm President Assad Participation at UN Summit
New York, September 6, (SANA) –

Syrian senior official to the UN announced on Tuesday there was no official confirmation that President Bashar al-Assad would head the Syrian delegation to UN summit in New York.

“We did not receive any official confirmation from the Syrian capital on whether President Bashar al-Assad will head the Syrian delegation to the United Nations Summit that will open September 14,” Syria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations told the Syrian T.V. this evening.

Faysal Miqdad said that Syria was showing a great interest in this summit and the international action in general noting that the Syrian delegation in New York was following up standing political preparations for the summit.

Miqdad hoped the international interests in the summit would not be retreated following the nature catastrophe that hit the United States which occupied the US public opinion as well the international interest.

Syria’s permanent representative to the UN voiced at the same time “Syria’s strong sympathy with victims of this grave incident.”

S. Younes.

Many sources have suggested that President Al-Assad wants to stay away from New York due to reports from people close to Mehlis who are indicating that major elements within the Syrian regime were involved in the Al-Hariri assassination. Rumors are circulating that the President could be held by US officials if there is evidence that he was involved in the assassination. Others are saying that the President is fearful of a coup by top officials in the regime who are upset with his handling of the situation following international pressure to withdraw from Lebanon. Could these really be reasons for the President not to attend the summit?

First of all, the Mehlis report has sought a 40-day extension according to news sources. Until the final report is published, nobody can accuse anyone of anything. These reports that Mehlis has concluded the majority of his work and now has a clear idea of who was most likely behind the assassination have no credibility until he comes to Syria, carries out his interviews, and then presents his findings. As of right now, the President has no reason to avoid New York if this is the case. Simultaneously, the United States doesn't have the power to detain the President because there are no charges against him with regards to this inquiry.

A recent article I read suggested that the President was fearful of a coup in his country. If this information is coming from the same man who defected from the Syrian regime to give evidence to Mehlis, I think we can all count that it is as bogus as his testimony to the German investigator. I would like to see the bank account of this defector before and after he fled Syria in order to see whether he had been tipped heavily.

I haven't ruled out President Al-Assad's visit to New York completely. The fact is that most of the news articles saying that he will not be attending are coming from Lebanese papers. No official report has come from Damascus. Some officials in Syria were upset to hear these claims since they were hoping that this would be the President's chance to give his case before the world.

I suggest we all go back in time to just after February 7, 1999. King Hussein of Jordan had just died and world leaders were preparing to head off to Amman to attend the state funeral. Everyone was doubtful as to whether President Hafez Al-Assad, one of Hussein's rivals, would actually attend the funeral. On the morning of the funeral, Syrians still had no idea. Then, all of a sudden, the Syrian delegation arrived in the Jordanian capital. Newspapers from around the world had Al-Assad on their front pages. Considering how many world leaders were at the funeral, his face stood out the most because nobody believed he would go.

The wife of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was just as surprised as others who attended the funeral to see him. According to a story I heard, she was so surprised that he came that she tried to get a glimpse of the President, but his bodyguards kept her away.

Could this be the case once again? If President Al-Assad were to surprise the world with his visit to New York, accompanied by his popular wife, it would send so many signals to those who doubt him. For starters, he could claim that despite the accusations against him, he stood his ground and faced the international world regardless of what other world leaders thought about him. He would also be sending a message to the Syrian opposition in the USA that they shouldn't count their chickens before they have hatched.

Even if Condoleeza Rice decides to isolate him by not inviting him to a meeting of Arab leaders, he could undermine her efforts by meeting with his Arab counterparts before she does. Even if George W. Bush refuses to invite him to an early reception, he could outsmart the world's most powerful man with his professional speaking skills while giving a speech. Everyone knows Bush isn't the best at speeches, but Al-Assad has a tendency to sound like a head of state when he speaks.

I, personally, would be very happy if President Bashar Al-Assad attended this summit with his wife. This may be his chance to state Syria's case before the world. After all, he wasn't so worried when he attended the Pope's funeral in April.

In a previous post, I suggested that there may be a deal between Damascus and Washington. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not. If there is no deal, then I hope the President attends and addresses the General Assembly. Regardless of what Mehlis says, his report won't be coming out for another 40 days and we will never really know the truth anyway. Until then, I hope another surprise is going to be repeated next week.

Like fathers, like sons: could another deal be in the making? 

Washington's Approach to Syria

I don't know about you, but I suspect there is a deal going on between the Bush Administration and Syria. Those of you who have continuously watched the news and read the papers may think that I'm just delusional. You may be asking yourselves: why would the Americans, who have tried so hard to destabilize the Syrian regime through international pressure, actually want to cut a deal with it? Throughout this essay, I will try to answer that question.

First of all, what have the Americans learnt from Iraq? Well, their plans for post-war reconstruction aren't that impressive. More troops have had to be sent to Iraq to try and promote stability. Do they really want to have the same problems in Syria? After all, if the Syrian regime collapsed, the Sunni majority will rise, probably ally itself with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq and thus, Syria will become another base for warfare. This is the worst-case scenario. I don't even think the Americans are considering this because I sense that they are already working with President Bashar Al-Assad.

I have already made the suggestion that the Sunnis would rise to power in Syria if the Baathists fell, but what I need to clarify is how they would rise to power. The Sunnis who resent the Alawite-dominated Baathist government in Syria the most are the urban ones. The rural Sunnis have forged an alliance with the Alawites in the Baath Party, but according to recent statistics, the urban Sunnis are growing in number much more than the rural Sunnis. Thus, if the regime fell, they would be the obvious choice to fill the government's shoes. However, after more than four decades of anger and resentment, they may try to capture the state and hang on to it by any means necessary. Remember, where there is a lot of anger and resentment, there is a chance of extremism emerging. If that were the case, Syria may lose its secular image. The Americans must have taken note of this when considering possibilities for Syria's future.

Another factor the Americans are watching closely is secularism. Would they rather see a secular Syria or a religious Syria? A religious Syria could end up becoming much more anti-American than the current regime. In fact, the Syrian government has projected itself as anti-American recently in order to build up itself as the last bulwark of Arab nationalism. It is more of a tactic than a policy. Even if the Americans were to bring down the Baath Party in Syria, I doubt they would be supported by the people since a majority of Syrians tend to be more opposed to the Americans than their own government. The hostility against the USA would most likely increase in a religious state. This is all the more reason to seek a compromise with the current regime.

I am sure you have been hearing in the news that Bush administration officials have been meeting with Syrian opposition leaders. This is merely a signal to the Syrian government to change its behaviour. Washington knows that change can only come from within Syria and not with opposition leaders operating outside of Syria. Take, for example, a family. If a family has a fight, does it ask somebody from outside the family to solve its problem? No, the family members work together to solve the problem. Farid Ghadri's plan of forming a transitional parliament to oversee the reconstruction of the Syrian government is not going to help anything. Washington knows that it cannot put these people, who have very small links to the Syrian people, in charge because that will create more instability since they will be seen as Bush's lackies. In other words, if they want to avoid another Iraq scenario, they cannot consider an opposition whose base of support within Syria is miniscule.

What Washington is doing is pressuring Syria to reform itself. In some cases, this has worked. The Syrian government is engaging with people like Ayman Abdel-Nour, a Baathist reformer who wants to work with the President to bring about reform. You see, Washington knows that President Bashar Al-Assad is a reformer and that he can be dealt with. They understand that if he left the political scene, chaos would most likely ensue regardless of any well-thought-out plans.

Before Dr. Bashar succeeded his father, President Hafez Al-Assad wanted guarantees from the Americans that they will accept him. Of course, this was never publicised, but this was the case. The Americans gave Bashar legitimacy. They understand that he has been restricted by elements of his father's old guard in his pursuit of change. A primary example of this is when he was pressured by these elements to bring an end to the Damascus Spring in 2001. In some ways, the pressure on Syria may work to his advantage and the Americans are bearing this in mind.

Following US and French-led international pressure to get Syria out of Lebanon, the government of President Al-Assad came under pressure to accomodate the winds of change in Damascus. Due to this pressure, major figures in the old guard announced their resignation from the government and the ruling Baath Party at the June 2005 Baath Party conference. The result has been President Al-Assad's further consolidation of power. It is doubtful if this would have happened without pressure from Washington.

Following Secretary Rice's visit to Beirut, rumors suggested that her meeting with pro-Syrian President Lahoud indicated a deal was being done with Syria. She couldn't, of course, go to Damascus due to the atmosphere of the political situation. Many are now suggesting that there is a deal with Washington not to implicate Syria in the Al-Hariri assassination. Regardless of such a deal, I have maintained that I don't believe Al-Hariri's assassination was sanctioned by the Syrian government.

You have read my arguments, but there is something else to this situation. Why does the USA appear to be such an enemy of Syria in the media? My opinion is that for some people, the truth hurts. You see, the Americans cannot be seen to cozy up to Israel's primary enemy. You all know the stories of why the USA has a soft spot for the Jewish lobby and this is a reason why. But what is the big deal about Syria that the Americans care so much about? Simply stated, the Americans want to get Syria and Israel to sign a peace deal. A peace deal with Syria would hasten peace with the Palestinians and the possibility of a stable Middle East, which would make the USA's wealthy allies happy. The Americans knew that the chances of a peace deal between Israel and President Hafez Al-Assad's government were slim, so now they are trying to help Dr. Bashar install new blood in his government in order to change the Syrian policy to favour peace with Israel.

I could, after all, be wrong on this issue. If the Mehlis report puts blame of Al-Hariri's assassination on Syria directly, then I will reconsider my opinions on the matter. Such a report would mean that the possibility of Washington working with Damascus wouldn't be very convincing. In my opinion, change can only come from within and I believe the Americans know this. I even believe they knew this before the Iraq invasion, but unlike Iraq, Syria doesn't have a plethora of oil to be pumped. In that case, the risk of chaos didn't matter because the reward appeared to have been bigger, but there is no reward in an unstable Syria.