[Al-Ahram, Egypt]

L'Orient Le Jour, Lebanon

Bush's 'Tortured Injunction'

and the Crisis of Nerves

Over Lebanon's Presidency

"Lebanon is preparing to begin the year 2008 with the republic's presidency desperately vacant … There's no need to look far for the big loser in this crazy matter; it is Christian participation in the nation's governance."

EDITORIAL By Issa Goraieb

Translated By James Jacobson and Nicolas Dagher

December 25, 2007

Lebanon - L'Orient Le Jour - Home Page (French)

The fact that according to his own words, George W. Bush has long since lost patience with [Syrian President] Bashar el-Assad is not really new: For years, the U.S. President has continued to castigate the behavior of Damascus, be it in Iraq, Palestine or Lebanon.

Neither is Bush the first Western leader to declare his rejection of all of the semantic traps and all of the tricks - some quite crude - that constitute the bulk of Syrian diplomacy. Long before Bush, a disappointed Jacques Chirac - fulminating with anger after a long series of broken commitments - decided to cut his losses and quarantine the Baathist regime. And it is likely that Nicolas Sarkozy in his turn, who began on a different tack than his predecessor and expanded relations in Syria's direction, and who thought that this time he had obtained something solid from Damascus, must now feel his reserves of patience dwindling dangerously.

Several days ago, Sarkozy told the Syrian leader over the telephone that France expects the deadline for the election of a Lebanese president to be respected. One willingly admits that in this, France gets it; its intent is firm and perfectly clear. The trouble is that France, like as so many others, isn't listened to. What's more, a report that calls for postponing the presidential election is now in the hands of Assembly President Nabih Berry [Nabih Berry is a long-time ally of Hezbullah and has been accused of being a Syrian puppet, which is said to have been instrumental in his appointment as Assembly president in 1992 ]. So Lebanon is already preparing to begin the year 2008 with the republic's presidency desperately vacant; indeed, if the December 29th deadline passes without a constitutional amendment authorizing the election of army chief Michel Sleiman - the only consensus candidate - it will be impossible to select a president before the next regular session of the Assembly in the spring.

[Editor's Note: Lebanon has been without a president since the term of Emile Lahoud - the Syrian-backed president - expired on November 23. Since then, the legislature's anti-Western majority and pro-Syrian minority haven't been able to agree on a successor. The government and opposition have agreed on Army chief Michel Sleiman as a compromise candidate, but remain at odds over the election process (whether a simple majority in attendance will do - which the minority says is unconstitutional) and the shape of a new administration (the pro-Syrian minority parties - which includes Hezbullah - demand to know who Sleiman will choose for his cabinet before he's elected - which the majority argues is unconstitutional)].

It's the sad order of things that the bidding has begun to rise on the eve of the final attempt at a solution, even if behind all the gesturing is lots of serious maneuvering. So much seems clear, since the American president - in desperation - urged [the Parliament] to hold the voting on the basis of an absolute majority As we know, such a prospect has long been brandished by the parliamentary majority to defeat the same type of systematic obstructionism practiced by the opposition. But over recent weeks the plan has frayed, perhaps precisely due to the advice of that same America, which suddenly and again has resorted to the most radical expedients [requesting a simple majority vote in the Assembly].

[Editor's Note: Normally, two-thirds of the Lebanese Assembly must be present for a vote to be held. Enough of the opposition has refused to attend to stymie the voting for a new president. A "simple majority" or an "absolute majority" would allow the pro-Western parties to elect the president without opposition approval - which is what President Bush has suggested].

Out of these two evils - a presidential crisis or a crisis presidency - which one is least harmful? The irony is that the opposition, which has no problem fanning the flames of the first of these calamities, has spared no effort stopping the majority from solving the second. By forcing the future president to accede to its demands before he takes office, the March 8th camp [the pro-Syrian opposition ] does nothing but in fact scuttle Sleimane's candidacy, which it had no choice but to accept and which had barley escaped its lips; and this, with the fearsome strategic depth of Syria and the remarkable armaments of Hezbullah behind it, the opposition has plenty of reason to transform its refusal of a simple majority vote into an act of war.

Even though that the majority never completely renounced such an eventuality [a simple majority vote], one doesn't see it proceeding based on Bush's tortured injunction. All in all, the government of Siniora [the pro-Western prime minister] can wait and see; it even dreams of seizing control of the Assembly to pass a constitutional amendment [to permit simple majority voting]; at the very least, one could say that the government no longer has to be concerned with obtaining a presidential signature [on all legislation passed by the Assembly], which has been so often refused with such obstinacy by [former-President Émile Lahoud].

There's no need to look far for the big loser in this crazy matter; it's Christian participation in the nation's governance. The fact that Michel Aoun gives assurances that he's working for the full rehabilitation of his community will convince only his supporters.

[Editor's Note" Aoun is a Christian Maronite who has spent most of his career fighting Syrian influence on and off the battlefield. Now as head of a parliamentary block, he has entered into alliances with Hezbullah and other pro-Syrian parties , causing former allies to question his allegiance. Cristics say he only cares about winning the presidency himself].

Whatever realism Aoun's latest position reflects is too little, too late, especially after the statement he made yesterday - which surprised no one - that he feels closer to Damascus than to Washington. What's missing is some good conscience and common sense from Aoun, to express a few words of regret for all of the adventures, misadventures and tragedies that he has caused.

Click for French Version