| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Hezbollah is back to its old tricks |
| 2007-09-20 |
| By Amir Taheri Ever since it was driven out of southern Lebanon in last year's mini-war, the Hezbollah has pursued a strategy aimed at replacing the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora with one in accord with the regional ambitions of Syria and Iran. The strategy started with the withdrawal of Hezbollah ministers from Siniora's coalition Cabinet in the hope that this would force the prime minister either to adopt policies that Iran and Syria wanted or face the collapse of his government. When that did not work, Hezbollah allied itself with a faction of Maronite Christians led by ex-General Michel Aoun to form a pincer with which to crack the Siniora government. When the addition of Aoun to the anti-government plot failed to produce the desired result, Hezbollah went for direct action. It deployed tens of thousands of professional protesters in the streets of Beirut to besiege government offices and paralyse the administration. Almost a year later, however, that tactic, too, has failed. Then came a direct bid to provoke a civil war by unleashing the so-called Fatah Al Islam (Victory of Islam), a radical armed group linked to Al Qaida, near the Sunni heartland of Tripoli. However, the revived Lebanese army remained loyal and proved that it was willing and able to defend the democratically elected government. All those events weakened the Lebanese economy by keeping the tourists and foreign investors away. However, the economic collapse desired by Hezbollah and Aoun did not materialise. Throughout this year a long tug of war, Hezbollah and Aoun had one key card to play: President Emile Lahoud. Owing the extension of his presidency to Syria, Lahoud has done all in his power to help Tehran and Damascus win in Lebanon. Nevertheless, Lahoud's efforts to derail the government have also failed. Lahoud's term of office, including the three-year bit added to it under Syrian pressure, ends in November. Under the Constitution, the process of choosing a new president starts on September 23 and should be completed within two months. Under an unwritten convention, the president must belong to the Maronite community but cannot be elected without the support of a majority of the members of the parliament. Two points are already clear. First, Aoun, who abandoned his life-long opposition to Syrian domination in the hope of getting the presidency, is unlikely to achieve his goal. His Iranian and Syrian allies have already decided to betray him by offering a compromise on what they term "a consensual candidate". The second point is the fact that the national coalition that backs the Siniora government has the majority required to choose the next president with or without the Hezbollah-Aoun axis. However, the simple majority rule becomes operational after the parliament has failed to agree on a candidate of consensus. This is why Tehran and Damascus have started manoeuvres aimed at imposing a consensus candidate, that is to say someone not committed to the democratic coalition's political agenda. Lahoud has suggested that the army chief of staff General Michel Suleiman be chosen interim president for three years. Such a move would keep Lebanon in a state of uncertainty well into the year 2010, the date that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has fixed as one marking the "total defeat" of the United States' strategy to bring democracy to the Middle East. There is, however, no chance that Lahoud's idea would fly if only because it violates the constitution. This is why Lahoud has flown a second kite by suggesting that he should stay in place until after a new general election chooses a new parliament. Lebanon's anti-democratic forces have other tricks up their sleeve. One is the idea that the parliament should name its oldest member as president. Another is to choose a technocrat, someone like the Central Bank governor Riad Salamah. Sadly, some in the State Department in Washington appear to be tempted by such ideas and have even tried to persuade the Europeans, especially the resurgent French, to consider a compromise. There is, however, no logical, constitutional or political reason to allow the Hezbollah-Aoun axis and its allies in Tehran and Damascus to escape the consequences of their defeat. They must not be allowed even a half-victory. Planned putsch To dress its planned putsch in some legal garb, the anti-democratic axis claims that no president could be elected outside the parliament building and that a simple majority would not be sufficient. Both claims are false. Three previous presidents, Suleiman Frangieh, Bashir Gemayel and Rene Mouaouad were elected outside the parliament building. And Frangieh won the presidency with a simple majority of the parliamentarians present. Under the constitution, the present parliament has the duty of choosing a new president thus ensuring the continuity of the state before a new general election is called. The democratic majority should agree on a list of two or three candidates for the presidency and submit it to the parliament. Whoever secures a simple majority should be declared president. The Western democracies and the Arab states interested in an independent Lebanon should support whoever wins. Any attempt at helping the putschist minority escape the consequences of its miscalculations would be a betrayal of Lebanon's democratic aspirations. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #1 REALCLEARPOLITICS > RECKONING WITH SYRIA article. Congresswoman says she is introducing legislation calling for US suppor for the "liberation" of Syria's peoples from Terror and anti-democracy??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-09-20 01:22 |