So it looks as though– just as Pervez Musharraf has been stripping off his uniform in Pakistan– in Lebanon Army Chief of Staff Michel Suleiman may be about to move into the Presidential palace in Baabdah.
Suleiman has been one of the candidates favored by Syria. For me, this immediately raises the question of whether there was a Saudi-brokered deal that involved the Syrians sending a (not high-level) representative to Annapolis, and them then getting a presidential candidate in Lebanon with whom they feel they can live?
It was a switch to Suleiman’s candidacy by the Saudi-supported Saad Hariri’s “Future Movement” that made Suleiman the front-runner. Some constitutional issues still persist– namely, that a government employee of his stature is not supposed to become president. But no doubt Musharraf could teach him the dance of the seven combat boots. And anyway, many Lebanese harbor some fairly fond memories of the presidency of Fouad Chehab, who took over in 1958 after a successful, nation-building term as Chief of Staff.
Re the possibility of a Suleiman-Annapolis ‘deal” recall that in Point 3 of this Nov. 22 post on JWN I wrote:
- In my work on my 2000 book, I examined the question as to whether, for this Baath Party regime in Syria, their interests in Lebanon or in Golan were weightier. And I concluded that at that time, it was their Lebanon interests. This time, of course, Syria’s situation in Lebanon is very different…
Well, perhaps not so different after all?
On the question of why Syria cares so much about what happens in Lebanon, there are, of course, hundreds of reasons. (You’ll have to read at least three of my books to find out everything I have to say on the subject.) Right now, though, Syria’s Baathist rulers and their many supporters have a vivid fear that the “joint”, Lebanese-international tribunal investigating the 2005 Hariri murder and a string of other political murders since then will be used by the US-dominated “international community” to in some way weaken and perhaps bring down the Baathist regime in Syria. Within Lebanon the president is one key player, but not the only one, in the decisionmaking around the tribunal.
(But since Syria did go to Bush’s party in Annapolis, does that mean it can now have some assurance that the Bush administration will be easing up on the panoply of regime-needling, regime-weakening, and otherwise very destabilizing things it’s been doing against Syria in recent years? We’ll have to see.)
One strong illustration of the intense hostility that some Lebanese have toward the Asad regime was provided when long-time Lebanese Druze feudal leader Walid Jumblatt addressed the strongly pro-Israeli “Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s annual conference last month. Walid’s father was killed by the Syrians during the Lebanese civil war of 1977; and in late 2004, the Syrians (or someone) tried to blow up the car carrying Walid’s close political confidante Marwan Hamadeh. So you can perhaps understand that Walid is very strongly anti-Syrian at this point. (Though for most of the period between 1977 and 2004 he was a fairly close ally of Syria. Go figure.)
Actually– how can I say this kindly, which I want to do to since I’ve known him fairly well since before his father’s death?– Walid is, ahem, not the world’s most stable individual.
Anyway, if you read the transcript of his presentation at WINEP, you’ll discover it is full of incitement against Syria. Including this exchange, with the well-known failed diplomatist Dennis Ross:
- Ross: … if regime change [through military means] isn’t likely in terms of American policy towards Syria, what do you want to see the administration do? What could it do at this point? Beyond what you described in terms of supporting prosecution, what could it do more than it’s doing today to try to effect the ongoing killing machine as you described it?
Jumblatt: Look, I might be — how should I say — blunt. I might also be — you might find my remarks quite unusual. It was not a mistake in the absolute to remove Saddam Hussein…
So back to your question, there hasn’t been effective sanctions against him [Asad]. What do you want me to say? I’m speaking to a diplomat.
No, I’m not going to be a diplomat. If you could send some car bombs to Damascus, why not?
A few exchanges later, he tried to pass off that remark as “just a joke”… I was, actually, fairly shocked to read the whole transcript of that session and see how extremely belligerent and batty the guy has become… Or perhaps, to see how very belligerent in form of mental instability has now become.
Remember, too, that he was not speaking to a collection of backwoods, powerless people there at WINEP. The place is stacked high with former and future mid- to high-level officials in administrations both Republican and Democratic. It is “revolving-door central” in the systematic effort the tough pro-Israelis in this country have mounted to put their people into positions of power and influence. All the more worrying, therefore, to me as a US citizen– and presumably also to the Syrians?– to see that Walid’s original remark about the car-bombs was greeted by the audience with, according to the transcript: “[Laughter, applause]”
Meanwhile, back in Lebanon, it is by no means a done deal yet that Suleiman’s backers can pull together all the votes they need to get parliament to elect him. But it definitely looks as though something interesting has been getting unblocked in the country’s previously deadlocked political geology.
That’s good news. Let’s hope this trend toward de-escalation can continue.
Update, way past bed-time: I just saw Josh Landis’s take on this. He writes: “If … Suleiman becomes president of Lebanon, Syria will be a winner as a result of Annapolis. Lebanon as well.” I’m not as convinced of that as he seems to be… But the general trend-line seems good.
I think the sooner Lebanon has a president the better for the country. Should Gen. Suleiman win, I wish him the best.
Helena, how credible do you think accusations against Syria of trying to annex Lebanon are? Do you think Lebanon merging into Syria could be possible in the near future?
I’m interested in what scenarios could occur if Lebanon ditched its confessional system and instead directly elected its parliament and its president by one-person, one-vote. There’s apparently a Muslim majority now in Lebanon and so elections would reflect this majority. That may mean a Hezbollah dominated government, maybe with Hassan Nazrallah as president? But then again, Hezbollah might not do that well if it’s perceived as a party only for Shi’ites. Either way, non-Muslim groups would feel threatened by this scenario. So Helena, what policies or institutions do you think could be implimented to guarentee minority rights and convince Christian, Druze and other communities that a one-person, one-vote election system will be no danger to them?
Ah yes, so now an Arab leader advocates a position Helena doesn’t like. So what do we do? Question his mental stability!
well-known failed diplomatist Dennis Ross
what’s a ‘failed diplomatist’? Is that something like a ‘failed journalist?’
Dennis Ross is not perfect. Nevertheless, he and his boss, Bill Clinton, did more than anyone else to try and broker a peace deal. Hateful Helena, arrogantly chirping from the sidelines, blames Ross and Clinton for what was at its essence the problem of Palestinian rejectionism.
Such a pathetic display of hatred toward someone who actually tried to be a PEACEMAKER, and came a hell of a lot closer than anyone else.
the reference to walid’s lack of mental stability was part of a longer part i cut out, reviewing the intemperate language in which, just a few years ago, he criticized and reviled the US decision to inavde Iraq. (Which in his WINEP presentation he says he supports.)
An open call of incitement to people to send car-bombs into a crowded city should be the main focus here, though. And saying that incitement may have been linked to or caused by some mental instability is, in the circumstances, a kind explanation.
But Joshua, you said nothing about that call to send car-bombs into Damascus. Do you think it’s a great idea? If you had been at the conference, would you have been one of those joining in the “Laughter, Applause”? If the US sending car-bombs into a crowded city is an appluadable idea, what makes that different from any other party anywhere in the world doing the same?
Inkan, good questions. I’ll try to get back to them later.
But Joshua, you said nothing about that call to send car-bombs into Damascus. Do you think it’s a great idea?
The ‘laughter and applause’ was a reaction to a “joke” by your belligerent and batty “old friend.” Perhaps you didn’t “get” the joke, because you haven’t mentioned once onthis blog that Syria has successfully assassinated 5 anti-Syrian political figures (Walid Eido, Antoine Ghanim, Gibran Tueni , Samir Qasir, Rafik Hariri) by car bomb in two years. So black humor alluding to these killings is treated as evidence of “mental instability” whereas the events themselves go unnoticed.
I’m interested in what scenarios could occur if Lebanon ditched its confessional system and instead directly elected its parliament and its president by one-person, one-vote. There’s apparently a Muslim majority now in Lebanon and so elections would reflect this majority.
It’s strange to see someone pooh-pooh Lebanon’s confessional system (which is also “one person, one vote”) and in the very next sentence discuss its alternative in clumsy sectarian terms.
Inkan, maybe you would find this very recent Pew report interesting:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/636/lebanon-politics
It demonstrates that Lebanese Sunni Muslims (roughly a third of the population) by and large distrust Iran and Hezbollah by an even wider margin than Lebanese Christians.
Vadim, I did later note that Sunnis might not want to support Shia focused Hezbollah in a one-person one-vote system; I wasn’t aware of how large the Sunni population was in Lebanon.
I still think the confessional system should be pooh-poohed because it doesn’t reflect the actual population. Non-Christians feel screwed because of underrepresentation, and the general population can’t directly elect the President. I think that’s been a major source of Lebanese instability. Perhaps Lebanon should adapt a bicameral legislature, with the upper house still using the confessional allocation and being the equivalent of the U.S. Senate, while the lower house can reflect demographics. If the President is not directly elected, then perhaps the office can be rotated between Maronite, Sunni, and Shi’a, like in Bosnia.
No Helena, I don’t advocate sending car bombs into a city, or even joking about it.
Of course, I don’t describe kidnapping, rocket attacks, and suicide bombing as “daring” and “inventive.”
There has been plenty of vicious and racist rhetoric from Palestinians and other Arabs from groups you have fawned over. Perhaps instead you should question THEIR mental stability.
Inkan, I don’t have time to treat your questions with the seriousness they deserve, but I’ll make a few observations:
First, Lebanese confessional politics can’t simply be broken down to “Christian” and “Muslim.” The Muslim parliamentary representation is broken down into four parts: Sunnis, Shi’ites, Druzes (who count as Muslim in the Lebanese scheme) and Alawites (who were originally classed as Sunnis but have since obtained separate representation under Syrian patronage). Of these, Hizbullah represents only the Shi’ites, so it wouldn’t automatically have a majority in a one-person-one-vote system. Likewise, the Christian half of the confessional system includes not only the Maronites but smaller minorities like the Armenians and the Greek Orthodox, the latter of which have traditionally been more pro-Syrian than the Maronite leadership.
Second, the confessional groups themselves aren’t monoliths. As we’ve seen in the past few years, the Maronites are divided between the Aounist and March 14 blocs (or rather between feudal leaders that support each bloc), the Druzes are divided between Jumblat and Arslan, and there are similar cleavages within the other groups. Even among the Shi’ites, Hizbullah has to compete for allegiance with the local zu’ama (feudal lords) and other political blocs.
Third, it won’t just be the Christians and Druzes who might need protection in a non-confessional system. The Shi’ites will need it as well. They’re probably the largest demographic group in the country (there hasn’t been a census since the 1930s, so nobody knows for sure), but they’re also the poorest, and they were traditionally marginalized. Even if they became the largest national voting bloc, this economic gap would still exist, and an end to confessional politics won’t mean an end to social discrimination. One of the reasons for HA’s popularity is that it gives the Shi’ites clout, which is something that will have to be addressed whether or not the National Pact/Taif political system is maintained.
In terms of substantive policy prescriptions, the idea of rotating top offices has come up a number of times. So have bicameralism and proportional representation. One notion I had during my 2005 ruminations on Lebanese politics was to allow voters to register as “secular” rather than by confession, and to give the secular bloc a proportional number of seats in parliament. In other words, if 50 percent of Lebanese voters chose to register as secular, then half the parliament would be elected on a non-confessional basis. We also kicked around a few other plans at that time, most of them similarly pie-in-the-sky. Right now the political class seems comfortable with matters as they are, though, so I don’t see any real changes happening soon.
the general population can’t directly elect the President
the general public does elect the president. voting rights aren’t restricted by confession, merely candidacy. Sunni and Shia vote on Christian seats and vice versa.
The same rules that guarantee a Christian president also guarantee a Sunni PM and Shia speaker, ie it enshrines a Christian minority among the three most powerful legislative roles.
the general public does elect the president
The president is elected indirectly by the parliament – see article 49(2) of the constitution.
No, Vadim, the Lebanese president is not elected by the people, he is chosen by the Parliament.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein at November 29, 2007 12:16 PM
correct as usual Jonathan. My apologies for the mistake. I meant only that voting rights in general are not restricted by sect but in this case they clearly are.
Vadim, the “I was only joking and you people have no sense of humor” ploy is an old one that I recognize (and resent heartily) from having to listen to far too many sexist and/or racist “jokes” over the decades. In the case of Jumblatt at WINEP, you also need to read that comment in the context of a much longer and extremely belligerent anti-Syrian diatribe.
HaAretz’s Shmuel Rosner, who was there, still wasn’t sure when the affair was over, whether it really had been “a joke” or not.
So when you hear sexist or racist or anti-semitic “jokes” being told in a group of people, do you “go along with it” and contribute your own chuckle to the response, or do you dissociate yourself from that form of dehumanization in some way?
To me, this instance is almost directly analogous– but considerably worse. I’ve had the sad job of having to cover, as a journalist, the aftermath of car-bombs set off in crowded city streets. They are obscene and horrible when they are set off– in Lebanon, in Israel, in Syria, or anywhere. That there was laughter in response to that instance of incitement to grotesque, anti-humane violence tells me a lot more about the WINEP audience than it does about Walid’s mental state at the time.
What I have observed about ME issues, regardless of what one is discussing, is to leave out things that people can nail you on-H, commenting on Jumblatt’s verbose nature is an example of setting yourself up for being debunked by virtue of making such comments…There will always be folk who would rather chide than discuss. C’est la vie!
The Daily Star on the latest developments regarding Lebanon’s Presidential dilemma…
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=87142
H,
An anecdote regarding Walid Jumblatt…I was in Lebanon when Syria issued a warrant for his arrest…a clear attempt to disrupt Lebanon’s political system…which provoked a protest at ESCWA from the PSP (I stood there with the signs of the families of the Leb. detainees)…He knows Syria is his enemy…the US promptly cancelled the interpol warrant…indeed a _very provocative_ and blatant attempt to destabilize Lebanon…Further reason for his fury at Syria…
As to Dennis Ross: he is a partisan who promotes what he perceives to be Israel’s interests. He is a failed diplomat because his bias is so clear that he is no longer acceptable as a negotiator.
A failed journalist is one who has ceased to trust her own judgement and writes to please her employers and the powerful so as to meet the mortgage. In practical terms this often means that the best journalists (I.F. Stone and Claud Cockburn come to mind) have great difficulty finding publishers, whilst time serving mediocrities (an overwhelming number of names instantly springs to mind)are in constant demand.
Jonathan, how are jobs up in NY???
Ready to begin seeking a teaching job for the fall…any thoughts? Suggestions??
Glad to see some focus on Lebanon here once again!
KDJ, please contact me privately and I’d be glad to advise you on job hunting to the extent I’m able.
Maybe Suleiman is close to the Syrians, but he proved capable of maintaining a wide margin of neutrality vis a vis the country’s deeply divided political class. Right after the assassination of Hariri, it is said that he refused to obey orders of suppressing anti-Syrian demonstrations.
I also think that the Lebanese are extenuated at this stage so any ray of hope is welcome.
please check the LA Times Middle East blog http://www.latimes.com/babylonbeyond
I referred to what you wrote in my entry.
Hi, Raed. Thanks for stopping by!
I went over to see your post at the LAT blog, whicb was well-done and interesting. Now that Suleiman’s election has been put on hold for a while, how do you see things there?
Also, what reaction in Beirut to Annapolis?
Btw, do talk to the people who design/publish your blog and send them the following points from me: (1) It would be much better if they listed you as a Contributor there! (2) Given that it’s a multi-author blog, it would be much better if they could identify the author at the head of each post, not at the end.
Blogging takes work! Thanks for joining the blogosphere
Keefak Raed,
We need more Lebanese to blog here-Kasak!
Kevin