Lebanon: a Step Toward Settlement

Presidential elections in Lebanon have been set for December 7. [Under the Lebanese Constitution, a president is elected by parliament for a six-year, non-renewable term. - Ed.] Some might think that this is an unremarkable event. Heads of state are regularly elected in all countries where power is not inherited. Lebanon is a republic, but a very special one, with a "confessional" system of government. Only a Maronite Christian may be elected as its president. Another distinguishing feature of Lebanon is, in my opinion, the constant confrontation between its rival factions, which has periodically grown into armed clashes and even a civil war. In the mid-1970s, the focus of such Christian-Muslim standoffs was the presence of Palestinian armed resistance units on Lebanese territory. At the request of the Christian camp, Syrian troops were introduced into Lebanon to bring the situation back to normal.

But things have changed considerably since the mid-1970s. Following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978, Palestinian armed forces, led by Yassir Arafat, had to leave the country. Only a few Palestinian refugee camps remained in Lebanon. The political lineup within Lebanon also changed, as did the focal point of confrontation. A substantial part of the Maronite camp, Sunnis and Druze formed a Western backed coalition and entered into confrontation with the Shiites, as represented by two parties - Hezbollah and Amal, as well as pro-Syrian Maronite representatives of other confessions. That time, the central issue was Syrian military presence in Lebanon. Fuel was added to the fire by the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a leader of an emerging anti-Syria bloc. Damascus, in compliance with a UN Security Council resolution, pulled its troops out of Lebanon. Such is a brief prehistory of the current situation in the run-up to of presidential elections in Lebanon.

President Emile Lahoud's term expired two weeks ago. He was considered to be strongly pro-Syrian. The election of a new president has become a matter of fundamental importance. There are two essential factors in the current situation. First, following the assassination of Hariri and the withdrawal of Syrian troops, the anti-Damascus forces won parliamentary elections, and a coalition government was formed, led by a Sunni (on the confessional principle), Fouad Siniora, and backed by France, the United States, and many other countries. Presidential elections will automatically bring a new government to power. Second, the majority of Lebanon's population is made up of Shiite Muslims, whose two leading parties are pushing for the replacement of the Siniora government.

So who will become president now that elections have been postponed several times? It seems that the favorite is a politically neutral figure, Michel Suleiman, commander in chief of the Lebanese Armed Forces. He was backed by the majority of the ruling coalition, led by Hariri's son. It is very important that Suleiman's candidacy was endorsed, among others, by General Aoun, a Maronite leader, an avowed opponent of Syria in the 1970s, but now its sympathizer.

The main snag is that in accordance with Lebanon's Constitution, only a person who has not been in the government for at least two years may be elected president. Meanwhile, Suleiman is the country's top military commander. In this context, the ruling coalition has confirmed its readiness to vote in parliament for waiving this rule with respect to Suleiman. The decision will require a two-thirds majority. From every indication, the opposition is also inclined to back Suleiman.

Added (2008-08-01, 8:38 Am)
---------------------------------------------
But will Suleiman win an outright victory? The time factor has become very important, since with the ongoing uncertainty with respect to supreme power, the country could end up on the verge of a civil war - at any rate, serious armed clashes. I do not think that this would benefit any party, except perhaps for "hawks" in Israel. After all, there are quite a few political and military figures there who would like to take revenge for the unsuccessful war in 2006, when, in spite of the relatively heavy losses sustained by the Israeli Army, Hezbollah militants were not defeated. Could they be pinning their hopes on that armed confrontation in Lebanon (Hezbollah being one of the parties involved) will weaken its military capability? After all, the opposing force will be backed by the United States and Europe.

And should Lebanese Palestinians become involved in this armed confrontation that could seriously impair the impetus to the Middle East peace process that was generated by the Annapolis meeting. It is known that extremist elements not only in Arab countries, but also in Israel are opposed to its outcome. But let us hope that the Israeli hawks no longer prevail in the political establishment, and it will not come to the point of civil war in Lebanon.

Yet another essential aspect of the problem is the position of Syria. It would be naïve to think that even after it pulled its troops out of Lebanon, Damascus has lost interest in the country, which not only borders on Syria, but also has a shared history with it. Lebanese-Syrian relations largely hinge on what political forces will come to power in Beirut. Syrian President Bashar al Assad, who I had the privilege of meeting in November, understands the situation very well. The ongoing events indicate that even though it has retained substantial leverage in Lebanon, Syria refrains from political intervention in the Lebanese presidential elections. Rumors and speculation cannot mislead anyone here. At any rate, the course toward non-interference has prevailed. This strengthens Damascus's constructive approach that emerged as a result of Syria's participation in the Annapolis conference.

It would also be constructive if the West paid attention to that.

By Yevgeny Primakov, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences