The Candidates
The AP is reporting:
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Michel Suleiman was sworn in as Lebanon’s president Sunday after parliament elected him in long-delayed vote following an 18-month political stalemate that brought the country to the brink of another civil war.
The Hezbollah-led opposition and Western-backed government agreed last week to elect Suleiman as part of their deal to end the political crisis. The presidential vote had been postponed 19 times since November when the last president, Emile Lahoud, left office.
Major victory for Hezbollah
The Arab-mediated deal reached in Doha, Qatar was a major victory for the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and its allies, who got their long-standing demand for veto power over all government decisions.
It was a setback for the U.S., which had strongly backed the Lebanese government for three years and is concerned that Iran’s influence is spreading in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the U.S. has welcomed the political agreement in Lebanon.
“I am confident that Lebanon has chosen a leader committed to protecting its sovereignty, extending the government’s authority over all of Lebanon, and upholding Lebanon’s international obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions,” President Bush said in a statement.
Suleiman, a compromise candidate, ran unopposed. He won 118 votes of the 127 living members of the legislature, according to parliament speaker Nabih Berri.
There were six blank ballots. Two legislators voted for one-time presidential hopefuls and one was in the name “Rafik Hariri and the martyred legislators” - a reference to the slain former prime minister and five other lawmakers killed in bombings in the last three years.
Some objected to vote
As the session got under way, four lawmakers objected to the vote, saying the constitution must be first amended to allow a sitting army chief to run for the post. But Berri rejected their requests.
Lebanon’s constitution bans serving top government officials, including army commanders, from becoming president. Parliament should have to amend the constitution but experts said this time around is an exception because the president’s post is vacant.
A U.S. delegation of congressmen - including Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Rep. Ray Lahood, R-Ill., and Rep. Charles Melancon, D-La. - were in attendance at the vote.
Representatives from both sides of the Middle East’s Sunni-Shiite divide came: the foreign ministers of Syria and Iran, which support Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia, a strong backer of the government.
Other dignitaries on hand were French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manochehr Mottaki told reporters at the Beirut airport that he was carrying with him a “sea of support” for Lebanon.
Kouchner, in a veiled comment aimed at Hezbollah, said he had hoped the solution would come in a more “democratic” way. “But this is Lebanon,” he added. Kouchner had for months tried to mediate between feuding Lebanese politicians to no avail.
As the flashing lights and sirens of 9/11 fade further in the rear view mirror, the temptation to accelerate back toward the dangerous Faustian bargain we call realpolitik seems to be returning in full force, as strong as ever. It’s precisely this misguided policy prescription that will only serve to expedite the path to war between Iran and Israel; unless, of course, the U.S. were to place principle above the facade of “stability” and sought to prevent the escalation of a wider conflict throughout the Middle East by pre-emptively attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and overthrowing the terror-sponsoring regime before the Israelis felt compelled to act alone in self-defense as a result of American failure to take the initiative and act responsibly.
Bush was pretty pissed off at Dennis Ross for telling Obama to promptly denounce the president’s warnings to the Knesset of the danger of practicing the “false comfort of appeasement”, as Neville Chamberlain naively and cowardly advocated towards Hitler. And now, just days later, in light of the revelation of back-channel discussions between Israel and Syria via Turkey, it appears President Bush is suddenly acquiescing to the very same counterproductive position of militant pragmatism proposed by Dennis Ross, himself, in Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World.
May 25th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I understand the frustration at Bush for signing off on the deal. But as Kouchner said, this is Lebanon. The most important thing for Beirut and the region at this moment is stability, and I stress “at this moment.” The deal struck this past week won’t last forever; nothing there ever does. But that country has been on the brink of explosion for too long now, and if this deal, at least for the imminent future, brings all sides together (including, significantly, the Saudis), then I would have to side with Bush on his support for the new Lebanese president. Time will tell if this improves relations between Israel and Lebanon (and Syria), or adds fuel to the already burning fire between the Israelis and Hezbollah. Judging from the opinions of my relatives in Israel (some in the Army, some on the peacenik side, most in the middle), it really doesn’t matter who the president of Lebanon is: nothing will ever change with Hezbollah right across the border.
May 25th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
You’re right, Aron. For all his rhetoric, Bush is a lukewarm supporter of Israel. I fear Israel will have to go it alone. Shame on us.
May 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
” 127 living members of the legislature”
Tell me they don’t elect dead people…
May 25th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
3. . . haha that’s what I was thinking. I’m sure they mean that several legislators have been assassinated. It’s pretty sad that they even refer to “living members” in everyday journalism.
May 25th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
In what universe would America invading, bombing, and attempting regime change in Iran be “responsible”???
I’ve got one word for you: Basij.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Josiah,
It’s the responsible course of action to take when the alternative is a protracted regionwide war that could plausibly result in a Third World War.
The U.S. pre-emptively delivering a knockout punch is clearly the lesser of two evils.
Also, can the US responsibly allow Israel, in an act of self-defense, to act unilaterally against Iran, especially when we have over 150,000 troops in neighboring Iraq?
May 25th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Aron,
What makes you think the U.S. has the capacity to deliver a “knock out” punch to Iran? If we ever had the capacity to deliver a “knock out” punch to any Muslim country, why didn’t we do so in Afghanistan or Iraq? Regardless, if we had any semblance of an ability to deliver such a “punch” before Afg/Iraq, we certainly don’t have that capability now. And this, of course, is all again disregarding Iran’s 40,000 “human wave” troops ready to deploy, and many more willing and eager to join their ranks.
As for your last question: yes. In fact, by far the most responsible thing the US can do is to allow Israel to act in whatever way she sees fit. The fact that we already have 150,000 troops unwisely and unconstitutionally stationed in neighboring Iraq does not justify even more meddling in Israel and Iran’s affairs. It merely shows the fact that if a war between Israel and Iran is as inevitable as you believe, getting our troops out of Iraq is now all the more necessary and pertinent.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I doubt we know 1/20th of what’s going on behind the scenes with Iran.
I’d not be surprised if Iran was nuke-rattling to get some concessions from the US. Just like with North Korea we’ll probably come to an agreement with them.
The clerics aren’t going to risk their cushy lifestyle for a mere 70 virgins in Paradise. They probably have that many in a fortnight.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I agree with some of the commenters here. What other choice was there but compromise? Civil war serves no one’s interests. I want us to succeed in Iraq, but realistically speaking, Iraq has guaranteed neither stability nor the establishment of democratic values in the middle east. Of course, if we lose there, all is lost, but the better option by far would have been not to have invaded at all. North Korea has showed that options can be exercised beyond regime change. Our foreign policy cannot be meeting any potential threat with regime change. That is simply not a realistic or beneficial policy.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Communism and Islamic extremism are two different things. One fears death, and has every incentive to avoid war. The other welcomes death and treats martyrdom as a goal, and has every incentive to incite war.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:28 am
While there’s plenty of U.S. policy that is utterly wrong, Bush really had very little choice here, as Hiz&Co. had very good chances of forcing their way. The real screwups is the leftwing Olmert government - but I guess we all know that.