Will Parliament extend the mandate of Army Commander-in-Chief General Joseph Aoun, who is set to retire on January 10? Why did the caretaker government, convened unexpectedly last week for this purpose, fail to hold its meeting? Why did various ministers deliberately cause a lack of quorum, especially amid discussions of Hezbollah ministers aligning with their Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) counterparts, who opposed General Aoun’s continued tenure?
Many questions were asked after the Cabinet meeting, initially scheduled for Friday at 12:30 PM, was postponed to Tuesday due to a lack of quorum.
Among the 24 ministers in Najib Mikati’s team, only nine successfully reached the Serail. The entire route, from Riad el-Solh Square to Army Street, Beirut Bank Street and Bab Idriss was obstructed by retired military personnel.
The nine ministers who successfully reached the Serail were Saade Shami, Najla Riachi, Firas Abiad, Ali Hamieh, Bassam Mawlawi, Nasser Yassine, Youssef el-Khalil, Moustafa Bayram and Johnny Corm. Notably, two ministers from Amal, two others closely aligned with the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) and Najib Mikati, as well as the caretaker Minister of Defense, Maurice Slim, have not shown up yet. As for other FPM ministers, they had already decided to boycott the session.
Between this absence and a willingness to pass the buck to Parliament to thwart any legal challenge to invalidate the extension of Aoun’s mandate, an invalidation the FPM is calling for in the Cabinet, there is one move that many observers have not hesitated to make.
"Ministers got in touch this morning to make sure that the meeting would be held. Others explicitly advised their colleagues that attendance was unnecessary, citing road conditions and the obstruction of access to the Serail. I will let you draw your own conclusions," stated a well-informed figure in these discussions to This Is Beirut. The latter went as far as to highlight that deliberately dispersing retired military personnel at various Serail access points was a calculated move to justify the lack of quorum. According to the same source, "Normally, protesters only demonstrate at Riad el-Solh Square," which was not the case on Friday.
Considerable Pressure
Could there have been a role-playing scenario among the main protagonists? Did Nabih Berri want to move in the direction desired by the Lebanese Forces (LF) parliamentary bloc, which advocates for the legislation-based extension of General Joseph Aoun’s mandate, rather than having the executive branch pass an administrative act? Especially considering that this bloc, thanks to its presence at Parliament on Thursday, allowed the last legislative meeting of the year to be held.
These are all questions that come up, but according to sources close to the Lebanese Forces, this possibility is not to be considered. Instead, there is mention of a tacit consensus on the importance of a law that would consolidate any decision related to the retention of security chiefs in their respective positions. Consequently, Parliament should, in principle, vote on Friday afternoon for a text extending the mandates of all security chiefs, not just Joseph Aoun, due to considerations linked to the very particular situation in the country. The country is experiencing a widening vacuum in all key positions, while Lebanon faces the imminent risk of being drawn into a conflict with Israel.
From the same sources, the latest twist in the army command issue is explained by the "enormous" pressures exerted on Najib Mikati, Nabih Berri and even Hezbollah, whether from the Group of Five (United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt), Bkirki or the opposition. These pressures thwarted the "deal" discussed a few days ago between Nabih Berri, Najib Mikati, Hezbollah and FPM leader Gebran Bassil regarding the government taking charge of the army command issue. According to the same source, "No one wants to take responsibility for a vacuum at the head of the regular forces in case an annulment of the administrative act is accepted."
All attention is now focused on Parliament. "The fact that the Cabinet did not hold its meeting removes from the Chamber the pretext of a decision made in the Cabinet not to vote on a law extending the mandates of the security service chiefs," the same source added.
This is a developing story to follow in the coming hours.
Many questions were asked after the Cabinet meeting, initially scheduled for Friday at 12:30 PM, was postponed to Tuesday due to a lack of quorum.
Among the 24 ministers in Najib Mikati’s team, only nine successfully reached the Serail. The entire route, from Riad el-Solh Square to Army Street, Beirut Bank Street and Bab Idriss was obstructed by retired military personnel.
The nine ministers who successfully reached the Serail were Saade Shami, Najla Riachi, Firas Abiad, Ali Hamieh, Bassam Mawlawi, Nasser Yassine, Youssef el-Khalil, Moustafa Bayram and Johnny Corm. Notably, two ministers from Amal, two others closely aligned with the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) and Najib Mikati, as well as the caretaker Minister of Defense, Maurice Slim, have not shown up yet. As for other FPM ministers, they had already decided to boycott the session.
Between this absence and a willingness to pass the buck to Parliament to thwart any legal challenge to invalidate the extension of Aoun’s mandate, an invalidation the FPM is calling for in the Cabinet, there is one move that many observers have not hesitated to make.
"Ministers got in touch this morning to make sure that the meeting would be held. Others explicitly advised their colleagues that attendance was unnecessary, citing road conditions and the obstruction of access to the Serail. I will let you draw your own conclusions," stated a well-informed figure in these discussions to This Is Beirut. The latter went as far as to highlight that deliberately dispersing retired military personnel at various Serail access points was a calculated move to justify the lack of quorum. According to the same source, "Normally, protesters only demonstrate at Riad el-Solh Square," which was not the case on Friday.
Considerable Pressure
Could there have been a role-playing scenario among the main protagonists? Did Nabih Berri want to move in the direction desired by the Lebanese Forces (LF) parliamentary bloc, which advocates for the legislation-based extension of General Joseph Aoun’s mandate, rather than having the executive branch pass an administrative act? Especially considering that this bloc, thanks to its presence at Parliament on Thursday, allowed the last legislative meeting of the year to be held.
These are all questions that come up, but according to sources close to the Lebanese Forces, this possibility is not to be considered. Instead, there is mention of a tacit consensus on the importance of a law that would consolidate any decision related to the retention of security chiefs in their respective positions. Consequently, Parliament should, in principle, vote on Friday afternoon for a text extending the mandates of all security chiefs, not just Joseph Aoun, due to considerations linked to the very particular situation in the country. The country is experiencing a widening vacuum in all key positions, while Lebanon faces the imminent risk of being drawn into a conflict with Israel.
From the same sources, the latest twist in the army command issue is explained by the "enormous" pressures exerted on Najib Mikati, Nabih Berri and even Hezbollah, whether from the Group of Five (United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt), Bkirki or the opposition. These pressures thwarted the "deal" discussed a few days ago between Nabih Berri, Najib Mikati, Hezbollah and FPM leader Gebran Bassil regarding the government taking charge of the army command issue. According to the same source, "No one wants to take responsibility for a vacuum at the head of the regular forces in case an annulment of the administrative act is accepted."
All attention is now focused on Parliament. "The fact that the Cabinet did not hold its meeting removes from the Chamber the pretext of a decision made in the Cabinet not to vote on a law extending the mandates of the security service chiefs," the same source added.
This is a developing story to follow in the coming hours.
Read more
Comments