Listen To The Article
Following the five-way meeting on the Lebanese crisis that took place in Doha on July 17, it became clear that the election of a President of the Republic has been put off until further notice. Internal disagreements and differences among the five-nation group made up of France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US and Egypt did not stop them from issuing a joint statement outlining their vision of the roadmap to a solution to the crisis.
The statement underlined the urgency to elect a head of State according to the Constitution, relegating the “dialogue” until after the election. It reaffirmed Lebanon’s sovereignty, independence and commitment to international resolutions and Arab League decisions, and brandished, for the first time, the menace of sanctions against those obstructing the election. The participants refrained from tackling the names of potential candidates, with the exception of Egypt, which mentioned Army Commander Gen. Joseph Aoun as a plausible consensual presidential candidate. Instead, they spelled out the qualifications of the future head of State, saying the future president needs to be an honest figure capable of uniting the country, placing the State’s interests above any other considerations and forging a large coalition to implement the required reforms.
In the meantime, the “Shiite Duo,” Hezbollah and Amal, took their time to react to the “disconcerting” Doha Declaration, which toppled the French initiative, rejected the holding of a “dialogue” session prior to the election of a president and dismissed the alternative of considering a third candidate. The two Shiite formations expressed their discontent by reaffirming their unyielding support for their presidential candidate and describing the statement as “a new tutorship” over Lebanon. They went so far as to vow that “things will be the way we want them to be to elect our candidate Sleiman Frangieh, or else…”
According to opposition sources, Iran’s absence from the international group looking into the Lebanese crisis, as the latter refused to have Tehran on board, prompted Hezbollah to escalate political tensions, especially after the collapse of the French initiative (providing for Frangieh’s election in return for naming a Prime Minister close to the opposition) and the rejection of pre-election dialogue.
Differently put, the presidential election is linked to Iran’s nuclear file, the sources contended. In its efforts to facilitate the election, France has failed to please Hezbollah, let alone Iran. In order to avoid further escalation on Hezbollah’s part, Paris was “lukewarm” regarding the “measures” proposed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar against obstructionists.
Sources close to the Iran-backed party noted that the latter was largely upset by the Doha meeting. This led Hezbollah to hold steadfast to its position, which can be interpreted as asserting, “There is no President but Hezbollah’s candidate.”
The Doha meeting further complicated French Envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian’s mission. No solution is possible without foreign interference, Le Drian explained as he briefed participants in the Doha meeting on the outcome of his first round of talks in Lebanon in late June. In this context, the question arises as to the mechanism that the Doha participants would adopt to achieve the presidential election when the time comes in the absence of a unified vision and agenda.
Hezbollah believes that the Doha statement was dictated and formulated by both the US and Saudi Arabia, notably the part about the sanctions, which were proposed by Qatar and endorsed by Riyadh and Washington. The statement indicates that Qatar would be playing an effective role, along with France, in the bid for reconciling different points of view and approaches to the election.
By rejecting the Shiite duo’s call for “dialogue,” the five-nation group made it clear that there will be no replica of the so-called dialogue of 2006, which provided legal cover to Hezbollah’s armed resistance movement, while none of the taken decisions has been implemented in return. The group insists that any dialogue session should be led by the President of the Republic and nobody else.
Diplomatic sources are voicing concerns over a further deterioration of the economic situation andthe security incidents that could ensue, similarly to the incidents that recently took place in Chiyah, in the southern suburb, among other areas, increasing fears of a popular explosion.
In the meantime, opposition figures are wondering why Nabih Berri, the Speaker of Parliament and Amal Movement chief, has not come out with one of his “magical” initiatives yet, opting to support Hezbollah’s call for a dialogue instead. According to sources close to the opposition, Berri is aligned with Hezbollah’s position, and they hold a strong belief that the country will be shaken by a major development that would speed up the election of a president. August is expected to be a heated month at the economic, financial, political and security levels, as Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh’s mandate expires at the end of July, the sources said. They added that there are concerns over a state of chaos and disorder engulfing the country, unless efforts succeed in ensuring a smooth transfer of powers at the Central Bank.
For its part, the opposition is seeking to establish a new political reality based on the rejection of the Shiite duo’s candidate, their agenda and the call for dialogue, regardless of the cost.
Sources close to the Lebanese Forces contended that the Shiite parties are seeking foreign support to secure the election of their candidate. This implies linking the issue to a regional settlement. The same sources underlined the importance of forming a Lebanese front to challenge Hezbollah’s candidate and counter its schemes.
The sources believe that the revival of dialogue between the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and Hezbollah, upon the latter’s request, indicates that the pro-Iran party is feeling cornered and embarrassed. Hezbollah wants to weaken the opposition by drawing the FPM back into his axis and maintaining Christian cover for its so-called resistance. However, FPM Leader Gebran Bassil placed tougher conditions on Hezbollah, including withdrawing support for Frangieh, who poses a real threat to the future of the FPM and its leader.
The election of a president of the republic is a national event that should not be linked to a foreign agenda, let alone undermined by a Shiite-Maronite arm wrestling. The president should represent all of Lebanon.
