THE GLOBAL LEBANESE PRESIDENTIAL BATTLE HAS BEGUN

 

The current regional and international landscape does not allow for any party to successfully broker a new Lebanese accord. (Photo: Marwan Tahtah)

By: Jean Aziz

ALAKHBAR

December 7, 2013

.

It seems that the sound of the presidential battle is now louder than any other sound in Beirut. All attitudes and actions, whether overt or covert, are now proceeding according to the rhythm of the most important electoral event in Lebanon come spring.
.

Day after day, it is reinforced that it may indeed be possible to hold presidential elections. It also seems that any hope of President Michel Suleiman staying in the Baabda palace for one second after midnight on 24 May 2014 is quickly receding.
.

Among the external actors influencing the Lebanese presidential issue, it seems that Washington is genuinely interested in seeing a new president elected. Visitors to Washington have reported back that the United States firmly believes in the need to hold presidential elections in Lebanon within the constitutional deadlines.

The Americans are already asking questions about some of the possible candidates, all under the pretense of their concern for Lebanon’s “stability.” In truth, stability is the linchpin of Washington’s current approach to all aspects of Lebanese politics.

The Americans are already asking questions about some of the possible candidates, all under the pretense of their concern for Lebanon’s “stability.”What the US wants is the maximum possible level of stability in Lebanon for a multitude of reasons: There is zero ability to cope with any chaos. Indeed, chaos could threaten the very foundations of the Lebanese political system.

The current regional and international landscape does not allow for any party to successfully broker a new Lebanese accord. As things stand, adding chaos in Lebanon to the crisis in Syria could lead to disasters that affect the entire region.

All this harms Washington’s interests in the region, from Israel’s security to direct Western interests, not to mention the emerging Lebanese strategic factor, namely, Lebanon’s promising natural gas resources that have come to occupy center stage in Washington’s Lebanon policy.

To be sure, gas is now synonymous to the name Lebanon in the dictionary of the US administration, so much so that US officials could soon be calling Lebanon the homeland of natural gas instead of the cedars.

In Moscow, the capital of the resurgent global power, there is no less interest in Lebanon’s presidential elections. All that motivates US interest in Lebanon, from stability, security, to interests and influence, are all also present in the Russian thinking.

But what sets Moscow apart

is that it is also concerned

with the Lebanese presidential event

from the standpoint of its Tsarist-like commitment

to the question of Christian communities in the region.

The Kremlin’s policy harkens back to the era of the double-headed eagle, representing the church and the state, as it summons all the icons of Holy Russia ~ from its Christianization at the hands of Vladimir the Great, to the secrets of the Virgin’s apparition in Fátima, and the salvation of Europe at the hands of Russia. 
.

It in this particular context that the Russians look to the next presidency of Lebanon:

Christian communities in the Orient are at risk,

and Lebanon is the last bastion

for the political presence of those native communities.

For its part, Tehran seems reassured by how things are going, as though it knows that the final say will belong to it and Washington.

.
Preserving those communities requires preserving their political presence in their homelands. This means that commitment to the Christians of the Orient requires first electing a Lebanese president who is a strong, legitimate representative of his community and country, so that his presence can have a positive impact on all Christians of the region. 
.

It’s noteworthy that the world Orthodox capital has initiated an unprecedented coordination in this matter with the world Catholic capital. Putin’s last visit to the Vatican cannot be far from this. It is enough proof to recall the role of Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev in arranging the visit. To be sure, the bishop, who is in charge of foreign relations at the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow, had traveled directly from Beirut to Rome in preparation for the meeting between Pope Francis and the Russian president.
.

Paris, in turn, has come to understand that it may have a role to play in the Lebanese presidential issue. In the French thinking, France is on good terms with Washington, while also being an interlocutor acceptable to Moscow. Furthermore, it is an old patron of Beirut, and the former “affectionate mother” for Lebanon.
.

What matters is that France should have a role, and there is no lack of trying. However, the French are disguising this by casting a wider net. The French are presenting themselves as the advocates of a project to reorganize the Orient. They are asking about which future regime is better for Syria, and are digging up the details of the Sykes-Picot pact, as if seeking to make it more “up to date.” They have even talked with the Iranians about this, and no one has yet told them: It is none of your business.
.

The Lebanese presidential elections are also present in the minds of other capitals. Cairo has redeployed its “feelers” in Beirut, recalling the glories of Omar Suleiman, the point man behind the appointment of the other Suleiman as president in 2008.

Meanwhile, Riyadh has erected a major “presidential barricade” in the Tripoli neighborhood of Bab al-Tabbaneh, shooting down any attempt to circumvent Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s machinations.

For its part, Tehran seems reassured by how things are going, as though it knows that the final say will belong to it and Washington.
.

The president should have no deep-seated issues about having been nothing before the presidency, so that he may not avenge this by pretending to be everything afterward. Amid all these calculations, is there any possibility for “Lebanonizing” the election? Certainly.

.

It would suffice for Bkirki to gather senior Christian leaders and impose on them a Christian demand that would then turn into a Lebanese demand:

We want a strong president who represents us in the state,

and represents the strong state in the country.

After that, let every faction present its candidate, and let the strongest win, even if by only one vote in the final round. Let the experience of 1970 be repeated. Why not? It could be the vote of the people once again, as it was said back then, or the vote of Walid Jumblatt, as it was his father’s vote in 1970. 
.

The elected president should be an individual whose voice the people have heard before, even if for one time only, so that he may not avenge his former silence by silencing our future. 
.

The president should have no deep-seated issues about having been nothing before the presidency, so that he may not avenge this by pretending to be everything afterward.

Is that possible?
.

Of course, and a move in this direction has already begun. 
.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.