Press review 25-4-2014

Press review 25-4-2014
The Daily Star
Berri says next electoral session serious
http://bit.ly/1nM88Pc The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Speaker Nabih Berri described in comments published Friday the
first round of the presidential election as a “rehearsal” and said next week’s
session will be aimed at electing a new head of state.
Meanwhile, Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awad Asiri denied that his
country intervenes in local Lebanese affairs, particularly over the
presidential election.
“The real session next week will not be a session [for identifying]
candidates; it will be the session of the president,” Berri told As-Safir daily.
“The first session was a rehearsal ... and the results were already known.
But we now move to the stage of the election of a president,” he said.
The speaker also said that all those who wish to run for the presidential
election should announce their candidacy.
“I am eager for more announced candidates to push the presidential
election forward,” Berri said.
Berri denied that he discussed the election with any foreign ambassador or
delegation, and said he would keep calling on Parliament to convene until it
elects a leader.
Separately, Asiri denied in comments to As-Safir that his country is
coordinating with any Lebanese parties over the election.
“The Saudi kingdom does not interfere with the Future Movement or any
other party in Lebanese affairs,” he said.
He also denied media reports that Riyadh is pushing a certain candidate for
the presidential post.
Lebanon’s Parliament failed in the first round of the election Wednesday to
choose a new head of state to replace President Michel Sleiman, whose
term ends on May 25.
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, the first to publicly announce his
candidacy, gained 48 out of 128 votes against 52 blank ballots cast by
most of the March 8 coalition’s MPs while 16 votes went to MP Henri
Helou, who was nominated by Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid
Jumblatt, and one vote for Kataeb leader Amin Gemayel.
Another session for the presidential election is scheduled next week.
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Apr25/254336-berri-says-next-electoral-session-serious.ashx#ixzz2zt7GcXKO
Now Lebanon
Reversal of fortune
Will Saad Hariri give Michel Aoun the presidency?
http://bit.ly/QE8kFt
Change and Reform bloc MP Christian leader Michel Aoun (R) standing
next to Lebanese parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri (L) during multiparty national dialogue talks at the presidential palace in Baabda, east of
Beirut, on April 28, 2009
With the first round of the presidential election having ended, all eyes are
now turned toward candidates who can hope to win votes from both the
March 8 and March 14 coalitions. Ironically, the person who feels he has
the best chance of doing so is Michel Aoun, who has presented himself as
the compromise candidate who can break the prevailing deadlock.
But it this scenario realistic? Would Saad Hariri order his parliamentary bloc
to vote for Aoun, in that way fundamentally shaking up the alliances that
came into existence in Lebanon after 2005, when Syrian forces withdrew
from the country and Aoun built a relationship with Hezbollah against
March 14?
That possibility is not only worrying two leading politicians who stand to
lose from such a deal, Samir Geagea and Walid Jumblatt, but also Future
Movement parliamentarians. They have spent the better part of eight years
condemning Aoun before voters and have no desire to suddenly alter
direction to make him president.
The narrative circulating in Beirut these days is that Hariri would endorse
Aoun, in exchange for which he would return to Lebanon with security
guarantees from the general to serve as prime minister. This follows on
from a gradual improvement in relations between Hariri and Aoun,
culminating in their two blocs’ recent collaboration in forming a committee
to discuss the impact of the higher salary scale on the economy – a
decision opposed by Aoun’s allies Hezbollah and the Amal Movement.
Undoubtedly, a Future-Free Patriotic Movement rapprochement would be
an interesting development on Lebanon’s otherwise deadlocked political
scene. But it would also present major challenges to Hariri, not least a
political rift between the former prime minister and the Lebanese Forces. It
would also exacerbate the relationship with Jumblatt, with whom Future
was allied between 2005 and 2011, before the Druze leader alienated
Hariri by backing Najib Miqati to replace him as prime minister.
Hariri may be willing to risk strained relations with Geagea if he could
attract Aoun and draw him away from Hezbollah. In parliamentary terms
Aoun has a much larger bloc than the Lebanese Forces, and, even if
Geagea opposes Hariri’s opening to his principal Maronite rival, the
argument goes, he could not realistically realign himself with Hezbollah in
response.
In other words, Geagea, with few other options, would be obliged to
maintain a partnership with Future, even if it meant that he became a
secondary Christian ally of the Future Movement.
As for Jumblatt, if Hariri and Aoun were to strengthen their ties, his role as
the man in the middle of Lebanese politics, able to play one side against
the other, would disintegrate. Worse, a Christian-Sunni partnership could
have consequences for him in the mountains, particularly the Shouf, where
Christian and Sunni voters roughly make up 60 percent of the electorate,
even if the Lebanese Forces may be stronger than Aoun in the district.
Ultimately, Jumblatt’s greatest trial will be to ensure that the law governing
parliamentary elections next November continues to give him a dominant
role in Aley and the Shouf, while allowing him to bring in his Druze
candidates in Beirut and the West Bekaa. To Jumblatt’s advantage, Aoun
and Hariri both benefit from the 1960 law, which the Druze leader favors,
even if Aoun has declared his opposition to the law for tactical reasons,
because Christian communities feel it marginalizes them.
But at the least the Druze leader would have his wings clipped and doesn’t
relish that prospect. That’s why he has warned Future that if Hariri were to
support Aoun, this could revive the rivalry that existed between Rafiq Hariri
and Emile Lahoud.
Jumblatt of course has an interest in saying such a thing, but he may also
be right. Nothing guarantees that a Hariri-Aoun marriage will be
harmonious. Hariri may be gambling that a President Aoun will take on the
characteristics of his new office and defend state sovereignty against
Hezbollah. But Aoun may just as easily follow another presidential
inclination and affirm his prerogatives against those of the prime minister,
implementing a longstanding vow to try to overhaul the Taif agreement.
Is that to say that Hariri’s exploration of a new relationship with Aoun is
necessarily a bad idea? Not at all, but the foundation on which such an
idea has grown, namely that Aoun will turn against Hezbollah, appears to
be deeply flawed. Aoun has frequently been astute, and given the middle
ground of the presidency he may try to exploit his situation by playing Hariri
and the Future Movement off against Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah.
Perhaps such a situation would allow a President Aoun to better fulfill his
constitutional role to defend national unity. It may even help him maintain
equilibrium between Sunnis and Shiites, containing any tension or conflict
between them. But balancing acts usually require heightening the
contradictions of one’s rivals, so it’s just as likely that Aoun, in order to
consolidate his power, could end up aggravating Sunni-Shiite relations.
Ultimately, Hariri’s political choices are his own. His decision to back Michel
Sleiman in 2007 proved to be a success. If the former prime minister
decides to pull another rabbit out of his hat and do the same for Aoun, the
outcome may be positive. But, knowing Aoun’s track record until now, it’s
easy to be skeptical. In fact, skepticism is a duty when it comes to a man
who has repeatedly helped destroy Lebanon in pursuit of his personal
ambitions.
Michel Aoun’s presidential branding
Why Aoun will never be a consensus president
http://bit.ly/1fdqB7t
Michel Aoun makes the "V" sign at the Baabda presidential palace in
December 1989. (AFP photo)
Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun has never stopped dreaming
about the presidency since he got a taste of the Baabda Palace back in
1991. The momentum behind most of his political maneuvers and
compromises has had one objective ever since: the road to Baabda.
Today, Aoun seems to be playing the game with different tools. He is not
promoting himself as the “General” who will shape up the country with an
iron fist. He is instead presenting himself as the “consensus” candidate who
would eschew confrontation. He is now warming up to Saudi Arabia and
Future Movement leader, former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, after eight
years of accusing them of “terrorism” and corruption.
His favorite son-in-law, Minister Gebran Bassil, met a few times with the
Saudi ambassador in Lebanon, and then Aoun visited Hariri in Paris. An
“openness” narrative preceded and followed all these meetings.
Things have changed, and the General knows that only a consensus
president could win. The question is: will Aoun get the necessary support?
This will require serious steps by Aoun to prove that his ties with Hezbollah
have declined and that he is a moderate candidate. But it’s close to
impossible.
Aoun’s new branding is not grounded on genuine political conversion. It is
based more on information and reports coming from Washington
confirming that although the US will not veto or officially support anyone,
Obama’s administration prefers a consensus candidate to maintain stability
in Lebanon. In light of US efforts to negotiate with Iran and compromise
between Iranian and Saudi priorities, and because of his alliance with
Hezbollah, Aoun is presenting himself as the man for the job.
Aoun reasons that he’s the only man who could open channels in Lebanon
between March 14 – mainly made up of Hariri’s Future Movement
parliamentary bloc – and Hezbollah. Aoun also says that he could create
the balance between Sunni and Shiite influences in the government.
Wouldn’t the US love to have this person? Theoretically, yes. But Aoun’s
history raises serious concerns about his ability to deliver in this regard.
Knowing this, there has been a huge effort to polish Aoun’s image on the
political, diplomatic, and media levels. Pro-Hezbollah media is presenting
Aoun as the “consensus” candidate who will save Lebanon, create stability,
and work to create a potential regional agreement in Lebanon.
Last week, Al-Akhbar’s Ghassan Saoud wrote: “Aoun is not the only one
counting on an Iranian-Saudi rapprochement that would allow him to win
the presidency. Both General Jean Kahwaji, commander of the armed
forces, and MP Jean Obeid are also counting on an Iranian-Saudi
understanding…If Iran and Saudi Arabia reach an agreement that is
comprehensive and their goal is restoring balance to the Lebanese
government based on a new version of the no winners and no losers
formula, and allowing for a state of stability that would allow the Lebanese
to begin extracting their oil, then Aoun would be the primary candidate.”
Another Al-Akhbar article quoted an FPM MP saying that Aoun’s party
“decided to distance itself from vertical alignments and therefore end its
estrangement from all domestic and foreign forces.” It continued, “[We also]
seek to put an end to any hostility we might have with certain political
forces… we decided to readjust our relationships, especially with Saudi
Arabia.”
According to this new branding campaign, promoted by party faithful media,
Aoun will be the consensus president who will bring harmony to Lebanon
and oversee the country’s oil and gas extraction in a stable environment.
Quite an extraordinary transformation…
There are many impediments. In Aoun’s case, there is a difference
between presenting yourself as a consensus candidate and actually being
one:
1. So far, Aoun has not, and probably never will, give any guarantees that
he will actually act as a consensus president, or that he will distance
himself and his party from Hezbollah and Iran. A shameless apologist for
Hezbollah – from its triggering of the war with Israel in 2006, through its
violent takeover of Beirut’s western half in 2008, to its current military
involvement in Syria – Aoun is in too deep. His history of favoring family
members in party politics coupled with his extreme political maneuvers
raise serious concerns about Aoun’s credibility or the trustworthiness of his
candidacy.
2. Giving Aoun the presidency will never “peel” him away from Hezbollah.
This is wishful thinking, and it resembles previous regional and international
efforts to engage the Assad regime in Syria in order to “peel” it away from
Iran. But it didn’t work then and it won’t work now. Iran will never accept an
ally to turn against it.
3. A formula promoted by March 8 media outlets has suggested that Hariri
will come back as prime minister if Aoun becomes president. But it won’t
work. Unlike Lebanon’s president and speaker of parliament, the prime
minister’s reign can be ended by a simple vote of confidence and
withdrawal of more than one-third of the ministers. Not too long ago, Hariri
himself was toppled as prime minister by Hezbollah and allies, including
Aoun. There is no guarantee that Aoun won’t do it again.
4. Aoun has been extremely ambiguous about his ongoing coordination
with Hezbollah. If Aoun is promoting stability and fighting “terrorism” in
tandem with the US, then it should be clear that he alone cannot do that.
He will need Hezbollah and its influence inside security institutions. This
requires major compromises with the Party of God, bigger and more
significant ones than he’s already made since his return to Lebanon in
2005. As president, Aoun will become another Emile Lahoud, but with a
louder voice.
The General has a long road to the Baabda Palace. He needs to convince
the Christians in Lebanon, all of them, that he is worthy of the presidency.
He needs to convince the Sunnis, not just Hariri, that he will not fight them.
Last but not least, he will have to make us all forget his many shortcomings
and erratic behavior. The Lebanese do have a short memory when it
comes to politics, but Aoun is a very difficult man to forget, or forgive.
L’Orient Le Jour
À défaut de présidentielle purement libanaise, le vide ou le consensus
externe...
http://bit.ly/QKG9Ew
Sandra NOUJEIM | OLJ25/04/2014
L'acheminement vers le vide présidentiel se confirme progressivement. Les
députés émettent ouvertement déjà leurs doutes sur la tenue de la
prochaine séance électorale mercredi prochain, faute d'assurer le quorum
des deux tiers. Il est fort probable que ce scénario se répète jusqu'au 25
mai, toutes les parties politiques s'étant entendues sur l'exigence du
quorum des deux tiers pour la tenue de chaque séance, y compris au cours
des dix derniers jours qui précèdent la fin du mandat présidentiel. Cette
interprétation du texte constitutionnel est critiquable puisqu'elle fait fi
carrément de la disposition relative à l'élection d'un président à la majorité
absolue aux tours de scrutin qui suivent le premier tour. T
outefois, d'un point de vue politique – et c'est ce qui a toujours compté –
cette interprétation concoctée par le président de la Chambre sied
actuellement à toutes les parties. En effet, le quorum des deux tiers ôte a
priori leurs chances aux 14 Mars et 8 Mars d'imposer un candidat qui aurait
réussi à rallier les votes des députés centristes, et donc à assurer le
quorum de la majorité absolue.
Cet équilibre favorable au consensus, qui revêt désormais un sens
antinomique à la bataille électorale, s'est établi depuis la première séance
électorale mercredi. L'élan démocratique que les 124 députés ont convenu
de montrer en se présentant à l'hémicycle a été aussitôt amorti par le
retrait des députés du Changement et de la Réforme et du Hezbollah dès
la fin du premier tour de scrutin, faisant avorter le second tour, et donc la
possibilité d'élire un président à l'issue d'une bataille électorale en bonne et
due forme.
Si ce premier tour de scrutin aura été « le plus près d'une présidentielle
démocratique et purement libanaise », comme le relèvent de nombreux
observateurs, il a été empêché d'aboutir. À peine amorcée, la dynamique
électorale a été paralysée.
À l'heure où le patriarche maronite réitérait hier, à partir de Aïn el-Tiné, son
appel à l'élection « d'un président qui satisfait toutes les parties », ces
mêmes parties pataugent depuis mercredi dans un attentisme, que certains
tentent d'exploiter en vue de décrocher ce fameux « consensus ». Il en va
ainsi principalement du président Amine Gemayel et du général Michel
Aoun.
D'abord, l'engagement du bloc des Kataëb en faveur de Samir Geagea est
mis en doute dans certains milieux du 14 Mars, à la lumière des résultats
du premier tour de scrutin. Certains rapportent avoir ressenti « une
perplexité » parmi les députés des Forces libanaises, qui s'attendaient à
décrocher au moins 50 voix, précisément 51. Plongé dans le réexamen des
pointages à l'issue du premier tour, ils tentaient de repérer les trois députés
ayant failli à leur engagement.
Nul ne peut prétendre détenir la vérité sur la répartition des votes. L'on
peut retenir toutefois une version, apportée par des milieux du Futur. Le
candidat Henri Helou aurait réussi à rallier trois votes inattendus, mus par
des intérêts électoraux ou des affinités personnelles. Il s'agirait des votes
respectifs du député Sélim Karam (Marada) et de Farid el-Khazen
(Changement et de la Réforme), et de Fadi Habre (Kataëb), qui en auraient
informé à l'avance leur chef de bloc respectif. Un observateur rapporte,
pour la petite histoire, que le député Abdellatif Zein avait failli voter Henri
Helou, s'il n'avait été repéré en train d'inscrire un nom sur son bulletin de
vote par le ministre Ali Hassan Khalil, qui en a immédiatement informé
Nabih Berry.
Quoi qu'il en soit, ces trois votes auraient permis de dissimuler une partie
des bulletins blancs non prévus par les pointages et qui seraient ceux des
Kataëb, selon les mêmes milieux. Il va sans dire que le doute plane entre
les différentes parties elles-mêmes.
C'est ce même doute qui entoure par ailleurs la nature de l'ouverture entre
le général Michel Aoun et le leader du Futur Saad Hariri. Les députés du
Futur continuent de réfuter catégoriquement cette ouverture qui se
traduirait par leur appui à la candidature de Michel Aoun. Ces milieux
contestent surtout l'authenticité du « consensus » par lequel le chef du CPL
veut se positionner. « Il existe une profonde différence entre un candidat
soutenu par toutes les parties et un candidat qui veut s'imposer comme le
produit d'une solution régionale », relève un député du 14 Mars.
Plus que l'attente donc, c'est ce genre de solution que craint le 14 Mars :
une entente saoudo-iranienne serait seule à même de garantir l'arrivée du
général Aoun à la présidence, renouant avec la tradition d'attendre une
solution convenue à l'étranger. Ce n'est pas cette tradition qui est critiquée,
mais « le fait de l'avoir ramenée de force au cœur de la présidentielle, en
prétextant de surcroît le souci d'un consensus interne ».
Mais ces députés du 14 Mars ont beau transmettre leurs critiques, Saad
Hariri pourrait se trouver face à une alternative difficile : le vide ou Michel
Aoun.
Cette même logique est invoquée en contrepartie par le 8 Mars, qui met en
garde contre l'équation de Samir Geagea ou le vide. Sauf que le vide serait
principalement craint par le 14 Mars, et précisément par Saad Hariri,
puisqu'il paverait la voie à l'Assemblée constituante, à laquelle appelle le
Hezbollah, depuis qu'il a préconisé, lors de la conférence de Saint-Cloud,
la substitution de la parité par la règle des trois tiers.
D'où la cour assidue qui est faite aux joumblattistes dans l'espoir de les
amener à se rapprocher de l'idée d'un accord avec le 14 Mars. Le viceprésident du courant du Futur, l'ancien député Antoine Andraos, a d'ailleurs
appelé à « une nouvelle stratégie et une nouvelle démarche à l'égard de
Walid Joumblatt », à l'issue de sa visite au ministre Boutros Harb. Le
leader des FL, Samir Geagea, a adressé lui aussi un message direct à
Walid Joumblatt, lors de son interview télévisée diffusée en soirée en
lancant à l'intention du leader soialiste que « seule l'édification d'un État
effectif sauvera le Liban ».Sauf que l'apport souhaité du groupe Joumblatt
n'est pas suffisant pour atteindre le quorum des 86 députés susceptible
d'assurer l'élection.