Choosing The Lebanese President. Part 1.

Are the Americans swimming against the tide in the upcoming Lebanese election?

Cartoon by Armand Homsi, Annahar November 6, 2007

There seems to be an emerging international consensus on the idea of a “compromise” President. The French Minister of Foreign affairs, Mr. Kouchner said yesterday that “The only solution would be to find a candidate that everyone agrees on”. Patriarch Sfeir made a moral equivalence between those who vote “unilaterally” for a simple majority, and those who skip the vote. The Saudi king is also looking for “consensus”. 

The maverick in this international field is America. Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad, the American Ambassador in the United Nations said yesterday that there was nothing wrong with choosing a president using a simple majority. The American Secretary of State had said that she was against a compromise in this issue. Is the American position justified?

The American position, echoed by the Majority’s presidential hopefuls, is the right one if it is intended to send a credible threat to Syria and to the opposition to strengthen the majority’s bargaining power. The simple majority is the “nuclear option” of this negotiation, and it should only be used for tactical purposes. It would be wrong if this were the official policy regardless of what the internal negotiations yield.

In the next post, I will talk about those internal negotiations.