December 5, 2007

General Michel Suleiman, the commander of the Lebanese army, seems to be assured of occupying the vacant post of president, now that the parliamentary majority has endorsed him as its compromise candidate. However, there are still some thorny issues to settle before the opposition agrees to give its blessing to General Suleiman’s election, and further problems loom large assuming he is eventually installed.

The army commander was not among the declared candidates in the weeks running up to the expiry of the mandate of Emile Lahoud on November 24th. However, he had always been considered as the most likely fallback option in the event that the government and the opposition failed to reach a consensus on one of the figures that had put their names forward. The general has carefully fostered an image of political neutrality, although the fact that he was appointed in 1998 during the era of Syrian control over Lebanon has tainted him with the stain of Damascus’s approval in the eyes of some.

The breakthrough for General Suleiman came when the March 14th bloc, which holds a slender parliamentary majority, declared that it was ready to propose a constitutional amendment enabling him to stand. …
The March 14th bloc presented this as a major concession on its part, because it entailed the formal abandonment of its notional right to employ its parliamentary majority to elect one of its own candidates. The move invited reciprocation from the opposition through lifting its boycott of parliament so as to allow the assembly of a quorum of at least two-thirds of the members. However, the opposition, comprising the Shia bloc of Hizbullah and Amal, as well as the Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun, a former army commander and a candidate in the contest to succeed Mr Lahoud, appears to be setting conditions. These are said to include the proviso that General Suleiman should limit his tenure to two years, until fresh parliamentary elections are held in 2009 according to a revised election law, and that the new parliament should elect the next president.

The opposition is also thought to be seeking assurances on the make-up of the new government. Access the full article>>



Stay Informed

Sign up to receive the Middle East Bulletin!

Support Middle East Progress

In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

08/20/10
Center for American Progress Welcomes Resumption of Direct Talks  —
08/10/10
A View from the Ground  —Darbaz Kosrat Rasul, chair, Rebaz Foundation. Interview with Middle East Bulletin.
08/03/10
U.S.-Turkish Relations  —Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone, Jr., recently returned deputy ambassador in Afghanistan; former ambassador to Egypt (2005-2008); and deputy chief of mission and charge d'affaires in U.S. embassy in Turkey (1995-1999). Congressional Testimony.

Setting the Record Straight

Eye Still on the Ball

“Adverse developments in Iraq will be (and will look to be) increasingly a function of the Obama Team taking their eye off of the ball and rushing to declare mission accomplished. Yes, in such a scenario the Iraqis should bear most of the blame, but the part that is due to U.S. action or inaction will be Obama's responsibility. And it will matter. Iraq is at the center of a region that every president since Jimmy Carter has identified as vital to our national security. Iraq is next door to, and the playground for mischief from, the most thorny national security challenge the United States faces: a nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian regime. These inconvenient facts mean that if the Iraqi situation demands more focused and costly U.S. attention, it will likely get it. At that point, what sort of domestic coalition will be available for President Obama's Iraq policy?”
—Peter Feaver, director, Triangle Institute for Security Studies; former director for defense policy and arms control, National Security Council, “Obama’s Iraq Speech: Another Missed Opportunity,” Foreign Policy, August 3, 2010versus
  • “Iraq is a strategically important place in the Middle East, just by its geographic location, by its population, by the influence it's had in the Middle East for a long time. So neighboring countries from around the Middle East have an interest inside of Iraq.

    “But I will tell you that I think Iraqis themselves are nationalistic in nature, and that's why it's important. A strong Iraq will defend itself against interference from outside countries, and I think as we build a strong Iraq and as we continue to build a strong security mechanism and as we continue to help them economically and diplomatically, that will make it less likely of others from the outside being able to interfere.

    “Now, for the vacuum as we see today, again, I remind everyone is that we still have a significant presence here, and we are not going to—we will not allow undue maligned influence on the Iraqi government as they attempt to form their government. What we're trying to do is provide them the space and time for them to do that, and we will continue to do that post 1 September. We'll still have a significant civilian presence, and again, we'll still have 50,000 troops on the ground here to ensure that this government can be formed by the Iraqis. And that all the other nations respect their sovereignty as they go about forming their government.”
    —General Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, interview, “This Week” with Christiane Amanpour, August 8, 2010
  • Middle East Analysis

    Upcoming Events

    The Road Forward on Middle East Peace

    Event: October 1, 2009 - 12:00pm-1:00pm

    Introduction:
    Winnie Stachelberg, Senior Vice President for External Affairs, Center for American Progress

    Featured speaker:
    Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL)

    Moderated by:
    Moran Banai, U.S. Editor of Middle East Bulletin

    WATCH HERE