Watser?
08-07-2007, 12:13 AM
An article about Sunday's by-elections in Lebanon on BBC and one written by Lebanon (Shi'a) expert Augustus Norton on Informed Comment Global Affairs come to opposite conclusions on the strength of the Lebanese opposition.
This is the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6933137.stm): Running for the vacant seat was Pierre's father, Amin Gemayel, a leading Christian figure, former president and staunch supporter of the anti-Syria government.
The lesser known candidate, Dr Camille Khoury, stood for the opposition party of the other main Christian leader, General Michel Aoun.
...
Mr Khoury took the seat by just 418 votes out of about 79,000 cast, a margin which many say undermines General's Aoun's leadership.
He had claimed - based on the results of parliamentary elections in 2005 - to enjoy 70% of the Christian vote. But this suggests he has gone backwards.
"The Metn election ended politically without a victor and a vanquished," said former Prime Minister Selim al-Hoss, a Sunni elder statesman.
"If the contest was a contest of sizes, then both competitors were effectively down-sized.
"The dent in General Aoun's popularity is perhaps due to the Christian dismay at the accord he forged with Hezbollah in 2006.
"But this is small comfort to Gemayel who suffered in his own backyard."
Here's Norton (http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/08/first-reflections-on-august-5-by.html): Although the U.S.-supported government in Beirut holds a slim majority in the parliament, it does not enjoy the same level of support among the Lebanese public. As I have argued in various publications, and in a variety of interviews and presentations over the past year, the opposition enjoys broader support than the U. S.-supported government.
Aoun's blood foe is Samir Geagea, who heads the Lebanese Forces, which greeted the Camille Khoury victory with the headline (in Arabic): "Congratulations to Bashar al-Asad for the victory of Aoun...." Aoun’s adversaries see him as a Syrian wedge back' into Lebanon, much like the U S. does. No doubt. Syria is happy with the result in the Metn, but it is self-deceiving to imagine that Aoun's continuing support stems merely from his (now) cordial relationship with Syria.
The general sustains his following among Lebanese Christians because many of them are disgusted by the political system, and its endemic corruption, favoritism and inefficiency. They also share the general's scathing critique of the Siniora government. Whatever one's feelings about Aoun, and I have longstanding misgivings about the general and his judgment, there is no denying that he has sustained durable popular support in Lebanon. While his alliance with Hezbollah--which precedes last summer's war--has lost him some supporters, there is a structural coherence to the opposition alliance. Indeed, were general elections held now in Lebanon, the opposition would probably capture a majority of parliamentary seats.
Anyway, they agree on one thing: The standoff between the anti-Syrian government and pro-Syrian opposition will continue, with little sign of any breakthrough.
But should they fail to solve their differences, these splits will become more dangerous.
Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister who is mediating between the two sides, has already warned that if they cannot find a compromise on many of the issues that divide them Lebanon could soon return to civil war.
It is crucial that the political stalemate end so the Lebanese government may turn its attention to the formidable dangers that confront Lebanon. The Bush administration has tended to view Lebanon in very black and while terms, as though our allies in the Siniora government were the "good guys" while Aoun, Hezbollah and a variant of other groups were the "bad guys Sorry, but it is just not that simple.
A Lebanese presidential election looms. Emile Lahoud. extended in office by Syrian diktat in 2004, is scheduled to leave office in November. The parliament is scheduled to convene to elect a president on September 25. A quorum of two-thirds is necessary for the election to proceed. A simple majority vote is necessary an to elect a president, once a quorum has assembled.
What is needed now is a dialogue between government and opposition. The US needs to stop blocking that dialogue. Otherwise, if the presidential election fails, we have a small hint in the Metn election of how Lebanon may split.
Then again: considering a presidential order that was introduced last week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6929414.stm), blocking the dialogue is exactly what the US seems to have in mind: The US government has ordered the freezing of assets of anyone it accuses of undermining the Lebanese government.
A letter to Congress said the order would apply to anyone fomenting instability in Lebanon or contributing to "Syrian interference".
The letter from President George W Bush did not name any specific individuals.
Mr Bush has already banned Syrian and Lebanese officials whom Washington considers are undermining the Lebanese government from travelling to the US.
A White House spokesman said Mr Bush had issued this executive order because Lebanon's sovereignty and democratic institutions were increasingly under attack.
Fomenting instability, eh?
Prepare for more, much more trouble in Lebanon...
This is the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6933137.stm): Running for the vacant seat was Pierre's father, Amin Gemayel, a leading Christian figure, former president and staunch supporter of the anti-Syria government.
The lesser known candidate, Dr Camille Khoury, stood for the opposition party of the other main Christian leader, General Michel Aoun.
...
Mr Khoury took the seat by just 418 votes out of about 79,000 cast, a margin which many say undermines General's Aoun's leadership.
He had claimed - based on the results of parliamentary elections in 2005 - to enjoy 70% of the Christian vote. But this suggests he has gone backwards.
"The Metn election ended politically without a victor and a vanquished," said former Prime Minister Selim al-Hoss, a Sunni elder statesman.
"If the contest was a contest of sizes, then both competitors were effectively down-sized.
"The dent in General Aoun's popularity is perhaps due to the Christian dismay at the accord he forged with Hezbollah in 2006.
"But this is small comfort to Gemayel who suffered in his own backyard."
Here's Norton (http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/08/first-reflections-on-august-5-by.html): Although the U.S.-supported government in Beirut holds a slim majority in the parliament, it does not enjoy the same level of support among the Lebanese public. As I have argued in various publications, and in a variety of interviews and presentations over the past year, the opposition enjoys broader support than the U. S.-supported government.
Aoun's blood foe is Samir Geagea, who heads the Lebanese Forces, which greeted the Camille Khoury victory with the headline (in Arabic): "Congratulations to Bashar al-Asad for the victory of Aoun...." Aoun’s adversaries see him as a Syrian wedge back' into Lebanon, much like the U S. does. No doubt. Syria is happy with the result in the Metn, but it is self-deceiving to imagine that Aoun's continuing support stems merely from his (now) cordial relationship with Syria.
The general sustains his following among Lebanese Christians because many of them are disgusted by the political system, and its endemic corruption, favoritism and inefficiency. They also share the general's scathing critique of the Siniora government. Whatever one's feelings about Aoun, and I have longstanding misgivings about the general and his judgment, there is no denying that he has sustained durable popular support in Lebanon. While his alliance with Hezbollah--which precedes last summer's war--has lost him some supporters, there is a structural coherence to the opposition alliance. Indeed, were general elections held now in Lebanon, the opposition would probably capture a majority of parliamentary seats.
Anyway, they agree on one thing: The standoff between the anti-Syrian government and pro-Syrian opposition will continue, with little sign of any breakthrough.
But should they fail to solve their differences, these splits will become more dangerous.
Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister who is mediating between the two sides, has already warned that if they cannot find a compromise on many of the issues that divide them Lebanon could soon return to civil war.
It is crucial that the political stalemate end so the Lebanese government may turn its attention to the formidable dangers that confront Lebanon. The Bush administration has tended to view Lebanon in very black and while terms, as though our allies in the Siniora government were the "good guys" while Aoun, Hezbollah and a variant of other groups were the "bad guys Sorry, but it is just not that simple.
A Lebanese presidential election looms. Emile Lahoud. extended in office by Syrian diktat in 2004, is scheduled to leave office in November. The parliament is scheduled to convene to elect a president on September 25. A quorum of two-thirds is necessary for the election to proceed. A simple majority vote is necessary an to elect a president, once a quorum has assembled.
What is needed now is a dialogue between government and opposition. The US needs to stop blocking that dialogue. Otherwise, if the presidential election fails, we have a small hint in the Metn election of how Lebanon may split.
Then again: considering a presidential order that was introduced last week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6929414.stm), blocking the dialogue is exactly what the US seems to have in mind: The US government has ordered the freezing of assets of anyone it accuses of undermining the Lebanese government.
A letter to Congress said the order would apply to anyone fomenting instability in Lebanon or contributing to "Syrian interference".
The letter from President George W Bush did not name any specific individuals.
Mr Bush has already banned Syrian and Lebanese officials whom Washington considers are undermining the Lebanese government from travelling to the US.
A White House spokesman said Mr Bush had issued this executive order because Lebanon's sovereignty and democratic institutions were increasingly under attack.
Fomenting instability, eh?
Prepare for more, much more trouble in Lebanon...