The battle of the two Michels has begun
Daily Star
21/08/2008
Weeks ago, Michel Aoun's political adversaries were already predicting that the general's first act once the government was formed would be to demand that the prerogatives of the deputy prime minister be clarified. The post is traditionally "reserved" for the Greek Orthodox community and is currently held by Aoun's comrade Issam Abu Jamra. They sensed that Aoun would use the dispute to yet again try to rally support among Christians by claiming to be defending their interests against Sunni dominance - since the deputy prime minister's job description must necessarily be elucidated at the expense of the Sunni prime minister.
On Tuesday, this discussion took on more rarefied airs when the minister Tammam Salam and the parliamentarian Ghassan Mukheiber of the Aoun bloc exchanged statements on the role of Mukheiber's uncle, Albert, when he was deputy prime minister in the 1972 government headed by Tammam Salam's father, Saeb. Mukheiber argued that his uncle had stood in for Salam when the prime minister was abroad, while Salam insisted this was not true. Mukheiber went on to state that now was a good time to define the duties of the deputy prime minister, which must have pleased Aoun while also allowing Mukheiber to score some points within his own Greek Orthodox community.
In the midst of a hot summer, this somehow qualifies as news. Aoun has long been a master of institutional guerilla warfare, in which he scores points by consistently applying sectarian pin pricks. However, something may be changing. The small-mindedness of the deputy prime minister debate may actually play to Aoun's disfavor because it comes as the president, Michel Sleiman, is seen by many to be filling his political space with more momentous achievements - not least his visit to Damascus last week. In the competition over Christian representation, Aoun's weapons are now looking less effective than Sleiman's.
A lot of this is based on perceptions, of course. Sleiman came back triumphant from Syria, but the results of his summit with President Bashar Assad were, to be kind, very limited. On the fate of prisoners in Syria the Lebanese got a committee with no deadlines set for its work. On border demarcation Lebanon got another committee, again with no deadlines set, with many people apparently unaware that the demarcation question has been drifting from one committee to the next for decades. On the Shebaa Farms the Lebanese adopted the Syrian position that there could be no delineation of borders before Israel's occupation ended, thereby leaving the geographical identity of the territory in limbo. And before traveling to Damascus, Sleiman, through a spokesman, declared that the Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council, the starkest memento of the years of Syrian hegemony, would not be dismantled.
What did Lebanon get in exchange? The promise of an embassy and diplomatic recognition. That's not negligible, but we might want to look at this from Syria's perspective. A Syrian embassy in Beirut would not be like the Kuwaiti or even the Egyptian embassy. It would be an axis point for Syria's allies in the country, a very useful means of allowing the Assad regime to exert its political influence in Beirut on a day-to-day basis in a way it cannot do so today. Many remember the considerable sway that the United Arab Republic's ambassador in Beirut, Abdel-Hamid Ghaleb, had at the start of President Fouad Shihab's mandate. Diplomatic recognition on its own does not guarantee respect for Lebanese sovereignty.
Despite all this, Sleiman benefited domestically from his summit with Assad, and came back to take in hand the volatile situation in Tripoli. The public could not but approve, whatever the results, and Aoun is beginning to realize that he is losing ground among his coreligionists. Nor can the general gain much anymore by persistently baiting Fouad Siniora, when the prime minister seems to be working so well with president. This was evident in the preparation for Siniora's trips to Egypt and Iraq, both partly designed to help overcome the electricity crisis. Aoun's frustration was understandable. Siniora, with Sleiman's tacit approval, circumvented the energy minister, Alain Tabourian, whose Tashnag Party is allied with the Aounist bloc. The president and prime minister, each for reasons of his own, are happy to collude against Aoun. Better still, they are playing on the recent tension between the general and Tashnag over the fact that Aoun gave them the Energy Ministry in his quota of ministerial portfolios, when they had asked for the social affairs portfolio that Aoun instead reserved for Mario Aoun, a member of the Free Patriotic Movement.
It may be a reach to suggest that Sleiman is making a bid for the Armenians at this early stage, by showing them that they have more to gain by allying themselves with him than with Aoun. But ultimately that may be precisely what the president does as Michel Murr begins preparing a candidate list in the Metn, one facet of a broader strategy by Sleiman to nibble away at Aoun's base before parliamentary elections next year. It is known that the president wants a bloc of his own in Parliament, and he may be able to count on assistance from Aoun's rivals in this regard. That explains why Aoun has so fervently defended Hizbullah lately. He needs Shiite help to win compensatory seats in the Baabda constituency, in Jezzine, and in Zahleh. Some are suggesting Aoun also has an eye on the Maronite seat in Baalbek-Hermel.
The elections are still a long way off, but Aoun is already entering the period he dreaded after he was forced in Doha to accept Sleiman's election. For better or worse the president is now the person most Maronites and Christians in general are looking toward to defend their communal wellbeing. This is forcing Aoun to behave recklessly, as when he tied Hizbullah's disarmament to the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes, a position that made many in his electorate gag. Aoun also erred in appointing his son-in-law to head the cash cow Ministry of Telecommunications, contradicting his earlier claims to be a different type of politician who opposed nepotism in politics.
Aoun is a cat of many political lives, so it may be unwise to write him off just yet. But even cats need branches to sit on, and the general is finding that these are not as numerous as they once were. He is picking secondary fights and is now beginning to sound like a lost voice in the desert.
4 comments:
It's a shock how few western qualities Mr. Young has, such as professionalism in journalism, or understanding how a professional government should function.
He is pushing a sectarian agenda by saying a ministry is "reserved" for the Greek Orthodox community. He distorts the General Aoun's goal to end religious segregation, not just support 'christian interests against Sunni dominance'. Aoun is demanding the obvious, that the vice-prime minister has an office! That's basic professionalism. 'Professionalism', as in what Young's American colleagues practice when they have not migrated to pander for the corrupt political class in Lebanon.
He claims that General Aoun applies 'sectarian pin pricks', what part of an a-religious agreement between shiites and christians sounds sectarian? The only people being pricked are those who hopelessly try to fabricate civil wars; the sunnite majority in power and the illegal sunnite extremist mobs they finance.
Like a regressive middle eastern, and unlike an evolved american, he can't conceive achievements, but only personal ego crusades. He claims Saniora works well with Sleiman when in fact he ignored Sleiman, went to Egypt out of his own initiative, did not consult with the Lebanese president before meeting with the Egyptian one last week, and acts like an agent to foreign backers, not like a prime minister.
Dear Sir,
In reference to your article "The battle of the two Michels has begun", published in the Daily Star daily newspaper of August 21, 2008, I would like to draw your attention to a couple of topics you pointed to in a, say not so accurate manner.
I completely fail to see how requesting to normalize and standardize a public function, such as the deputy prime minister, could be seen as vicious request. To the opposite, keeping this function not clarified an blurred should be what raises suspicion. By nature, all rational human being tend to trust what is written, documented and effectively practiced more than implicit intentions, which can lead to subjective and circumstantial application of authority. Also, shouldn't the Sanioura's fear from sharing his 'sunni' authority and power with a fellow Lebanese christian prime deputy be the act that raises suspicions? Are we living in a world where capitalism and sectarianism lead the way for dictatorship, whereas military man are accused of this insanity?
By definition, deputies must not be a static representative for the people. They are supposed, even required, to be active on the political scene. Having clarified this, you can thus rest from pinpointing to each and every speech General Aoun makes and qualify it as a desperate attempt to preserve a punch of electoral votes.
In your article, even in its title, you are imagining an unrealistic conflict between the President Michel Sleiman, and General Aoun. My friend, have you forgotten that General Aoun was the first to endorse and nominate General Sleiman as the candidate for the presidency, at the time where ALL of the majority bloc were in total denial for seeing a 'military man' reaching this spot? It was a good time when the capitalism dictatorship was afraid of the military school strictness.... i will keep the rest for your personal savvy.
Once again, your article is refers to a desperate attempt from General Aoun to please the Shiite bloc; quoting your article: "He needs Shiite help to win compensatory seats in the Baabda constituency, in Jezzine, and in Zahleh." I fail to see the influnce the shiites will have in Jezzine, and I honestly don't see them voting 14 of March anywhere, especially in Baabda, no matter what. On another hand, should General Aoun be an opportunist, as your article claims, he would have definitely taken the shortest way to majority and even to presidency. But that would be working for strictly personal reasons, and thus unethical, a concept that is seemingly ignored by many.....
Finally, your closing metaphore was entertaining, yet I am sure you could have found a better wording to express whatever politcal opinion you want to promote. However, dear sir, let me point you to how 'a cat of many political lives' can be:
1- A cat, my friend, is an animal that is constantly scared, thus reminding me of the self-declared patriotic heroes who admitted being afraid not the abide by the Syrian directives, for 30 years.
2- A cat of many political lives, my friend, is a cat (ref: definition above), is a figurine (to be correct and avoid disturbing words) that can still manage to remain in the majority alliance or govering body, no matter under which foreign influence the Nation is. My friend, I have seen the same 'cats of many politcal lives' under the Syrian regime, for 30 years, and now under the "US" regime, for 3 years, whereas true heroes SACRIFIED what could have been a personal political object, over a couple of decades, for the sake of a honorable Nation.
With all due respect,
Mr. Young,
I’m writing you to express my disagreement about your latest article, “The battle of the two Michels has begun”.
First, I find it dishonest that you opt to start your article by launching sterile trials of intentions that have no more or no less value than whatever the (ex-)opposition might say about an action taken by their March14 opponents. Indeed, instead of exposing tangible facts about the deputy prime minister controversy, instead of discussing the legitimacy, or absence of legitimacy of Aoun’s demand, you prefer to delve into what you, and some March14 sopranos, think was Aoun’s intention. And when you start talking about Mukheiber, you repeat that same strategy, by stating what you think “must have pleased” Aoun. But I understand you, since those less solid rhetoric grounds, if uncertain, have at least the advantage to be twisted at will. I will thus not discuss such issues...
Then you start talking about Aoun’s sectarian strategy. You affirm with much confidence that he uses religious strife for political gain, without providing us with one single example of his unjustifiable “sectarian pin pricks”. In your perspective, is it necessarily badly intentioned to rise up against the hegemony of a certain sect, whatever the reasons for that, or ignoring the fact that by wanting to dominate, the representants of that sect have already done the first sectarian offense? I, for my part, won’t go into trials of intentions; at least I keep a question mark…
Next, it would have been good to describe exactly how the preparations of Siniora’s trip show his perfect collusion with Sleiman, if there really were any preparation for such a shameful trip. You seem to like the fact that Siniora sidelined one of his own ministers, who was received in Egypt in a disrespectful way. In your utmost objectivity, you do not even consider the probability that Siniora only acted in that way to tarnish and reduce Tabourian’s image, to take all the credit of any future improvement of the electricity business. Similarly, you find it highly recommendable that a prime minister and a president spend time and effort to try to widen rift in the Aoun/Tashnag alliance; if such a rift and such a will from the president truly exist.
I’m not surprised that you gladly advocate such low political games: When it comes to Aoun, any level of attack is virtuous and the possibility that he might have any merit for himself would be too damaging for your March14 mentors… With such an attitude, I wonder if it is even necessary to discuss the rest of your article. I will oblige, regardless…
You then take for granted that the president will ally himself with March14… I wonder why a president who completely adopted Aoun’s political stand; notably by replicating the famous Aoun/Hezbollah “tafehum” in his everyday speech; who refused to accept a government without the presence of Aoun, who took on many of Aoun’s fights; such as the refugees in Israel, the prisoners in Syria, the issue of parliament/ministry separation; would choose to ally himself with the opposite group. You thus completely disregard these signs of harmony between Aoun and Sleiman, which are far more obvious than your flimsy claims of Siniora/Sleiman agreement.
Throughout your article, you claim omnisciently and with much confidence, that Aoun is losing ground among his followers, that the reliance of the Christian street is shifting away from him, that he desperately needs the “chiite vote” ect. Instead of going into the old-fasioned disc of Aoun’s Christian representation, if would be good if you choose to expose the forecast of professional surveyors, such as Kamal Feghali and Abdo Saad. And if they don’t convince you, at least refrain from exposing your, yet again, solely personal impressions when you know more tangible sources actually exist and give the exact opposite of your predictions by declaring Aoun the most popular figure in the Christian street by far…
You then say that Aoun “was forced” to accept the Doha agreement, using that specific vocabulary to fit it best in your scenario and to again take away all the credit of his achievements in Doha. You twisting spree continues by stating that Aoun linked the arms of Hezbollah with the return of the Palestinians in Palestine. In reality, he said that it is illogical to demand the weapons of a Lebanese faction, when the Palestinians, foreign to our country, still have them. It’s a matter of priority, and taking away the weapons stored in the camps, those same camps which are refuges of radicalism and criminality, is more pressing than disarming Hezbollah. As for the refugee problem, he said that we need a strong card to avoid a de facto permanent settling of the Palestinians in Lebanon. The weapons of Hezbollah constitute exactly that card that can put pressure on the International Community to find a solution. Furthermore, Aoun never said that the return of the Palestinians in Palestine has to be that solution, but proposed other alternatives, applicable in collaboration between the Lebanese state and western and arab countries.
Finally, every facet of your article showed how subjective you are and how heinous you are towards Aoun. Your wish to see him “written off” is simply too strong. But don’t worry, cats are cunning, always patient before striking, and even when they fall, they always land proudly on their feet. Take my reply as the voice of one among countless grains of sand in the desert, which are far from being silent and will eventually cast a vote, for our best and your worst.
Thank you.
Dear Mr. Young,
Reading Your Article I have realized in your article “The battle of the two Michels has begun”Commentary by You on Thursday, August 21, 2008 that you are swaying the facts but turning what’s happening in Lebanon into your own sectarian agenda, General Aoun is demanding the obvious, that the vice-prime minister has an office! That's basic professionalism. How could request to normalize and standardize a public function, such as the deputy prime minister, could be seen as vicious request. My Question to you sir is shouldn't the Sanioura's fear from sharing his 'Sunni' authority & power with a fellow Lebanese Christian prime deputy be the act that raises suspicions?
In Your article you are implying that there is an unrealistic conflict between the President Michel Sleiman, and General Aoun or have you forgotten that General Aoun was the first to endorse and nominate General Sleiman as the candidate for the presidency when all of the majority bloc denied seeing a military man fill the presidential position.
You suddenly find that Damascus visits to be momentous, and bash General Aoun for being pro-Syrian; isn’t this a contradiction…???? And your also attempting to imply that General Aoun worked to please the Shiite bloc, sir I would Like to inform you that if it wasn’t for the MOU between them the status in Lebanon would have led to war especially with the so called Majority working against unity and freedom of Lebanon instead; working on taking USA’s plan to divide and conquer which everyone is aware of, example Iraq…….Shiites Sunni wars???
Should General Aoun be an opportunist he would have accepted the many deals which were offered to him by the United States and France but instead he preferred Lebanon free independent from any occupation. Free Patriotic Movement led by General Aoun has been doing an outreach with Hezbollah and all parties that would listen, since 1992, to create a real national unity for all Lebanese.
You Claim that Siniora and President Sleiman are 'working well together', yet Siniora ignored Sleiman, went to Egypt out of his own initiative, did not consult with MS before meeting with Egypt president last week. He acts like an agent, not a prime minister.
Last But Not Least it’s kind of ironic using the word cat for it’s a compliment because the cat is a very protective animal protective over its children and home. Cats have been kept by humans since at least ancient Egypt, where Bast in cat form was goddess of the home, the domesticated cat, protector of the fields and home…so sir thank you for the compliment.
A True Believer of Free Lebanon
Post a Comment