| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Aoun emerges as force in Lebanon politics as opposition falters |
| 2005-06-14 |
| That's politics I guess Michel Aoun, who returned from exile in France to split the anti-Syrian opposition by winning a stunning victory in parliamentary elections Sunday, emerged yesterday as an unexpected power broker in Lebanon. "This is a country that should be built on sound foundations, the first of which is combating corruption in the state. But this was what turned everyone against us," said Gen. Aoun, who battled Syrian forces in 1990 and later fled to exile. Switching sides, the general allied with pro-Syrian elements for the elections and took 21 of the 58 seats contested in the central and eastern regions, Interior Minister Hassan al-Sabei said. The main anti-Syrian opposition alliance, led by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and the son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, had 19 seats going into the third round of voting and needed an additional 46 for a majority in the 128-seat parliament. But Mr. Jumblatt's ticket picked up only 27 seats Sunday, giving it a total of 46, which was far short of a majority. The anti-Syrian bloc still has a chance to clinch a majority in the fourth and final round of voting this Sunday in the north, where the remaining 28 seats will be decided. The Syrian withdrawal this spring allowed Gen. Aoun to return from exile, but he failed to join the main opposition coalition. Instead, he formed an improbable alliance with some pro-Syrian Christians while claiming that the move did not reflect a change in his stance on Syria. Aoun supporters were quick to note that the general refused to sign or accept the 1990 Taif Accord, which ended the civil war and was signed by all major Lebanese groups, including Mr. Jumblatt, the Lebanese Forces and others, which allowed Syria to remain as an occupier. Even if the Hariri-Jumblatt opposition does not need Gen. Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement for a parliamentary coalition, the former leader has positioned himself for a run at the presidency, should President Emile Lahoud resign or be forced from office. |
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |
| #7 granted I made a cheap point about American liberalism. But I'm not necessarily wrong because of it. Using an American lens to make a comparison, with which I think you will agree, we here at home benefit from the argument between those who argue for more control by the state and those who argue we need less of it. It's been an ongoing argument since our founding fathers. There is no clear leader in Lebanon right now who could take them where they want to go. They are better off continuing the argument until someone rises from the ashes who can lead. Jumblatt, much as I'm sure you like him, is not the man who could make it happen. It's clear he doesn't have what it takes to move them forward. The voting results prove my point. Nor did anyone else. Saying it's too complicated is a smoke screen. Of course it's complicated. Just like it is in Iraq. Finding a balance between competing interests is often the best way to move forward. The result that they achieved will force that to occur. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-14 14:19 |
| #6 ya, ya, better no clear winner. ] Which is wrong. Even if the opposition had won, no individual opposition leader could have dominated the others. Jumblatt, Hariri, and Geaga (whom you overlooked) would balance each other. The only purpose of Aoun here was to advance himself BY keeping the Syrians in the game. Oh, and you did some kind of silly comparison of Jumblatt to American liberals. Which has little to do with the realities of the Druze in Lebanese politics. But its always best to see things throught the lens of American politics, isnt it? Sorry to be as harsh sounding as this, but Lebanese politics is VERY complex, and has very deep roots, and using it to make a cheap (and off topic) point about American liberalism is sad. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-06-14 14:07 |
| #5 pehaps you missed my point. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-14 14:03 |
| #4 are we all on the same planet? Jumblatt's dad (IIRC) was killed by the Syrians, hes been anti-Syrian for years. Aoun, OTOH, just DID do the wink and deal thing with the pro-Syrian groups. You cant keep looking at this through the prism of 1984. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-06-14 14:02 |
| #3 The sad thing is for all the talk of a Cedar Revolution and a new Lebanon, in the end it is still the same names bandied about that were there two decades ago, and the people still vote for the old names and the old slogans. As long as the Jumblatt's and Hariri's and Phalangists and Hezbollah are around, there doesn't seem much chance of Lebanon going anywhere. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2005-06-14 09:18 |
| #2 As an observer from the cheap seats - it's tough to see what's going on, but I can't help but wonder if this isn't a good result. There really was no one person who had what it took to lead Lebanon to independence from Syria's influence. Wally was too cozy with Syria. He's your typical liberal who uses the poor to stand on their backs, promising he will tell the world of their problems and they will go away. Then just talk,talk,talk,blah,blah,blah, identifying problems all day long, or working on the BIG SOLUTION, they'll let you know what it is right after lunch. But be assured...when they are done with it, you can count on this: no child will be hungry, no one sick and lemonaide will spring where the blue-bird sings....lalalala. Peace and kumbaya. In short, Wally was milk-toast. Hariri was a bit too slick for me. Though we'll never know what the father could or could not have done. But he certainly had enough power and money to do something. He's son strikes me as an overpolished pretty boy - but regardless, I don't think he had the experience or power base to make things happen. Aoun would quickly become a tyrant. But one thing he does add to the mix is that Syria won't get the cozy, let's wink and make a deal relation ship, for the people, that they would have gotten if the others had gotten a clear lead. So in short (ha, ha, as if this was short)I think it's good there is no clear majority. I think they will be forced to appeal to the people. No chance of anyone getting to cozy with Syria now, and no one group that Syria can just assasinate or corrupt. Maybe I'm over optimistically looking for a silver lining, but given the players, I think this was a better result than any other. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-14 08:03 |
| #1 deserving of popcorn |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-14 07:14 |