Lebanon is in no position to oppose UN Resolution 1559, writes Ziyad Baroud* from Beirut Presidential elections in Lebanon coincided with the passing of United Nations Resolution 1559, of 2 September, 2004. The UN resolution, passed by nine votes out of 15, calls for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon and the dissolution of all Lebanese and non- Lebanese militias. It also requested -- and for the first time -- that Lebanon's presidential elections be free and fair, that they conform with the Lebanese Constitution, and that the process be undertaken without foreign interference or influence. In addition the resolution asked UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to report within 30 days on the ways in which the concerned parties implemented the said resolution. A day after the UN resolution the Lebanese Parliament held an extraordinary evening session to vote on the constitutional amendment necessary to allow sitting Lebanese President Emile Lahoud to extend his term for an additional three years. The vote resulted in a majority of 96 MPs agreeing to the amendment of Article 49 of the Constitution, allowing Lahoud to extend his presidential term, while 29 MPs opposed the constitutional amendment. A day later the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar published the names of the 29 MPs who had voted against the amendment in what it termed a "dignity-list". While earlier UN Security Council resolutions have called for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon -- Resolution 425 of 1978 and Resolution 520 of 1982 -- Resolution 1559 is the first to finger "foreign interference and influence" in Lebanese institutions. (In this context it is important to note that before the 1989 Taef Accord interference in Lebanese affairs was largely a matter of intelligence service intrusion, while since 1990 foreign influence has been capable of manipulating the political arena, through parliament, electoral laws and the basic process of government.) Resolution 1559 met with a variety of responses in Lebanon, with government supported parties and political forces quick to denounce it as an attempt at "foreign intervention" in Lebanon's internal affairs intended to undermine Syrian-Lebanese relations. Those relations, it must be pointed out, are theoretically demarcated by the Taef Accord, an Arab-sponsored, internationally recognised document the main concern of which was to secure Syria's legitimate strategic requirements in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is, however, the failure to implement the Taef Accord with any consistency that has allowed the continued interference of Syria in Lebanese affairs. The result, inevitably, has been growing tension in bilateral relations with opposition groups repeatedly calling for Syrian-Lebanese relations to be placed on a more healthy footing, one capable of guaranteeing a democratic and sovereign Lebanese government. Since 1990, and despite Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000, little if anything has been done to ensure Lebanon enjoys sovereignty and a free decision-making process. And it is this failure that has pushed the international community, represented by the UN, to act in accordance with the UN Charter, and not the passage of the Syria Accountability Act through the US Congress. The Security Council resolution cannot be considered foreign intervention in Lebanon's internal affairs when Lebanon is itself a member of the international community, is, indeed, one of the states that founded the UN. Lebanon, known for its determination and insistence that UN resolutions be applied, particularly concerning the Israeli occupation, can hardly stand against Resolution 1559 which in effect calls, however indirectly, for little beyond the implementation of a Lebanese-Arab tailored accord. Yet reactions to the UN resolution, combined with those to the constitutional amendment, are likely to set Lebanon and Syria on a collision course with the international community, the results of which are unpredictable. Lebanon must be allowed the space to develop its democratic practices, unique in the region. And such development must come about through local initiatives and not via fraternal, or international, intervention. Only Lebanese initiatives, supported by both Muslims and Christians, are capable of placing the country's relations with Syria, and the rest of the international community, on a more healthy footing. The so- called Beirut Declaration of a few weeks ago represented a significant call in this direction. * The writer is a lawyer and lecturer at University of Saint Joseph in Beirut.
