Beirut was a hive of diplomatic initiatives this week, but where is the new queen bee, asks Lucy Fielder Lebanon's flashpoint presidential vote was delayed for the third time this week, with the new date, 21 November, perilously close to the end of incumbent Emile Lahoud's term. As diplomatic and local initiatives continued to try to stave off crisis, Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah upped the ante with a characteristically frank speech. He called on Lahoud to fulfil his duties if no agreement is reached and to prevent the country falling into the hands of "thieves and murderers", prompting the expected volley of invective from his opponents in the ruling anti- Syrian bloc. Lebanon has been locked in a dispute between the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hizbullah and its allies and the Western-backed government for a year, though the origins of the crisis go back to the extension of Lahoud's term under Syrian pressure in 2004. If no president is elected by the time Lahoud's term ends on 24 November, or one side nominates a head of state unilaterally, rival governments or military rule are among several unappealing options for the fragile country. Fears of sectarian tension or a slide back towards civil war are widespread. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner arrived in Beirut this week -- his fifth visit in six months. The so-called "French initiative" has raised hopes over the past fortnight, but all bets remain off as to how much it can achieve. Kouchner met Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir and Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora and declared himself "very slightly optimistic". Also expected to press the Lebanese flesh this week are Italian foreign minister and Arab League head Amr Moussa, veteran of various failed initiatives to resolve the stubborn political crisis. Kouchner is viewed as having a hope of success because the French appear to have won the backing of US President George W Bush and the Syrians during a flurry of diplomatic visits to both capitals. However, the foreign minister had promised to return next week at the time of writing, suggesting he was to leave empty-handed this time round. Another meeting between parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri, who represents the opposition, and 14 March leader Saad AL-Hariri was also widely welcomed as portending a deal. The crux of both initiatives seems to be persuading Patriarch Sfeir, traditionally the king-maker of the Christian community, to come up with a list of names he considers qualify as that elusive figure, the compromise candidate. Al-Hariri and Berri would then narrow it down before a parliamentary vote. The problem is, Sfeir refuses to bite. "He has an acute understanding that what's going on has huge implications for the Christian community. He's not going to name someone and then live with recriminations for the rest of his life," says Karim Makdisi, a political analyst at the American University of Beirut. The president is traditionally drawn from the Maronite community, and the post was weakened after the civil war to give more power to the Sunni post of prime minister and the Shia parliament speaker. Furthermore, the Maronites are split between hardline Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and former General Michel Aoun, who is allied to Hizbullah. Hence patriarchal statements focus on the unity of the sect and the need for the president to be elected according to the constitution. The anti-Syrian bloc led by Saad Al-Hariri, which commands 68 out of 127 MPs, has threatened to choose a president by a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds quorum stipulated by the constitution for the first round (thereafter a simple majority suffices). The opposition would answer that escalation with one of its own, with the likely outcome being rival governments. Sfeir's concern about a simple majority, Makdisi said, is that it weakens the presidency itself and sets a precedent whereby a head of state could in theory be elected in future without even Christian consent. As France, Lebanon's former colonial overlord, has centuries-old links with the Maronite community, it is likely that Sfeir's concerns have a sympathetic ear in Paris. Sami Baroudi of the Lebanese American University, said the French and Europe in general see a solution as a security issue, with explosions in the Middle East widely seen as having potential repercussions at home. Diversity is another aspect. "For Europe, it's also about the survival of the Christians in the Middle East. They want to maintain a mosaic in the region," he said. Baroudi said one of the main merits of the various initiatives was simply keeping all sides talking, thereby preventing the rhetoric from ratcheting up or actors on the extremes of either side stirring trouble. But Nasrallah's speech, and the reaction to it, served as a reminder that the issues that have polarised the Lebanese refuse to go away. Hizbullah will not accept a president committed to disarming it; Washington, which backs 14 March, has made clear it wants a president committed to Security Council Resolution 1559, calling for disarming militias in Lebanon. The struggle to confiscate the arms of Hizbullah, which surfaced during Israel's US-backed bombardment of southern Lebanon last year, continues. "We want a president unlike the one wanted by the Americans. What do the Americans want? The Americans want nothing from the president but for him to implement Resolution 1559," Nasrallah said in a speech marking the movement's Martyrs Day. Nasrallah called upon Lahoud, an ally of Syria, to undertake his national and constitutional responsibilities and make a "salvation move" if there was no solution found. In response to Nasrallah's statement about "thieves and murderers", Sports and Youth Minister Ahmed Fatfat accused Hizbullah of protecting those who carried out a series of assassinations of 14 March figures, for which, read Syria. "With his speech, Nasrallah has protected those who have assassinated our 14 March allies," Fatfat said. "He has not only protected them though his alliances but also through his security zones.""What Nasrallah did is a stab in the back for Berri," he added. "It was an attempt to thwart all efforts to reach consensus." But Baroudi pointed out that there was no unified statement issued after a 14 March meeting following the talk, suggesting the movement had opted to react, rather than escalate. Nasrallah's speech was a sign that he placed little store in the various diplomatic efforts, Makdisi said. "If it were true that the atmosphere was good, then there would be no need for such talk in the midst of all this mediation. It could have been aimed at Berri: 'enough mediation, I'm going to talk directly.'" Nasrallah may also have been delivering a reminder that avoiding the central issues would be pointless from his point of view. Hizbullah, Makdisi said, has two constants. The first is that Israel is preparing to attack either Lebanon, Syria or both, either combined with a US attack on Iran or alone. This calculation was evidenced by an unarmed, but large-scale Hizbullah manoeuvre conducted two weeks ago, which Nasrallah confirmed in his speech. The second constant behind Hizbullah's manoeuvring, argues Makdisi, is that "all this internal bickering is a distraction aimed at weakening their base and delegitimising them." Hizbullah sees Lebanon as a potential entry point for a neo- conservative US plan to mould a greater Middle East and views the tug-of-war for the presidency in those terms. Washington, meanwhile, has made clear it wants a president who agrees with its policies in the Middle East, and earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned against a compromise figure who was not committed to UN resolutions. Despite the incompatibility of the essential positions of the two camps, Makdisi said he was hopeful realpolitik would dictate an eleventh- hour presidential election. "I think the key players understand they have a lot to lose from chaos," he said.
