I was asked for my views on UN Security Council Resolution dealing with Lebanese presidential election. I will be writing something about that soon in Arabic. First, there is no UN: there is a tool of the US that parades as UN, with rare exceptions (the inability of US to get cover for its war in Iraq is one). Secondly, is it not ironic that US is now most critical of the two most open and least oppressive Arab political systems (Palestine and Lebanon)? So the US is concerned about amending the constitution of Lebanon, but not about the lack of constitution in Saudi Arabia. US is worried about "inadequate" election of Lebanon's president, while most of its allies in ME are not elected at all (in fairness some are SELECTED by male family members: the polygamous princes, sultans, and kings). The US also did not mind the extension of the term of the last Lebanese president. And why does a resolution dealing with presidential election (ostensibly) contain references to Israeli demands: dissolution of Lebanese and "foreign" militias, and deployment of Lebanese army forces in South Lebanon. If by "foreign" the reference is to Palestinian armed presence in Lebanon, the Palestinians in Lebanon have every right to be armed in Lebanon given the bloody history of massacres to which they were subjected at the hand of Israeli forces, and Lebanese militias. Now, of course, Syria wields tremendous corrupting influence in Lebanon, and often interferes in minute Lebanese affairs--and often at the invitation of corrupt Lebanese politicians. But here is a quiz for you: which country interferes in the affairs of the other more, Syria in Lebanon or US in Iraq? Those who answer correctly will receive a blender as a reward. Syria (as the authoritarian government that it is) wants permanent clients, and it acts very insecurely given the reality that no Lebanese or Syrian I know looks at the Syrian political system as a model. Why would they? What is there to admire about the Syrian political system? Certainly not the torture techniques devised by Syrian intelligence over the years. And Syria mysteriously did not want an election to take place, even though it would have produced a pro-Syrian candidate anyway. And this Lebanese president (whose side I take in his feuds and conflicts with corrupt prime minister Rafiq Hariri) did not even ask the Lebanese people for his support. He did not even make an official address, or speech. I know his command of Arabic is lousy, but he could have at least talked directly to the Lebanese people. Instead, words of his were leaked to the press to the effect that he will accept to serve for more years. This to me was very insulting to the Lebanese people and the constitutional process. That he felt that relying on Syrian support is sufficient. Having said all that, I have but contempt for the Lebanese right-wing, sectarian opposition that wants US interference in Lebanese affairs, and some of which aligned itself with Israel in the past, and members of which often so arrogantly speak in the name of all Lebanese although they barely represent 10 % of the population (I am speaking politically of course).
* A few years ago, I was invited to meet with Lebanese president Emile Lahhud. I was talking to his advisor, and felt necessary to tell her that I do not wear a suit and tie (see account of my meeting with Amir of Qatar from last February's posting). She was aghast. She insisted that I wear a suite and tie. I said that I would not wear a suit and tie no matter what, and she kept trying to convince me otherwise. She asked me: "Dont you have respect for the President of Lebanon?" I said: "I do not believe that one shows respect in clothing choices. And I respect Lahhud as a human being--not as president, just as I respect Lebanese garbage collectors and shoe shiners." She was more upset, and I could not compromise, and that was that.