LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
All that was published in coverage for General Aoun’s visit to Syria
that took place between December 3-7/08

Aoun After Open Heart Talks with Assad: Those in Beirut Should Apologize to Syria First
Naharnet/Change and Reform Bloc leader Michel Aoun on Wednesday said he held "open heart" talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad and advised "those in Beirut" to apologize to Syria first. "Did those in Beirut, who were at one point partners, apologize?" Aoun said in response to a question.
"Those in Beirut should apologize first," Aoun told a packed news conference on the first day of a 5-day visit to Damascus. "Apologies should start from Beirut, then Damascus." Aoun predicted a "bright future" for relations between Lebanon and Syria. "Our meeting today is a promise of a prosperous future," he said.
Aoun said he was offering his "friendship to Syria." "As long as there is a will … we would certainly work out solutions to previous pending problems and agree on a new approach that respects interests of both states," he added. "We were foes, but never enemies," Aoun said of his past experience with Syria that resulted in his defeat on Oct. 13, 1990. He expressed confidence in resolving any problems between Damascus and Beirut. On upcoming parliamentary elections, Aoun said Syria was "supportive of the holding of legislative elections, but without interfering" in the process. His talks with Assad covered, among several topics, the issue of missing Lebanese citizens.
"Committees are tackling this issue. They are achieving progress and, certainly, they would reach a result," Aoun said. He said relations with Washington are like "unstable weather, sometimes sunny, sometimes cloudy." The new U.S. administration, Aoun said, should change "strategy" in the Middle East, not "just the behavior … if they don't, they would be defeated." He declared commitment to the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their pre-Israel homeland, stressing that "those who created the problem should be responsible for the solution, not the states that have been burdened by it for over 60 years." Beirut, 03 Dec 08, 14:39

Lebanese Christian leader reconciles with Syria
The Associated PressPublished: December 3, 2008
DAMASCUS, Syria: A prominent Lebanese Christian leader who fought and lost a bloody battle with Syrian troops in Lebanon nearly two decades ago received a red carpet welcome Wednesday by Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Michel Aoun's visit comes as the two countries are trying to establish harmonious and friendly relations. Apart from meeting Assad, Aoun will also hold talks with Syrian officials and leaders of Syria's Christian community over the next five days.
But the visit has been criticized by anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians, many of whom urged Aoun to cancel the trip. Aoun said his animosity ended when Syrian troops left Lebanon in 2005.
As acting prime minister and military commander in 1989, Aoun fought against Syrian troops in Lebanon. A year later, Syrian forces drove his troops out of their positions, forcing him into exile in France. He returned home in 2005, after Syria withdrew, ending nearly 30 years of domination of its smaller neighbor.
Later, Aoun entered an alliance with the pro-Syrian Lebanese militant group Hezbollah in its confrontation against Lebanon's Western-backed government.
Relief as Thai airport reopensAfghan refugees return home to a life of desperationA touchy path for Obama: Taking charge of the CIAHe now heads the largest Christian bloc in the Lebanese parliament. Other Christian groups and Sunnis have criticized his alliance with the Hezbollah. Those ties boosted Aoun's standing within Lebanon's powerful Shiite community, and allowed Hezbollah to claim that its opposition to the pro-Western government went beyond its Shiite base.
"I am very happy with this visit and hope it will be the beginning of a bright period in the history of Syrian-Lebanese relations," Syria's state-run news agency, SANA, quoted Aoun as saying shortly after arrival.
After a two-hour meeting with Assad, Aoun told reporters at the presidential palace: "We spoke with open hearts and minds in order to clear the Lebanese-Syrian conscience. The person who clings to the past cannot build a future."
In the past, Aoun angered Syria when he testified against it in Washington and campaigned for the so-called Syria Accountability Act. The U.S. Congress passed the act in 2003, accusing Damascus of sponsoring terrorists and seeking weapons of mass destruction.
His visit Wednesday comes six months before Lebanon's parliamentary elections.
Aoun's showing in the 2009 vote could determine who wins a parliament majority and forms the government. It is believed that the main election battles will be in the Christian regions and over the seats he controls. His opponents contend that Christians won't back him because their mood is not pro-Syrian.
In their meeting, Aoun and Assad are also believed to have discussed the fate of Lebanese missing since Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war. The families of the missing and human rights group say Syria is holding dozens of Lebanese.


MP Qabbani: Aoun's Visit to Syria Does Not Launch New Relations
Naharnet/MP Mohammed Qabbani said Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun's visit to Syria does not launch a new chapter of relations between Beirut and Damascus.Qabbani, in a radio interview, said the visit reflects a new chapter in relations between Aoun and Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.
Relations between states, according to Qabbani, are set by state representatives, not by politicians and political factions. On other issues, Qabbani said the international tribunal that would try suspects in the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri has become a reality. He said the March 14 forces do not intend to invest the international tribunal in their parliamentary elections campaign. Beirut, 03 Dec 08, 10:39


Geagea Hammers Aoun
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea criticized Change and Reform Bloc leader Michel Aoun for seeking to clear Lebanon's conscience in Damascus prior to settling Lebanon's differences with Syria. "The President of the Republic of Lebanon, who represents all the Lebanese people, is the person entrusted with the task of clearing the collective conscience," Geagea stressed. "Clearing conscience can only be achieved through settling pending issues (with Syria)," he added.
"We want to overcome the past. But how should we handle out present status?" Geagea asked. He said "hundreds of Lebanese citizens are jailed in Syria, We have bases manned by Palestinians loyal to Syria and we have non demarcated borders with Syria, especially in Shebaa Farms, not to mention persisting Syrian efforts for more than three years to destabilize Lebanon." Aoun's reference to French-German relations as a model for Lebanon's relations with Syria is "not accurate. France had relations with Germany only after the Nazi regime was toppled," according to Geagea. He accused Aoun of discussing with the Syrians the formation of election tickets, saying "Iran pays the money and Syria provides weapons, personnel and more." Beirut, 04 Dec 08, 10:40

Aoun After Open Heart Talks with Assad: Those in Beirut Should Apologize First
Naharnet/Change and Reform Bloc leader Michel Aoun on Wednesday said he held "open heart" talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad and advised "those in Beirut" to apologize first. "Did those in Beirut, who were at one point partners, apologize?" Aoun said in response to a question.
"Those in Beirut should apologize first," Aoun told a packed news conference on the first day of a 5-day visit to Damascus. "Apologies should start from Beirut, then we reach Damascus." Aoun predicted a "bright future" for relations between Lebanon and Syria. "Our meeting today is a promise of a prosperous future," he said.
"We are turning a new page where there is no victor, no vanquished," Aoun said. "This is a return to normal relations." Aoun said he was offering his "friendship to Syria." "As long as there is a will … we would certainly work out solutions to previous pending problems and agree on a new approach that respects interests of both states," he added. "We were foes, but never enemies," Aoun said of his past experience with Syria that resulted in his defeat on Oct. 13, 1990.
Ignoring criticism of his visit from the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority March 14 coalition, Aoun said his trip was justified now that Lebanese-Syrian diplomatic ties have been established. He expressed confidence in resolving any problem between Damascus and Beirut. On upcoming parliamentary elections, Aoun said Syria was "supportive of the holding of legislative elections, but without interfering" in the process. His talks with Assad covered, among several topics, the issue of missing Lebanese citizens. "Committees are tackling this issue. They are achieving progress and, certainly, they would reach a result," Aoun said.
He said relations with Washington are like "unstable weather, sometimes sunny, sometimes cloudy." The new U.S. administration, Aoun said, should change "strategy" in the Middle East, not "just the behavior … if they don't, they would be defeated." He declared commitment to the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their pre-Israel homeland, stressing that "those who created the problem should be responsible for the solution, not the states that have been burdened by it for over 60 years." Beirut, 03 Dec 08, 14:39 the nation's renaissance. Beirut, 03 Dec 08, 12:07

Aoun Lectures in Damascus About U.N. Support for Israel and Financial backing for Terror
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun, lecturing at Damascus University on Thursday, said the United Nations that had partitioned Palestine covers up "Israel's harm" committed against the Palestinian People. "The United Nations that had never succeeded in condemning Israel due to the veto power … we see it in oil fields, with or without an international resolution … and some (powers) are exerting pressures to abrogate the right to return," Aoun said in reference to the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their original homeland in pre-Israel Palestine. He also accused "major powers of playing a role in preventing the return to normal relations between Lebanon and Syria." Aoun did not identify such powers by name. Aoun defended his document of understanding with Hizbullah saying it "reflected on our community, enabled us to maintain our national unity and helped the resistance achieve victory in the most ferocious war staged by Israel against Lebanon."
The understanding with Hizbullah "empowered us against external threats … and despite all obstacles we achieved national harmony around the resistance, its principles and targets." Aoun praised the "miracles achieved by resistance fighters" against Israel in the 2006 summer war between Hizbullah and the Jewish state which killed 1,260 civilians in Lebanon and demolished the nation's infrastructure. He said "terror groups in north Lebanon have a specific ideology that no one is ignorant about its source and has financial resources that also no one is ignorant about their source." Beirut, 04 Dec 08, 14:36

Aoun declares 'new page' in relations with Damascus
Previous enmity 'is an old story that is now over'

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader Michel Aoun on Wednesday predicted a "bright future" for ties between Lebanon and his former foe Syria after talks in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad. "We are turning a new page where there is no victor and no loser. This is a return to normal relations," Aoun told a news conference on the first day of a visit to the Syrian capital.
"Our discussions hold the promise of a bright future" for the two countries, he said of his meeting with Assad, voicing confidence that any problems between Damascus and Beirut would be resolved. In one of the closing rounds of the 1975-1990 Civil War in Lebanon, Aoun as the head of a disputed Christian government, waged a fierce "war of liberation" against Syrian forces deployed in the country.
Forced out of the Presidential Palace in October 1990, he went into exile in France and only returned to Lebanon in May 2005, a month after the end of Syria's 29-year military presence."This is an old story that is now over. We must have better relations with Syria," the FPM leader stressed.
He added: "I am a military man and I do not have hatred for any party with whom I fight. The reason is that wars always end in negotiations and agreements."
"Today, we are opening a new page in history," he stated.On the Syrian side, Assad political adviser Buthaina Shaaban said that Aoun's visit represents "a new era between Syria and Lebanon that will serve the interests of the two countries and the two peoples."
Aoun also told reporters he hoped for a rapid solution to the issue of Lebanese "missing" in Syria, whom support groups in Beirut number at 650 but whom Damascus denies holding.Asked about the priorities to restore the Lebanese-Syrian relations, Aoun said: "We have exchanged viewpoints and showed good will, but there were no demands by any of the two parties and we did not set a schedule for priorities."
On the political front, he said Syria was "supportive of the holding of legislative elections [due to be held in Lebanon in the spring] but without interfering" in the process.
"Syria does not interfere in the elections; it does not send electoral money," he said, hinting at claims that Saudi Arabia was financing the March 14 Forces' electoral campaign. Shrugging off criticism of his visit from March 14, the anti-Syrian camp which holds the parliamentary majority in Lebanon, Aoun said his mission was justified now that diplomatic ties have been established between Damascus and Beirut.
During his meeting with Assad, Aoun discussed the "positive developments in the Lebanese-Syrian relations" and the situation in Lebanon and the region, he said.
A report by Lebanon's National News Agency said that both leaders agreed to establish future relations that "serve both countries' interests and that are based on mutual respect of their sovereignty and independence."Aoun's critics accuse the former Lebanese Armed Forces chief of being a turncoat and of kowtowing to his former adversaries for political gain.Aoun, 73, stunned Lebanon in 2006 when he entered an alliance with the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hizbullah.
He also caused a stir by visiting Iran in October. The retired general is due to visit Christian holy sites during his visit to Syria, which will last several days.
Syria and Lebanon launched diplomatic ties for the first time in October after years of tense relations following the murder in February 2005 of former premier Rafik Hariri. Damascus was widely blamed for the killing but denies involvement.
In a related development, Lebanese Forces (LF) leader Samir Geagea reiterated on Wednesday that he disapproved of Aoun's visit to Syria.
Commenting on Aoun's statement that Syria would not interfere in the elections, Geagea said: "It is true that Syria does not send money; in fact, it sends weapons and militants and Iran takes care of the money."In remarks delivered from his residence in Maarab, the LF boss added: "We all know that the Syrians receive regular visits from Lebanese politicians who are seeking Syria's support in the upcoming parliamentary elections."
Geagea, a member of the March 14 Forces, added that "the Lebanese did not ask Aoun to purify souls between Lebanon and Syria."
"This is a task that only the Lebanese president is entitled to do," he said.
In other remarks about Aoun's visit, LF MP Antoine Zahra said on Wednesday that Aoun had "rushed" his trip to Syria, especially in view of the fact that several sensitive issues between the two countries remain unresolved.
In an interview with Voice of Lebanon radio station, he said: "I think that the visit was rushed after the painful history of the Lebanese-Syrian relations."
"Opening a new page falls within the competence of constitutional authorities and not political parties," he added.
Also on Wednesday, the head of the National Liberal Party, Dory Chamoun, said that Aoun had visited Syria to seek its support in the upcoming parliamentary elections.However, Youth and Sports Minister Talal Arslan praised Aoun's trip to Syria, describing it as a "historic visit."
"Late Pope John Paul II would have been very happy to see Aoun visiting Syria and see how the Christians are engaging in a strategy of peace and openness," he said. - Agencies

Aoun's trip to Syria seen as bid to corner more votes in Lebanon
Analysts say visit could backfire in polls scheduled for next year

By Michael Bluhm /Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Analysis
BEIRUT: Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun traveled to Syria on Wednesday in a bid to position himself as supreme leader of Lebanon's Christians ahead of next year's pivotal elections, but questions remain whether his sojourn will win him any more votes or followers, a number of analysts told The Daily Star.
"He is putting himself as the sole speaker of the Christian community in Lebanon," said retired General Elias Hanna, who teaches political science at Notre Dame University.
"He is putting himself above all parties in Lebanon, including the presidency."
Aoun will spend several days in Syria, against which he declared a war of liberation when he headed the Lebanese Armed Forces in 1989. Aoun fled to France after losing that conflict in 1990, but he returned in 2005 and since 2006 has aligned himself with Syria's allies in Lebanon, in particular with Hizbullah.
The reception being accorded to Aoun in Syria signals that, despite the history of violence between the former general and Damascus, Aoun is cementing his status as Syria's most important Christian partner in Lebanon, said Oussama Safa, executive director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies.
"It's out in the open now that he is Damascus' Christian ally in Lebanon," Safa said. The Syrians are cooperating in creating the impression that Aoun carries more weight among the Christian community than Lebanese President Michel Sleiman, Safa added. "This is really the main message."
Aoun is also using the visit to promote an image as chieftain of all Christians in the Middle East, with his tour including several Christian sites and gatherings with the Syrian faithful, said Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center.
"The part has not been played before, really, in this way," Salem said, adding that Aoun, however, was only one of a series of Lebanese Maronites to trek to Damascus recently and has been working with Syria's Lebanese allies for almost three years. One mustn't exaggerate the importance of this visit."
Aoun is traveling to Syria with his sights squarely trained on the general elections slated for May 2009, which most expect to be tight and bitterly contested, Hanna said. Aoun might well be asking Syrian President Bashar Assad to help smooth over tensions with the Amal movement, Aoun's partner in the March 8 coalition, over how to divvy up districts such as Jezzine and Marjayoun-Hasbaya which are mixed between Christians and AMAL's mostly Shiite backers, Hanna added.
"He is playing it regionally for local politics," Hanna said.
Indeed, the sight of Assad and Aoun smiling together might score votes for the former general outside his traditional Christian base, Salem said. "Strong Syrian support in any election might be important for him and his party, who are running in many districts," Salem said, adding that it was still unclear which of Lebanon's rival factions held the upper hand.
In any case, the visit tightens the bonds between Aoun and his allies in the Syrian-backed March 8 camp, who seem more skilled than their opponents in the March 14 alliance in matters of planning and execution, Safa said. For the March 14 Forces, seeing their archenemy Damascus find a close ally in a popular Christian leader represents a "very worrisome development," he added.
But other analysts questioned whether Aoun's Syrian gambit might cost him the support of some Christian voters, who have long viewed Syrian interests in Lebanon with skepticism. With Lebanon's Sunni and Shiite communities split almost uniformly along the political divide, the country's Christians will probably tip the balance in the 2009 polls, and Aoun might well be misjudging the strength of their antipathy toward Damascus, Hanna said. The contours of the Christian community have changed, not only since Aoun led his war of liberation against Syria, but also since May 2005, when Aoun notched resounding victories in Christian-majority regions, added Hanna,
"He is a stubborn guy," said Hanna, who fought with Aoun against Syria. "He is narrow-minded. He miscalculated his war of liberation. When all the world wanted Syria to stay in Lebanon, he declared a war of liberation. So now, when everybody wants Syria to stay out of Lebanon, I hope that this choice of policy will not hurt Lebanon and the Christians."
Hilal Khashan, chair of the department of political science and public administration at the American University of Beirut, said he had seen polls showing that Aoun's support in the Kesrouan region had plummeted to about 30 percent from 70 percent in 2005. Aoun's political strategy has been to mine the frustration felt by Christians over the loss of some of their political privileges in the 1989 Taif Accord, but he has made poor tactical choices, such as siding with Syria and directing criticism toward the country's Sunnis, Khashan added.
"Damascus is not the place to groom a Lebanese Christian leader," Khashan said. "Aoun will not sweep in Kesrouan in the way he did in 2005. The mood in the Christian street has changed a lot since then. This man has trouble with his own constituency in Kesrouan. He will not have the same number of deputies to send to the Parliament."
Throwing in his lot with Syria and fashioning grandiose designs as a Christian master mirror the flaws that could cost Aoun in the polls: expedience in choosing partners and outsize ambition, Khashan added.
"Michel Aoun has been eager to ally himself with anybody if this would allow him to make any gains," Khashan said. "He is a maverick politician who doesn't understand the intricacies of the Lebanese political system. The Lebanese system is based on balances, very delicate balances. Aoun can never be part of a balance. Wherever he operates, he wants to predominate."
Syria, meanwhile, also has much to gain from deepening its ties with Aoun, the analysts said. Damascus has begun to break free of its international isolation partly by agreeing to formal diplomatic ties with Beirut, at the same time it has regained some of the sway that it lost here after Syrian troops departed Lebanon in 2005 in the wake of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination, Safa said.
Although Syria has always denied involvement in the killing, the looming UN tribunal to try suspects in the case might put pressure again on Damascus to curb its interests in Lebanon, so having firm relationships with domestic leaders such as Aoun would help Syria blunt any fallout from the tribunal, Khashan said.
In addition, the mere fact that a former foe such as Aoun has come calling on Assad also means a "feather in his cap" for the Syrian president, Salem said.
And when the past Syrian enemy remains a powerful figure in Lebanon, Syria should not miss the chance to count Aoun as a friend, Safa said.
"It's a golden opportunity for them to grab a major Christian ally," he said. "It comes at a time when Syria is really building its regained influence in Lebanon. They need friends. It's an opportunity they shouldn't miss."

Michel Aoun's minority package tour
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 04, 2008
You have to hand it to Michel Aoun, he never goes half-way. Here was everyone else staying in Syria for a few hours, two days at the most, and here is Aoun opting for the full four-night, five-day holiday package tour, including visits to religious sites, open buffets, Damascus by night, and an audience with the dictator, all for the low price of his mortal soul.
There will be much dispute over Aoun's choices as he "reconciles" with his old Syrian enemy - his partisans applauding the general, his adversaries finding fault. But a more obvious question is what does Aoun gain from this trip that he didn't have before embarking on the road to Damascus? And what does he lose? - assuming that many Lebanese, perhaps most, still believe that Syria was behind the killing of the former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, as well as of dozens of others beginning in 2005.
To the first question, the easy explanation, an electoral one, is unconvincing on its own. If Aoun's gambit is that he has to become friendly with Syria to be assured that his candidates will be given more room on electoral lists in predominantly Shiite constituencies, as well as Jezzine, then he has already forfeited enough politically to achieve that. Rather, the general's deeper ambition (if "depth" can in any way reasonably be applied here) is to become the primary mediator between the Christians and Syria's regime. Aoun's immediate aim is to displace President Michel Sleiman from that role, but more generally to breathe life into a contentious notion associated with his principal Maronite political ally, Suleiman Franjieh, but also with Aoun's own son-in-law, Gebran Bassil: namely that Christians, in order to protect their community, have a long-term advantage in entering into a strategic regional alliance of minorities with the Shiites and Syria's ruling Alawites.
If there are any doubts about this, the symbolism of Aoun's visit is there to dispel them. The point of the general's planed excursions to Christian shrines in Damascus is to show that Christians thrive under Bashar Assad.
To the second question - what does Aoun have to lose by so flamboyantly settling his differences with a regime accused of systematic murder in the past three years? - the answer is: quite a lot. Through this gesture, the general has taken his followers farther than ever in their divorce from the Lebanese sectarian consensus. Aoun has repeatedly sold his alliance with Hizbullah as a successful effort to preserve that consensus following the 2005 Independence Intifada. That would only be true had Aoun remained a bridge between Sunnis and Shiites. Instead he took sides, and is now thumbing his nose at the Sunni community once more by effectively absolving the Syrian regime of guilt in the Hariri murder; or worse, making it plain that he cares little about that guilt.
But it's the Christians who will ultimately have the most forceful say on Aoun's Damascus trip. And whichever way you cut it, most Christians do not share the general's views on an alliance of minorities, nor are they particularly eager to embrace the Assad regime, preferring a colder relationship of mutual respect. Aoun is under the impression that he can continue to manipulate Christian misgivings about the Sunnis to his advantage. However, those misgivings only have meaning in the context of domestic Lebanese affairs. Once the Christians see the general wanting to take the community into a regional confrontation with the Sunni Arab world, once they realize that Aoun's method for doing so is a partnership with a deeply mistrusted Syrian leadership and with Iran, their reaction will likely be one of suspicion, if only from a perspective of self-interest.
Self-interest counts for a lot, but there is also the matter of principle. It sends a very different message when Lebanese officials, mandated by the government, meet with their Syrian counterparts, and when a parliamentarian like Michel Aoun does so. That's not to say that Aoun had no right to visit Damascus, only that by doing so outside the confines of formal state-to-state relations - the desirable framework for ties between Lebanon and Syria - he injects a form of unilateralism into his act that demonstrates he will ignore Syrian behavior in Lebanon, regardless of how it violates Lebanese sovereignty and United Nations resolutions. That's why Aoun's defending his visit as representing a new page in Syrian-Lebanese relations is so manifestly vain. Aoun claims to be representing all of Lebanon when he only truly represents himself.
Why should that matter? Because it would have been useful, just this once, for the Lebanese to be united around their victims. Aoun's political career since his return to Lebanon has centered on a perpetual struggle against the legacy of Rafik Hariri, whom the general never forgave for having, in death, served as a mobilizing force against the Syrian presence. By transforming his stay in Syria into a grand tour, part political summit, part pilgrimage, by offering so large a dispensation to Bashar Assad and demanding nothing in exchange (except for what Assad will toss him by way of making the trip more palatable in Lebanon), Aoun has betrayed the memory of even those who sided with him in his darker moments: the soldiers who died for him on October 13, 1990, after Aoun had fled to the French Embassy and refused to issue them with an order to surrender; Gebran Tueni, who had his differences with the general, but always defended Aoun's partisans when they were arrested and mistreated by the Lebanese security services; Samir Kassir, who had engaged Aounist students at St. Joseph University and encouraged them in their fight against Syrian hegemony; Antoine Ghanem and Pierre Gemayel, who had, like Aoun, endured years of marginalization at Syrian hands.
Egoism is sometimes a quality of great men. Aoun would agree after placing himself at the same altitude as Charles de Gaulle reconciling France with Konrad Adenauer's West Germany. But his is an egoism without a trace of greatness, without vision or a center of gravity. Aoun took the package tour of Syria, the one the budget tourists choose. He won't come away from the experience with his reputation enhanced.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

Lebanon's Auon in a Syrian gambit

By Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS - When I lived in Lebanon in the 1990s, the streets of what was once-called East Beirut were covered with graffiti saying "Aoun is coming back!"
This referred to former army commander and prime minister Michel Aoun, who was ousted from Baabda Palace, the official residence of the president, by the Syrian army in 1990. Last year, the same streets were filled with colorful orange posters saying "Aoun for president". Aoun returned to Lebanon after 15 years in exile on May 7, 2005. The Syrian army had left a month before and Aoun had marketed himself as the man who led the ejection of Syria through United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, which demanded an end to its decades-long occupation of Lebanon.
He ran for parliament in 2005, won with a landslide victory, and ran for president in 2007, but was defeated by current President Michel Suleiman in a parliament vote in May this year. Aoun had returned to Lebanon on the offensive, hateful of everyone and everything that kept him in exile for so long, and promising destruction of the existing order and sweet revenge. The Beirut he returned to in 2005 was very different from the war-torn city he had left behind.
It did not bear the hallmarks of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister assassinated in 2005, yet, all the actors of Beirut 1990 are still there and most of them have been more than troubled by his comeback.
They were even more alarmed by the 73-year-old's groundbreaking five-day visit to Damascus, which started on December 3. It is purportedly to signal that "the general", as his supporters call him, has finally turned a new page with his former enemies in Damascus.
At Beirut airport on his return on May 2005, Aoun told the masses, most of whom were too young to remember the civil war, that Lebanon would never be governed again by "political feudalism" and a "religious system that dates back to the 19th century". This, his first encounter with the press and well-wishers, was less than diplomatic, when annoyed with all the commotion the ex-general barked at those welcoming him, claiming they were noisy.
He then called for an end to the "old fashioned prototypes which represent the old bourgeoisie which persists without any questioning", effectively a promise to strike back at Lebanon's entire political establishment. His appearance at Damascus Airport this week was very different, there he was seen smiling to the TV cameras, aware of the shock waves he was sending through the pro-West March 14 Coalition which was no doubt watching from Beirut.
Aoun’s Syria trip is scheduled to include a visit to the "Street called Straight", the Roman street that runs from east to west in the heart of old Damascus; churches throughout the Syrian capital's Bab Touma neighborhood; and the Grand Umayyad Mosque that was visited by Pope John Paul II in 2001.
He is also slated to speak to students at universities, and tour Christian villages in the countryside, where a grassroots welcome is awaiting him. Although officially only a party leader (the Free Patriotic Movement) and member of parliament, who commands the largest Christian bloc, he was welcomed at Damascus International Airport by Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad, and had a high profile audience with President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday.
"We spoke with our hearts and minds ... so there remains no trace of a past in which there are many painful things," said Aoun after meeting Assad, in reference to his former "war of liberation" against Syria. "I left behind the past when I came to Syria," he noted. "We want to build the future, not dwell on the past."
Aoun added, "What was once forbidden has now become halal - very halal," claiming that his visit turns a new page in Syrian-Lebanese relations.
Before returning to Lebanon in 2005, Aoun had promised a "tsunami" in Lebanese politics. His appearance in Damascus on Wednesday goes some way to achieving that. The average age of his supporters when he returned was 20, young men and women who were easily enchanted by the fiery speeches Auon gave from exile in France. A generation hungry for reform and hope, they supported Aoun as an exiled leader. They rooted for him again in 2007 when he was running for president - a job he has coveted since 1988. But Aoun understood early on since his return that Christian support alone is no longer enough to govern Lebanon. The nation changed dramatically both during and after the civil war, and no president could be voted into power if he were not supported by the Shi'ite majority, which is loyal to Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Aoun last year made a pact with Nasrallah, pledging to support Hezbollah and its war against Israel, and to run as running mates for the elections in 2009.
A long road for Aoun
Aoun was born in 1935 to a poor family in Haret Hraik, a Shi'ite neighborhood that is currently a stronghold for Hezbollah. Aoun attended Catholic schools, lived with a religious family, but declared years later that he "never differentiated between Ali and Peter, or between Hasan and Michel".
One of the first questions fired at him by a journalist on his return to Lebanon was whether he intended to visit his native neighborhood, which is swarming with Shi'ite warriors today, and meet with Nasrallah. He replied affirmatively, but this was long before he made his now famous pact with Hezbollah.
Aoun finished high school in 1955, enrolled at the Military Academy and graduated in 1958, while a popular uprising was raging in Lebanon against then-president Camille Chamoun. Aoun watched attentively as the Lebanese army, which he was entering, remained loyal to its president.
When Aoun was 40, his country descended into civil war, as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) of Yasser Arafat fought with the Muslims of Lebanon against the Maronite forces of Pierre Gemayel, who were backed by Syria. By the late 1970s, the Lebanese army had fractured along sectarian lines, yet Aoun, having learned from the 1958 experience, remained loyal to the central government. In the early 1980s, he became head of the "defense brigade" of the Lebanese army, a unit separating East and West Beirut. In 1982, he was involved in fighting against the Israeli army that occupied Beirut.
That same year, Aoun created the 8th Brigade, which fought the Syrian army in the Souk al-Gharb pass overlooking Beirut. In June 1984, a reconciliation conference was held for all warring parties in Switzerland - brokered by Hariri - and army commander Ibrahim Tannous was fired and replaced by Aoun.
Aoun complied, but took no part in politics, giving no press interviews between 1984 and 1988. In September 1988, 15 minutes before the end of his term, president Amin Gemayel appointed Aoun prime minister, breaching the National Pact of 1943, which said that a prime minister had to be a Muslim Sunni, and the president's office could be occupied exclusively by a Maronite Christian.
Lebanon's Muslim prime minister, Salim al-Hoss, who had taken over after the assassination of prime minister Rashid Karameh, refused to step down, resulting in two Lebanese governments. Aoun's team reigned from Baabda Palace.
When he came to power, Aoun only controlled limited areas of East Beirut. To establish himself as a cross-confessional leader, Aoun began his war on the Lebanese Forces (LF), a Maronite militia headed by Samir Gagegea, who is currently his main rival in the Lebanese Christian community.
Aoun ordered 15,000 of his troops into action and wrestled the port of Beirut from the LF. He shelled entire neighborhoods of East Beirut and infuriated the Christians of Lebanon, who to date had kept East Beirut quiet and safe. On March 14, 1989, Aoun declared his "war of liberation" against Syria.
He even opened channels with Syria's arch enemies, such as Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Arafat, who described him as a "sword of nationalism" in Lebanon. Aoun finally agreed to the ceasefire proposed by the Arab League in September 1989, but refused to endorse the Taif Accord of Saudi Arabia of October 1989, claiming it did not call for the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon.
Aoun's "rebellion" ended rapidly when in August 1990, his friend Saddam invaded Kuwait. The United States, eager to defeat the Iraqi dictator, wanted Arab support in Operation Desert Storm.
It found no better way to achieve that than through an alliance with Syria for the liberation of Kuwait. Syria's late president Hafez al-Assad sent his army to the Arabian desert, and in reward the US gave him a green light to bring the Aoun saga to an end. On the morning of October 13, 1990, the Syrian army launched a massive operation on Baabda Palace and areas of East Beirut controlled by Aoun. The defeated general fled to the French Embassy in Beirut then moved to Paris, where president Francois Mitterrand gave him political asylum.
Aoun remained in exile during the 1990s, when Hariri ruled Beirut, along with the Syrian-backed president Elias Hrawi and Nabih Berri, the speaker of parliament. It was these Lebanese leaders who prevented his return to Lebanon because they feared his wrath for having obediently worked with Syria for so long. Hariri was killed on February 14, 2005, and after Aoun’s return three months later, he refused to attribute his comeback to the murder of Hariri, but rather to his 14-year crusade from Paris. The new Aoun was older, wiser and angrier than ever before. He wanted to take revenge on all who had wronged him since 1990. There was no sense in taking revenge on the Syrians, he argued, since they had left Lebanon. He instead focused his anger on March 14 leaders like Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora, and Walid Jumblatt, the current leader of the Druze community.
He failed to become president in 2007, but the March 14 coalition said it would never accept him - for different reasons. Muslim politicians like Hariri and Siniora feared a strong Christian president like Aoun would overshadow their Sunni prime minister. The same applied to Jumblatt, and Gagegea, who saw himself - being the other Christian heavyweight - as the best candidate for the Lebanese presidency.
To understand Aoun one must understand how faithful his supporters have been in backing him. When he wanted to fight the Syrians, they were anti-Syrian to the bone. When he wanted to ally himself with Hezbollah, they became strong supporters of what the general was telling them to do. They support anything he tells them. It's that simple. Such strict adherence to a political leader who is not leading a confessional group and one who is switching sides so very dramatically is rare even in a country like Lebanon.
Aoun has no states supporting him or furnishing him with money, like Saad al-Hariri, the politician son of the assassinated premier, and Saudi Arabia, or Hasan Nasrallah and Iran. He does not hail from a traditional political family, like Maronite politician Suleiman Franjiyeh, Druze leader Jumblatt, or former Sunni prime minister Omar Karameh. With no state behind him, and no political family on his shoulders, it is remarkable that the general has survived so long in the patron-client system of the Middle East.
He is now bracing himself for the upcoming parliamentary elections of 2009, which he plans on tackling with Hezbollah. Aoun realizes that he cannot rule Lebanon without them. For their part, Hezbollah leaders realize that they need someone like Aoun to legitimize the "arms of the resistance" among Lebanese Christians. Nasrallah is popular with Christians of south Lebanon but until Aoun came along in 2005, there were Christians in Mount Lebanon who frowned on his military tactics - especially after the liberation of South Lebanon in 2000 - claiming that Lebanon was being made to pay the price for Hezbollah’s war with Israel.
Depending on who you talk to in Lebanon, Christians are either still enchanted with "the general" or have began to hate him, because of his alliance with Hezbollah and his latest cozying up with Iran and Syria. Shortly before his Damascus visit, Aoun landed in Tehran to meet with Iranian leaders - sending a strong message to Saudi Arabia, which supports March 14. A pragmatic man, he knows that all is fair in love and war; and all is justified in his quest to become president of Lebanon.
Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
 

 Aoun uses Syrian stage to accuse UN of coddling Israel
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, December 05, 2008
Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader Michel Aoun accused the United Nations on Thursday of "covering up all harms committed by Israel against the Palestinian people," adding that the world body "resolves world problems based on the will of great powers." "The United Nations has always failed to condemn Israel due to the veto right and we see it in oil fields with or without a resolution," Aoun said during a lecture at Damascus University.
"Some [powers] are exerting pressures to abrogate the Palestinians' right of return to their homeland," he added.
He also accused "major powers of playing a role in preventing the return to normal relations between Lebanon and Syria." Aoun did not identify these powers by name.
The FPM leader also defended his memorandum of understanding with Hizbullah, which was signed in early 2006, saying it "reflected on our community, enabled us to maintain our national unity and helped the resistance achieve victory in the most ferocious war staged by Israel against Lebanon."
The understanding "empowered us against external threats ... and despite all obstacles we achieved national harmony around the resistance, its principles and targets," he added. Aoun also praised the "miracles achieved by resistance fighters" against Israel during the summer 2006 war.
He added that "terror groups in North Lebanon have a specific ideology," the source of which "no one is ignorant of." He added that no one is ignorant of the source of "the groups' financial resources," either. Aoun also said he had "many reservations about the Taif Accord because there is no equality between constitutional institutions, especially between the Lebanese presidency and premiership."
Aoun arrived in Syria on Wednesday to meet with top officials, including President Bashar Assad. He was also expected to visit Christian holy sites during his visit, which will last several days. Aoun met on Thursday with Information Minister Mohsen Bilal and visited the Ummayyad Mosque in Damascus.
Aoun also clarified remarks he had made the previous day, in which he reportedly urged Lebanese to apologize to their compatriots before asking for Syria's apologies.
"When I called on the Lebanese people to apologize, I meant that they should apologize to the Free Patriotic Movement, not to Syria; but some biased media outlets tried to distort my speech," Aoun said. On Wednesday, Aoun met with Syrian President Bashar Assad and told reporters afterward that before Lebanon could demand a Syrian apology for atrocities committed during its 15-year military presence, "those in Beirut" should apologize to their own people.
Aoun's remarks, which were interpreted by some as a call for the Lebanese to apologize to Syria, were met with fierce criticism from the March 14 Forces.
In an interview with Future news television, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt said: "Aoun should have rather asked the Syrian regime to apologize to the Syrian people for the massacres that it has committed in the past; he should have also asked the Syrian regime to apologize for invading Lebanon."
Hizbullah's number two, Sheikh Naim Qassem, defended Aoun's visit to Damascus. "Many of those who visited Syria went there as thieves asking for high positions; as for General Aoun, he went there to give and take for the sake of his country," Qassem said on Thursday.
But MP Nayla Mouawad said the visit was an "insult to Lebanon's memory and a cover for the Syrian regime's re-invasion of Lebanon."
In a statement released on Thursday, she accused Aoun of undermining efforts to reach balanced relations between two free, independent and sovereign countries.
"No one asked Aoun to represent Eastern Christians and usurp the role of Bkirki," Mouawad added, referring to Lebanon's Maronite Church.
Another March 14 MP, Samir Franjieh, accused Aoun on Thursday of trying to "link the Christians with the Syrian-Iranian coalition and isolate them from the Arab and international communities." - Agencies, with The Daily Star

Making sense of Aoun's latest gambit
By Marc J. Sirois /Daily Star staff
Friday, December 05, 2008
There is more than a dash of spectacle in Michel Aoun's visit to the capital that forced him out of his homeland for a decade and a half, but the reaction of his critics back here in Lebanon is every bit as entertaining. In Damascus, the leader of Lebanon's Free Patriotic Movement is painting his visit as the most natural of moves for a free patriot to undertake. In this show, he is no longer playing the commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces and then supra-constitutional prime minister who led a failed revolt against the Syrian military presence during the end-game of the 1975-1990 Civil War. Instead, he sees himself as the role of elder statesman and the head of the Lebanese Parliament's single-largest Christian bloc who can deal - unofficially, he stresses - with Damascus now that it no longer enjoys powers of "tutelage" over Beirut.
It is often difficult to reconcile the "statesman" bit with the former general's mercurial personality, but from one perspective, his politics have been amazingly consistent for a very long time. No one familiar with Aoun's longing for the presidency and his talent for caste-based politics can doubt that he is a product of his country's political system, and of his Maronite sect's favored status within that system. But he and his allies would have it that unlike most of his rivals for primacy of place within that community, the FPM leader is not a prisoner of the system, that his priorities are national rather than tribal ones. To those who accuse Aoun of not understanding the need for "balance" in Lebanese politics, or of wanting to annul the shotgun marriages that make up the various editions of the Lebanese Constitution, the rejoinder of his supporters amounts to an attestation that none of these "rules" is sacred, especially since they were written in blood on stolen paper.
According to this line of reasoning, Aoun's alliance with Hizbullah was a confirmation of, not a departure from, the staunch opposition to Syrian control over Lebanon on which his previous reputation had been built. Likewise, his professed willingness to engage with Syrian leadership is portrayed as both recognition of fact and prophylactic: The Syrians are gone now, and their continuing influence here makes it only prudent to remain on good terms in order to keep it that way.
For a variety of reasons, it is unfortunate that the first Lebanese Maronite leader of real heft who really reached out to the country's Shiites was Aoun. His own nature opened him up to the charge of having allowed naked ambition to eclipse his earlier principles - and his Shiite allies to that of wanting to use him as a fig-leaf. It also invited accusations that his choice of allies was influenced by his own authoritarian tendencies. In addition, the nature of Lebanese politics, especially within the fractious Maronite community, meant that virtually everyone else would gang up on him no matter what he did just because he was seen as a frontrunner for the presidency. Nassib Lahoud, long a high-powered candidate for the presidency, fell victim to this very same tendency in 2005, when his "allies" were successful in seeing to it that he lost his own seat in Parliament.
All of this enrages Aoun's foes in the March 14 Forces. They swear by "balance" (when stasis favors their continuing empowerment) and pledge allegiance to something called a "sectarian consensus" (ignoring those who disdain it as apartheid with a smiling face). Many of the same people deny ever having wanted the Syrians here (although this did not stop them from imbibing the rewards of power and wealth that went along with going along).
Now the March 14istas are in a couple of different pickles.
Domestically, they publicly treat Aoun's diminished electoral prospects as received wisdom, reasoning that after Hizbullah's heavy-handedness last May, Christians voters will desert him in droves during the parliamentary elections scheduled for next May. They might well be right, but behind the scenes, they are also deeply worried. The Sunni and Shiite outcomes of the polls (a virtual carbon-copy of today's) were largely determined by the Doha Accords that followed last May's deadly clashes, but the myriad potential contestants on the Christian side, most of them aligned with March 14, make races there highly susceptible to fratricide and therefore inherently unpredictable.
In addition, many Lebanese have learned from their leaders that sometimes it's just easier to go with the flow. Large numbers of voters take their cues from family patriarchs, and one of the standards by which these determine their "preferences" is by answering a simple question: Who's going to win? March 14 strategists who think about such things consequently worry that if Aoun and his partners in the March 8 camp give off even a whiff of inevitability, the election will be over before it starts.
As far as Damascus goes, the March 14 dilemma might be even worse. Aoun might be unpredictable, but he is highly adept at turning the tables on political rivals. His foes will run on the same anti-Syrian and anti-Hizbullah mantras that have been their refrain for the past couple of years. Expect Aoun and the FPM to try and steal their thunder by arguing that he, not they, is best-positioned to defend Lebanon's independence and sovereignty against threats - from all sides. He will assert that a March 8-led government would make a Syrian comeback less likely because it would soothe Damascus' fears about having another hostile country on its borders. He will also boast that his formula for limiting Syrian influence would not come at the expense of mortgaging Lebanon's soul to the United States.
There are solid arguments against these claims, but March 14 has yet to pick them up with uniformity. Instead, they spend their time calling him a traitor (to Lebanon mostly, but some of the camp's Christian figures regard his primary "offense" to have been against his tribe). Alternatively, they try to sow fear by warning that if he and his allies win the next elections, Lebanon will be no more. When not screaming that the sky is falling, they fold their arms and insist that it's Aoun's star that has lost altitude, that his trip to Damascus is a desperate and doomed effort to recover. Justifiable confidence or false bravado? Only time will tell.
As far as Aoun is concerned, most of his critics today are the same people who failed to be by his side when he tried to drive the Syrians out in 1989-1990, then spent the next 15 years making regular treks to Damascus (or even more inglorious hikes to Anjar) to receive their orders while he was exiled in Paris. To those who defend their actions during this period by arguing that his venture was suicidal and they had no choice but to play ball with Damascus, the Aounists will tell you their hero was anti-Syrian when anti-Syrian wasn't cool, so don't start telling him now how to pluck the strings.
**Marc J. Sirois is managing editor of THE DAILY STAR. His email address is marc.sirois@dailystar.com.lb.

UALM Supports General Michel Aoun’s historic visit to Syria
UALM: Any initiative aimed at improving relations between neighbours is encouraged

4.12.2008
For Immediate Release
Sydney, Australia : The United Australian Lebanese Movement (UALM) affirms its support for the visit of Lebanon ’s former Prime Minister, Army Commander and current MP Michel Aoun to Syria . The UALM firmly believes that the visit will have positive ramifications for Lebanon and the region and as such welcomes the move.
The UALM considers the visit of General Aoun to Syria as an opportunity to assist in rectifying several issues that are pending between the two nations. It could also be a catalyst to start a new era of Lebanese-Syrian relations based on mutual respect.
The UALM welcomes General Aoun’s statement’s concerning several issues namely the matter of the Lebanese missing in Syria and also that of his rejection of the permanent settlement of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon .
Aoun who heads the largest Christian Bloc in Lebanese Parliament and leads Lebanon ’s largest secular political party the Free Patriotic Movement, is reflecting the will of the majority of Lebanese to live in peace and harmony.
This historic visit has come after 30 years of conflict between the two nations and ended after Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, the UALM sees this turning of a new page as a model for a way forward for the region as a whole.
Media contact:
Charlie Khouri
P :( 02) 9687 0518
F: (02) 9687 0975
M: 0411 868 222
E: pressoffice@ualm.org.au
A: P O Box 3157 Parramatta NSW 2124

Aoun's Third Day Tour of Syria, Religious Visits And Talk of New Beginnings
Naharnet/Head of Change and Reform Parliamentary Bloc MP Michel Aoun's visit to Syria included on its third day a tour of religious sites in Saidnaya and Homs, and a traditional Arab Abaya (Cloak) that was presented to him. On Friday, Aoun visited the Catholic archdiocese of Our Lady of Peace in Homs, were he met with Christian and Muslim leading figures including: the archbishop and bishop of Homs and Aleppo, and a number of local Muslim clergy.
When presented with the archdiocese's medal and icon, Aoun said:" You want us to bare another cross, yes we can do so.""There is the great cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified, there is also the cross of great causes in which many suffer and die for. It is a message of salvation," He said. He added: "This is nothing new. Our heart is open and it carries with it other open hearts that have the same emotions and feelings that you all feel." "We are in Syria today because there were a lot of shortcomings in the past," Aoun said. He explained saying:" We can only forget such shortcomings by openly talking about them with honesty, by thinking of the future."
" We cannot forget the past but we have to think about it, so as not to repeat past mistakes. If we remain in the past we bury ourselves in it." He said.
Aoun later paid a visit to the Church of Mary (known as our Lady of the Belt). He was received by many popular delegations on the streets. Following a meeting and a luncheon with local bishop, Aoun received many religious figures from Homs. He addressed them saying:" Everyone knows that I come to you carrying the love of Lebanese seeking to holding sold relations with you. I am here to announce the end of the black period that previously enveloped us, to return to a placid life filled with peace and amity." He added" this is the image of a loving Lebanon; the hateful Lebanon is a minority that must repent. We are in front of a new period in which new policies will be made. I hope this will usher a new renaissance." Aoun said. Beirut, 06 Dec 08, 15:52


Harb: Aoun's Syria Visit Contradicts History
Naharnet/MP Butros Harb said Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun's ongoing visit to Syria has succeeded for being a "controversial development that contradicts the course of history." "Did Syria admit committing mistakes against Lebanon and Aoun, or is it Aoun who has committed making mistakes against Syria?" Harb asked.  However, Harb said President Michel Suleiman's visit to Germany did not gain media coverage similar to that of Aoun's because it was a "normal visit by a head of state, who is coordinating with a state that helps Lebanon in monitoring its borders." He said a recent meeting between Army Commander Gen. Jean Qahwaji and Syrian President Bashar Assad without the presence of Defense Minister Elias Murr was "not proper." Beirut, 06 Dec 08, 14:16

Hoss Praises Aoun's Syria Visit
Naharnet/Ex-Premier Salim Hoss on Saturday praised Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun's visit to Syria, saying it reflects a "brave decision by a leader." However, Hoss criticized Aoun's call for Amending the Taef Accord. "Had it been implemented, there would have been no need for its amendment," Hoss said of the Taef accord that ended the Lebanese civil war. "Had the Taef been fully implemented, we would have managed to achieve major progress in overcoming the factional status," Hoss noted. Beirut, 06 Dec 08, 14:01

Harb Ridicules Aoun
Naharnet/MP Butros Harb on Friday criticized Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun's call for amending the Taef accord, warning that it would hurl Christians into "civil war" that they oppose. "The Christians would not agree at all to a distribution of powers along the lines of a tripartite concept," Harb told reporters after meeting Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea at the latter's residence in Meerab. "Had it not been for Aoun's wars against Syria we would have not gone to Taef," Harb recalled. He also criticized Aoun for "asking the Lebanese to apologize to him and, through him, to Syria." "The Lebanese people did not shell Syria by artillery, did not displace Syrians from their homes by occupying their land, did not oppress the Syrian people and did not increase the numbers of widows and orphans in Syria," Harb recalled. Aoun's visit to Syria "strengthens Syria's influence in Lebanon … and does not serve Lebanon," Harb stressed. Beirut, 05 Dec 08, 20:53
." "We must achieve reconciliation," Qabalan stressed. Beirut, 05 Dec 08, 20:29

Pope of the Orient!
Naharnet/The Arab Socialist Baath Party in Lebanon on Friday proclaimed Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun "Pope of the orient."The Baath Party's leader in Lebanon, Fayez Shokor, made the announcement to reporters after talks with parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. "Aoun went to Syria as a Christian patriotic leader and definitely he would come back as a leader at the level of the orient … it would be correct to say he went as a Christian leader and would return a Pope of the orient," Shokor said according to remarks distributed by the state-run National News Agency. Aoun's visit to Syria, according to the Baath leader, is "in the interest of both states." Beirut, 05 Dec 08, 18:38

Hizbullah Proud of Aoun's Courage

Naharnet/Hizbullah on Friday said it feels "proud" of Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun's "courage, and honesty." Hizbullah's parliamentary bloc, in a statement after its weekly meeting, also paid tribute to Aoun's "courage and clear approach to the needed relations with Syria along the line of frankness regarding past mistakes … with a view of building the future." The bloc called for lifting the blockade imposed on Gaza. It called the various Lebanese factions to rally around President Michel Suleiman's efforts aimed at bolstering Lebanon's image.Beirut, 05 Dec 08, 17:49

Pay Attention to Lebanon’s Presidency
06/12/2008
Asharq Al-Awsat,
By: Tariq Alhomayed/the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat,
I do not believe that Lebanese President Michel Suleiman was irritated by the reception received by Michel Aoun in Syria even though Suleiman spoke to Arab ministers in Berlin only recently about the importance of Arab states and Lebanon cooperating through the Lebanese presidency.
The reception that Aoun received in Damascus − where he was given a copy of the Quran and where attributes and titles that provoke laughter were bestowed upon him − is not the only important matter here; this is merely part of the bigger picture.
Even if it is impossible for him to say so, the Lebanese president is beginning to realize that the Syrians and their allies in Lebanon are trying to marginalize the momentum that has been built up around the Lebanese presidency over the recent period and to minimize the importance of Baabda and its influence.
The way that the Syrian President received Chief of the Lebanese Armed Forces [Jean Kahwaji] and the issuing of a statement were salient matters, as the Lebanese military commander suddenly jumped onto the political scene through the gates of Damascus. This is not even something that Suleiman did, in such a provoking manner, when he headed the Lebanese army.
Therefore, the way that Aoun was received in Damascus is not important. What is more important however is the content, as we are seeing a clear alliance now between Syria and Nabih Berri, and it appears that the chief of the Lebanese military has also joined it, as well as Aoun and Hezbollah, even if the nature of the relationship between Hezbollah and Syria is ambiguous today.
This alliance is simply the encircling of the Republic’s president, the constricting of his role and the deduction of the international momentum that he acquired as a consensus president. When the international centers of power feel that the president’s role within Lebanon is being marginalized, his visits would be standard protocol only.
Syria has gone beyond the pressure of the necessity of electing a consensus president and the formality of opening embassies for the sake of France breaking Syria’s international isolation. Therefore, Syria cheered for Suleiman, as his picture with the Syrian president portrayed the message that Syria had facilitated matters.
However the plan has changed today as Damascus does not want France anymore; its eyes are now firmly on Barack Obama and this is something that does not require communication with the Lebanese president, as Suleiman’s picture was merely one to hang up in the Elysees.
Accordingly, it is not in the interest of Damascus to see the Lebanese president gaining international respect and keeping a reasonable distance [from Syria] despite some of Suleiman’s statements that were made to appease Syria and fend off its evil. Consequently, Damascus seeks to cling to Lebanon through allies and militias, not through centers of legitimate authority.
Syria’s goal is to control official centers by helping allies reach these positions, not through alliances with people who are already in these positions. The current Lebanese military commander came after a man who was a candidate [tipped to become army chief] after Suleiman and was removed by way of assassination. This is important to remember.
Therefore, one must state that it is crucial now to pay attention to protecting the Lebanese president politically and with regards to security, as all indicators show that an alliance is forming in Lebanon in order to marginalize the role of the Lebanese president.
Either Michel Aoun will become the new Emile Lahoud or the center of power will be devoid of its value and will be encircled by alliances, making the president’s role secondary. The latter, regrettably, is in the nature of Lebanon, and it means the targeting of the Lebanese president if need be.


The Guardians of the Cedars Party issued the following weekly communiqué:
The decision to open up to the Syrian regime, as is currently happening in Lebanon, is too soon too fast. It is too soon because the Lebanese people are not ready to accept such a public openness given the magnitude of the tragedies that the regime inflicted on the people for the past three decades. It is too fast because the Syrian regime has not, to date, shown any genuine desire to change its inimical behavior towards Lebanon or to abandon its ambitions to control the country, except for its consent in principle to exchange diplomatic missions which we still consider a formality of procedure but not of substance. The borders remain a free for all, with daily convoys of weapons and gunmen that pour in from Syria in violation of those borders to bolster the positions of the pro-Syrian Lebanese and Palestinian organizations inside the country. There is also the issue of the missing, the disappeared and the detainees which has been relegated to futile
special commissions which, truth be told, specialize in covering up and stonewalling the issue in order to dilute it out of existence.
The argument for mending relations with Syria, after its withdrawal from Lebanon, is a fallacy. First, because Syria is effectively still in Lebanon through its security and political proxies, and it is capable of destabilizing it and undermining its decision-making whenever it chooses. In addition, Syria is present in every speck of Lebanon’s political life. Second, mending relations must begin by an initiative from Damascus, and not from Beirut, since it is Damascus which aggressed Lebanon and occupied its territory and not the other way around. Hence, there should be no equivalence between the aggressor and the victim, or between the torturer and the victim.
And if the intent of this openness is to give the Syrian regime a free exoneration from the many crimes it committed in Lebanon, the Lebanese people categorically reject this move, particularly since their wounds have not healed and the magnitude of the horror is etched in their hearts and minds and in their national conscience. To just walk over the bodies of the martyrs and dance on their graves is simply despicable and scandalous.
As for the claim that opening up to the Syrian regime leads to bolstering the influence of “the Christians of Lebanon”, it simply is refuted by reality and history. No one has suffered more at the hands of the Syrian regime than the “Christian Lebanese”, not to mention that regime’s sponsorship of the Taef Agreement which has voided the authority of the Presidency of the Republic, which is the “Christians” highest post in the State, and the Syrian regime’s invasion of the Christian regions of Lebanon, which eliminated what was left of their political influence. Those clamoring for reconciliation with Syria and gaining its favors should emulate the rulers of the State of Kuwait who, to this day, refuse any reconciliation with those regimes that supported Saddam Hussein in his invasion of their country.
Lebanon, at your service
Abu Arz
December 6, 2008


Aoun: Lebanese-Syrian Relations Today Stronger than Past Period

Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun has said Lebanese-Syrian relations today are much stronger than in the past.
"The decision taken by Syria to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon has eliminated the war of intentions between both sides," Aoun said in an interview with Syrian television on Saturday. "Diplomatic representation is the result of independence. This independence is not given, it stems from holding to (our) national unity. Independence is not granted by Syria or the United States or France, rather through a united Lebanese position in dealing with the international community based on Lebanon's interests," he said. Asked whether he fears that some parts of northern Lebanon would become a source for terrorism, Aoun said: "This is a dream that extremist groups have."  He pointed that the northern regions of Lebanon including Tripoli constitute a three-fold threat: first, infiltration to Syria, second infiltration into Lebanon from Syria and third via the Mediterranean through which these groups could reach any state.
"Lebanese society is plural and multiple, some of its components might differ however, this does not mean that it has an inclination to terrorism," said Aoun.
He added that Israel will never win in case it decides to wage war on Lebanon, saying "Israeli forces can destroy but cannot occupy and keep the land."
Aoun said he does not support the chaos of Palestinian arms and the security independence they enjoy at Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
"Settling the Palestinians in Lebanon would cause displacement because Lebanon lacks … the resources to absorb them," Aoun told the TV station.
On Saturday, Aoun visited Aleppo accompanied by Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad. He visited the Armenian Orthodox cathedral, an Armenian museum, the Maronite archdiocese and cathedral. Beirut, 06 Dec 08, 21:40

A Special Tribute to Aoun… and a Bad One for Lebanon
Elias Harfoush Al-Hayat - 07/12/08//
We have no intention of evaluating the visit of MP Michel Aoun to Syria, and the soundness of the comparison he made between the regime which spread the red carpet for him in Damascus and the German regime visited by Charles De Gaulle after the fall of Nazism (against which the war was being waged) and the establishment of a new democratic government in Germany on its ruins.
Such evaluation and comparison are left to Aoun's supporters and to the Christian popular base which will voice its opinion of his choices in a few months, if circumstances permit. When we speak of a Christian popular base, we do not mean to give Aoun's choices or the support he enjoys a sectarian character, but merely repeat the slogan he himself raises these days, as he considers himself to be the spokesperson and protector of the Christians, not only in Lebanon but in the Orient as a whole.
Nevertheless, what matters to us is the negative impact left by the special and exceptional welcome the Lebanese MP received in Syria on the form being sought for normal relations between Lebanon and Syria, relations which Aoun's visit was said to aim at returning to the right track. Such relations are usually forged, as in all other countries, between representatives of the state and its symbols. However, when a political figure, from any level, intends to visit a country, the tribute they receive there should not exceed that granted to representatives of the state themselves. A recent example would be the tour made by candidate Barack Obama in a number of European countries on the eve of US elections. Would it have been possible for Obama to be welcomed on Downing Street or at the Elysée Palace in a manner exceeding the tribute normally granted to President George Bush, who is still in power at the White House? If that were indeed the case, then it would be natural to consider this a form of interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, especially if the politician receiving such an exceptional welcome is a major figure of the Opposition in their own country. To illustrate what we mean, there is nothing better than to imagine the Lebanese President organizing a crowded welcome for one of the figures of the Syrian Opposition scattered abroad, not to say allowing one of them to "seek asylum" in Lebanon. What would be Syria's reaction in such a case? How would Damascus describe such an action by Lebanon, if it were to happen, God forbid?!
Normalized relations between countries have certain recognized standards, and there is no need to discover them anew, at a time when the Lebanese and Syrians claim to be preparing to open embassies between their countries and to close the chapter of past mistakes. Such standards do not include the tribute granted to a Lebanese MP and party leader, regardless of the size of the party he represents, exceeding that granted to the President of the Republic himself, who visited that same country a short while ago. However, when such a transgression does take place, the question which should naturally arise, and which perhaps Aoun should have been the first to ask, being preoccupied with "preserving sovereignty" the most, is the following: Is this the kind of normal behavior that would indicate good intentions in building relations based on mutual respect between Lebanon and Syria?
Syria may have its own goals behind the nature of the greeting it granted Michel Aoun. It is returning to its embrace a man who once waged a war against it and was defeated. He is now recording yet another defeat by acknowledging that his previous scheme has failed, and that the natural relationship between Syria and Lebanon is not one of "rivalry" (although he used terms of enmity and "head-smashing" in his previous wars) but should be based on friendship and on respecting the particularities of each country. However, Aoun the twice-defeated adds a third defeat, one of greater impact on relations between the two countries, when he agrees to play the role that has been ascribed to him, and accepts to be treated in Damascus as if he were the effective President of Lebanon, despite the fact that there is a President residing at the Baabda palace

What will Lebanese Christians' choices be?

Dr. Salim Nazzal/Al-Arabiya
Separate visits by two major Lebanese Christian leaders to Iran in the past two months could provide a major indicator of the direction that the wider Lebanese Christian community will take in the future.
The first visit was made by General Michel Aoun, the leader of the liberal trend, which adopted a strongly supportive position regarding the Hezbollah-led Lebanese resistance.
The second visitor was the president of the Lebanese republic, Michel Suleiman, who is a traditional Christian Maronite. Despite the fact that he visited Tehran as a president, by visiting Tehran's weaponry production facilities and fueling rumors of a possible military purchase, he offered an indication of a breakthrough in Lebanese Maronite culture showing more openness towards other countries in the region.
As we must always look to history when we need to understand the present, let me explain two apparently contradictory factors in the history of the Lebanese Christians, in particular the Lebanese Maronite who form the majority of the country's Christians and who played a major role in the creation of modern Lebanon, particularly during the period of the patriarch Areeda in the First World War.
The first fact is that Lebanese Christians (and the Christians of historical Syria) played a major role in the birth of the Arab national movement, which began in the days of Boutros Al-Bustane and Nasef Al-Yazege in the 19th century. In this period, they revived and modernized the Arabic language which was the platform on which pan-Arab thinking was based, as well as playing a crucial role in awakening Arabs to the dangers of the Zionist movement as early as the very beginning of Zionism (George Antonius, Najeeb Nasser). The second fact is the skeptical tendency of Lebanese Maronite Christians towards their Arab and Muslim surroundings
Though it is beyond the aim of this article to cast much light on the history of these two factors, one cannot help but point out briefly that both were the product of the Ottoman period. During this era (though varying from period to period) Christians found themselves dealt with as second-class citizens which made some of them look for protection from the Western forces which were ready to help within the framework of Julius Caesar's (divide and rule) famous principle, dividing to influence during the Ottoman period and dividing and ruling in the post-Ottoman period. The Lebanese Maronites' leading role in reviving Arabism in a secular form arose not only from their early contact with Western culture but was also a self-defense mechanism conceived to contribute towards making a state for all Lebanon's citizens.
The pan-Arab thinker Constantine Zurich, who came from a Syrian Christian orthodox background, has emphasized the importance of modernizing and democratizing the Arab world, arguing that doing so would reduce the traditional concerns regarding the creation of a state for all its citizens on an equal footing. He summarized this point in asserting that the majority must ensure that the minority feels secure, while the minority must not look outside the country for help and protection.
A number of issues, recent and historic, have, in my view, consolidated the Lebanese Maronites’ tendency towards openness: the first of these reasons is the defeat of the aggressive Bush-era neoconservative policy in the Middle East and the consequent defeat or weakening of the Arab faction which supported that policy.
Secondly, past experience has shown that those Lebanese Christians who allied themselves with Israel or America against the region made a fatal mistake. In the year 2000, the Lebanese Maronites saw that the Southern Lebanese army had been humiliated and treated badly by Israel, which was a major lesson to Christians that their security lay in being loyal to their region rather than to outsiders.
Israel has never cared about the Maronites; the peaceful Maronite villagers in Kufr Burum in the Galilee were ‘ethnically cleansed’ by Zionist terror groups who then went on to destroy the village and bomb it from the air.
Thirdly, the violence in Iraq against Iraqi Christians must have been another reason to opt for the pan-Arab stance, which integrates Arabs regardless of faith. It has demonstrated beyond doubt that religious fanaticism and divisions could only lead the Arab region into further civil wars and conflicts, which benefit only the graveyards and the enemies of Arabs.
In the light of this history, General Aoun's visit to Tehran and later to Syria was important because it represents a new Lebanese Christian approach towards the region, demonstrating that Arab Christians are a fully-integrated part of the Orient and that all Arabs would lose out if Arab Christians were marginalized. However the new Christian outlook proceeds from the Vatican directive issued during the period of the late Pope John Paul II, calling on Lebanese Christians to interact with their surroundings.
Yet while this open attitude is a move towards returning the Lebanese Christians to their historical role as pioneers in Arab progress, a skeptical tendency has reappeared among other Christians in the country. At a meeting held by the Phalange party on its 72nd anniversary, Amin al-Jumayl, the Lebanese President between 1982 and 1988, previously known as a moderate Maronite leader, called for the establishment of federation in Lebanon, an idea which might have surprised many observers less had it come, for instance, from the leader of the Lebanese forces Samir Geagea, who is known to hold a more radical right wing stance.
It is obvious that while the 8th of March Christians have chosen to follow the Vatican's guidance and resume the liberal traditions of their 19th century forbearers, another faction has chosen to stick with the old-fashioned skepticism which has cost the country's Christians and the Lebanese generally so much blood and suffering previously, especially during the civil war of 1975.
The question of which group will have the upper hand in the future is difficult to answer. There is increasing evidence, however, that the progressive, open faction is getting stronger. This week, General Aoun begins a historic visit to Syria, the country which he declared war against in 1988. Aoun considers his visit to Syria important due to the historical bonds that link the two peoples; Saint Maron, the founder of the Maronite sect, was, after all, a Syrian whose followers moved to the mountains of Lebanon. During his visit, General Aoun is scheduled to meet with members of the Maronite and other Christian communities in Aleppo and Damascus, meaning in the view of some in the Lebanese media that he is behaving as if he were the leader of the Arab Orient's Christians. He has denied this, but did not conceal his concern for the Christians across the region as being an integral part of it, rather than connected to "the crusaders or the French in the region," in his own words.
It is certain that this argument is highly unlikely to convince those politicians who are still prisoners of the past and thus unable to search sincerely for a better political formula to resolve Syrian-Lebanese relations. Indeed, criticism of Aoun's Syrian visit came quickly from the 14th of March Christians who still hold the same old hostile position towards Syria.
However, apart from the daily politics and amid the talk about a dialogue between cultures the Lebanese and the Arab Christians, as the previous Phalange Party leader Karim Bakradoni said, can play an important role in creating real dialogue between the East and the West.
Yet this cannot happen without the adoption of a stronger Arab and Muslin position in condemning the murders of Iraqi Christians and without providing the Arab Christians with all the support needed to help them assuming their illuminating role in the Arab Orient. A strongly supportive Arab position would certainly weaken the skeptical voices among some Lebanese Christians who still believe that their security comes from outside the region. Although the Lebanese Christians' choice is first and foremost the responsibility of their leaders, it is also crucially related to the availability of greater choice in the region; more democracy and more progress towards creating a state for all citizens would no doubt empower Lebanese Christians, who view themselves as Arabs who would defend the Arab causes, with Palestine being foremost among these.
*Written exclusively for AL ARABIYA. Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian-Norwegian historian in the Middle East, who has written extensively on social and political issues in the region. He can be contacted at snazzal@ymail.com.

 

Flirting with Syria
08/12/2008
By Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq Alawsat
It was hard to believe the recent news reports that General Michel Aoun had landed in Damascus especially for those who had followed the ongoing and severe hostility between Aoun and Syria over many years. This is a new chapter in a series of turnarounds, which has become something of a Lebanese specialty, and today General Michel Aoun is setting a new example of Machiavellian political philosophy, which states that the end justifies the means.
Aoun chose to take an old and traditional route of Lebanese politics; that decisions in Lebanon must pass through Damascus first. Aoun is not the first (nor will he be the last) to take this route. General Aoun caused sadness and pity as he tried time and again to explain his position and clarify his objectives and the reasons behind the change in his stance concerning Syria. Yet this anxious and emotional explanation lacked any conviction and logical acceptance.
There is no enduring animosity, but there are enduring interests. This is a slogan of the USA foreign policy, and today we can see its effects on the political approach of General Michel Aoun. The impact of his visit to Damascus on the complex reality of
Lebanon, and specifically on the forthcoming elections, are yet to materialize. There is talk of possible future deals with various scenarios and dimensions being mentioned whilst many remain ignorant to the specifics of such deals. However, they cannot be denied altogether.
Michel Aoun was the spiritual father of the Syria Accountability Act [Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, December 12, 2003] which was passed by the United States Congress, and which Aoun personally pursued along its various stages. Aoun built up his reputation as a leader in Lebanon through his firm stance of rejecting Syrian presence in any way, shape, or form on Lebanese territory. However he has now become a representative of this approach.
Since General Michel Aoun’s return to Lebanon following his 15 year exile in France, his position has changed, puzzling all those who knew and supported him. General Aoun reminds me of two novels by the great Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez, entitled ‘The General in his Labyrinth’ and ‘No One Writes to the Colonel’ both of which deal with the realities of soldiers in search of a new life. Michel Aoun is a political riddle, but one which is typical within the Lebanese political structure. He is not the first to have performed a U-turn with regards to his political position, as there are others like him. The coming days will clarify the dimensions of Aoun’s visit to Damascus and what it means for the Lebanese political scene.

Miqdad: Syria Wants Ties with Entire Lebanon, Not Individuals
Naharnet/Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Miqdad stressed that Syria wants ties with entire Lebanon, not just with individuals.
Syria "does not want to personalize relationships … we want these ties to be established with entire Lebanon," Miqdad said in remarks published by the daily As Safir on Monday. He said it was "normal" for Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun to "be in Syria and so should our entire Lebanese brethren."
"In return, it is normal for the Syrian people and Syrian officials to be across Lebanon," Lebanon added. On the issue of missing Lebanese in Syrian jails, Miqdad said that Damascus "will not leave one stone unturned in order to clarify everything related to the so-called missing Lebanese." He suggested that Lebanese authorities and former warlords in Lebanon exert every effort to reveal information about those missing, "the majority of which perished during the civil war." Beirut, 08 Dec 08, 10:29
factions. Beirut, 08 Dec 08, 14:33

 

Moussawi: Hospitality in Receiving Aoun is a Celebration of the Resistance
Naharnet/Hizbullah's International Relations official Nawaf Moussawi said the hospitality with which Gen. Michel Aoun was received in Syria is also a celebration of the resistance and a salute to the general who stood by it. "To those betting on a strike against Iran or the resistance, we say this won't happen for the enemy is incapable of eliminating us militarily. If they strike they will be the first to lose," Moussawi stressed on Sunday. He considered the Lebanese to be governed by consensus regardless of the 2009 parliamentary elections. To those wagering on achieving a parliamentary majority again, Moussawi said: "It does not take a lot of reflection to know that their reasoning is baseless." Moussawi expressed surprise at the international community's continued silence over Israeli violations of the Blue Line and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. Beirut, 07 Dec 08, 16:57

Aoun from Aleppo: No Need for Christian Reconciliation, Differences are Part of Democratic Process
Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun ended his five-day visit to Syria on Sunday and returned to Beirut aboard a Syrian jet.
"There is nothing between the Christians that calls for reconciliation, because differences are part of the democratic process," Aoun said before leaving Syria.
"We are reconciled with ourselves and I don't think we will differ over St. Maroun," he said. "We thought the distance between Mount Lebanon and Mount Syria is far. However, it is much shorter than imagined," Aoun said after attending mass at St. Maroun's in Aleppo. Aoun paid tribute to Muslims on the occasion of al-Adha holiday. "Let us all share our feasts. This is common living, this is the call of our common heavenly faiths," he said. On the 5th day of his trip to Syria, Aoun visited the grave of St. Maroun at Brad, northern Aleppo, and attended a large mass. He also visited various religious and archeological sites some dating back to the second century A.D. Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad and the Governor of Aleppo accompanied him. Beirut, 07 Dec 08, 16:14


Aoun has become that which he long claimed to disdain
By The Daily Star
Monday, December 08, 2008
Editorial
Ever since he returned to Lebanon in 2005, Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader Michel Aoun has professed a desire for sweeping reforms and a commitment to working through the institutions of the Lebanese state. For much of that time, the fact that he accomplished so little on either front could be explained away by his party's absence from the government. Today, however, the FPM has a significant presence in Cabinet to go along with its large representation on Parliament, which means it no longer has so convenient an excuse.
One might have hoped that Aoun would use this enhanced position to advance his agenda by using all of the legitimate avenues at his disposal. Instead of having the FPM bring concrete legislative and policy proposals before Parliament and Cabinet, however, the former general has continued to work outside the system - and now, outside the country itself. He could not have picked a worse venue than Syria to publicize his calls for amendments to the Taif Accord that ended Lebanon's 1975-1990 Civil War.
He also could not have picked a worse cause than that of enhancing the powers of the presidency: Taif has flaws and its implementation has been so spotty as to obviate most of its qualities, but that only means there are several high-priority changes that can and should be discussed via the proper channels and at the proper time. Providing solutions in areas like the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and ending sectarianism would benefit all Lebanese. Instead, Aoun's emphasis on presidential powers looks a lot like a cynical (not to say dangerous) ploy to capture the votes of Christians in next year's parliamentary elections.
Taif and the presidency are not subjects to be trifled with, a fact evinced by how little support has greeted Aoun's recommendations. The current president, Michel Sleiman, has not demanded more authority - only more respect from foreign governments accustomed to "dealing with Lebanon" via particular politicians. Even the FPM's allies in the March 8 Forces have either offered no comment at all on his plan or pointed out that it would open a Pandora's box of new demands from several communities at a time when the country and its people are simply not equipped to cope with destabilizing controversies.
Aoun's calls for a new way of doing politics in this country were once a breath of fresh air. But his consistent failure to engage in the necessary legwork, his frequent recklessness in pursuit of his own aggrandizement, and his penchant for character assassination have combined to make him look and sound like something he has always claimed to abhor: just another Lebanese politician with a successful cult of personality but none of the discipline and vision demanded of actual statesman.
Lebanon's history is littered with the detritus left behind by blowhards and their hollow slogans. Aoun's best moments have been when he has assailed the succession of unworthy grandees who have subjugated the national interest to their own ambitions. His worst mistake, however, has been to follow in their footsteps

Interfaith dialogue, hypocrisy and private lives
By Talal Nizaneddin -Daily Star
Monday, December 08, 2008
I am suffering from a total state of agnosia. Is this the same Michel Aoun who angrily vowed that he would break the head of the Syrian regime? Is this the same Syrian regime that pacified the Lebanese Army soldiers fighting under Aoun's command and waged a ruthless campaign for 15 years to marginalize the idealistic Free Patriotic Movement supporters? At least I am almost sure that I haven't been afflicted by amnesia. I remember when the Lebanese felt the thrill of defiance when they beeped their car horns driving through the Nahr al-Kalb tunnel leading to Jounieh from Beirut.
Letting bygones be bygones and forgiveness is a treasured feature of human nature and being an optimist, I say whatever breaks the ice and allows people to move on from a painful past should be welcomed with open hearts. But the process of forgiveness is a long and arduous one. In Judaism, Christianity and Islam it must begin with honesty, leading to confession and then as a final step absolution becomes meaningful. On a human level, in a one-to-one conflict, a discussion must take place that expresses the pain of each side so that there is an understanding of the hopes and fears of the other side before saying sorry reaches a level beyond words and touches the human within us.
It is said that since the end of the Cold War we have been living in the age of the clash of civilizations and the dialogue of faiths. In the Western and pro-Israeli media, Islam is the culprit, with the image of bloodthirsty mad Muslims rampaging through Mumbai killing randomly all those around them the latest episode of terror that does nothing to the great religion they claim to be fighting for. Among Arabs and Muslims it is the Jews who have manipulated the Holocaust tragedy to inflict suffering on Palestinians and Arabs. The Christian West is also blamed for a low-burning decadence that over time has led to the collapse of the world financial markets due to greed and the neglect of the poverty and misery of the so-called Third World.
What is strikingly noticeable about Aoun's visit is the tour of the historic churches of Syria. The message clearly states that Christianity is safe from the harm of Muslim fanatics in secular Syria. But the manipulation of the clash of civilizations idea has been even better fine-tuned because there is now a distinction between Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam that has been dispersed in our media outlets like a wave of cluster bombs. Thus we have inter and intra-civilization clashes if we are to believe our political experts and TV commentators. Aoun and his supporters have played further on Lebanese Christian emotions, maliciously highlighting the difference between the Shiites, true Lebanese patriots who are fighting Israeli occupation and the Sunnis, bad people who are paid by the Saudis to turn Lebanon into a Wahhabi extension. Even by local standards Lebanese politics has descended to a truly low level.
In fact, the Saudi monarch courageously endorsed a United Nations gathering to promote dialogue among the world's great religions despite criticisms from no other than Aoun and his comrades in March 8. Despite the good intentions, the Saudis may however be wasting their time. By entering into such discussions the world risks mirroring the same Lebanese facade that religious belief somehow lies at the source of conflict. It evades the powerful economic explanations and the fact that there is a huge gap in wealth between states and between individuals in the world we live in. It also, and just as importantly, diverts attention from the lack of representation, the lack of personal freedoms and the lack of human rights most people in the world endure on a daily basis. Blatant injustice, economic and political, creates extremism and not religions.
The West should not feel too self-satisfied about its state when there are calls for more social justice and greater freedoms. In Britain, as an example of an advanced European country, the state has been shown to fail time and time again in protecting children with one in four children according to a recent study suffering from sexual abuse. Crime is rampant and ethics are barely visible in the business and political realms. As in the United States, a philosophy of "grabbing hands grab what they can" has reigned for decades. Support for oppressive regimes, particularly here in the Middle East, is justified in the name of good diplomacy but the arming of parties fuelling regional conflicts is also considered good business sense.
If most sensible people agree that finding a solution to the Palestinian problem, which has nothing to do with religion, will make the Middle East and the world a better place, why on earth has it been so difficult for the world's only superpower to convince Israel to accept a neighboring viable Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza? If the United States is truly a democracy, then I must concur with the people I despise the most, the religious fanatics, that blaming the elected leader of the United States is futile because the American people must shoulder their moral responsibility to force their government into a strategic change in their approach. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a political problem with a human dimension. It is simply about national self-determination and not religious fanaticism or civilizational clashes. Palestinians and Jews belong to the same religious family chart, whether they like to admit or not although undoubtedly their historic experiences have diverged.
Nowhere has the mythology of sectarian and religious warfare been more prevalent than in Lebanon. I am still surprised how many Western observers take for granted the cliches about Muslim-Christian divisions characterizing Lebanese society. In reality, Lebanon is more of a clan-based system, with chiefs of clans or communities often but not necessary being defined by their religious beliefs. It just so happens that the sect is an important form of self-identification that is manipulated for conflicts, whether it is over land or political power. That is why within Lebanese sects there are often more than one chief. Take the Maronites as an example of multiple chiefs or zaims, Suleiman Franjieh, Samir Geagea, Michel Aoun, Amin Gemayel and Dori Chamoun all godfathering their own loyal communities. Even the ideological Hizbullah recognizes the need to respect the independence of the unruly clans of Baalbek in return for acknowledgement.
In Lebanon inter-communal relations and divisions are far more complex than simple religious divides. The downside of this system is that the individual is forced into belonging into a clan, because the collective of clans are far more powerful than the formal state. Only the community can protect the individual. In Lebanon, individuals do not have private lives, as is the case in the West, because they are the property of the family, the village, the community. The pattern is the same among all of Lebanese sects. But then again, free from the regional political conflicts, the interference from outside and the flaws in the internal political system, why should we accept that the community is a lesser entity than the state in its value?
Some Western political theorists have even called for a return to communalism as a result of the social failures of the modern state. The Lebanese model offers the opportunity of creating a political system that safeguards communities and also protects the rights of individuals living within them because the hypocritical and simply false pretense of a unified centralized state has been unworkable and shows no signs of succeeding. The Lebanese want their personal liberty, social justice and their community at one and the same time. It is no easy task but where there is a will there is a way and Lebanon could present the world with an example to be emulated around the world. Lebanon's greatness and loyalty from its citizens could be reinforced by the historic achievement of harmonious and fraternal communal cohabitation. The first step is liberation from the old slogans and working for the common good without playing on communal fears to achieve personal ambitions. When a zaim such as Aoun tours with an open heart the various neighborhoods of Beirut rather than the churches of Syria we would have began reaching the final step toward that sacred goal.
**Talal Nizameddin wrote this article for THE DAILY STAR.
 

Aoun uses Syrian stage to accuse UN of coddling Israel
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, December 05, 2008
Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader Michel Aoun accused the United Nations on Thursday of "covering up all harms committed by Israel against the Palestinian people," adding that the world body "resolves world problems based on the will of great powers." "The United Nations has always failed to condemn Israel due to the veto right and we see it in oil fields with or without a resolution," Aoun said during a lecture at Damascus University.
"Some [powers] are exerting pressures to abrogate the Palestinians' right of return to their homeland," he added.
He also accused "major powers of playing a role in preventing the return to normal relations between Lebanon and Syria." Aoun did not identify these powers by name.
The FPM leader also defended his memorandum of understanding with Hizbullah, which was signed in early 2006, saying it "reflected on our community, enabled us to maintain our national unity and helped the resistance achieve victory in the most ferocious war staged by Israel against Lebanon."
The understanding "empowered us against external threats ... and despite all obstacles we achieved national harmony around the resistance, its principles and targets," he added.
Aoun also praised the "miracles achieved by resistance fighters" against Israel during the summer 2006 war.
He added that "terror groups in North Lebanon have a specific ideology," the source of which "no one is ignorant of." He added that no one is ignorant of the source of "the groups' financial resources," either.
Aoun also said he had "many reservations about the Taif Accord because there is no equality between constitutional institutions, especially between the Lebanese presidency and premiership."
Aoun arrived in Syria on Wednesday to meet with top officials, including President Bashar Assad. He was also expected to visit Christian holy sites during his visit, which will last several days.
Aoun met on Thursday with Information Minister Mohsen Bilal and visited the Ummayyad Mosque in Damascus.
Aoun also clarified remarks he had made the previous day, in which he reportedly urged Lebanese to apologize to their compatriots before asking for Syria's apologies.
"When I called on the Lebanese people to apologize, I meant that they should apologize to the Free Patriotic Movement, not to Syria; but some biased media outlets tried to distort my speech," Aoun said.
On Wednesday, Aoun met with Syrian President Bashar Assad and told reporters afterward that before Lebanon could demand a Syrian apology for atrocities committed during its 15-year military presence, "those in Beirut" should apologize to their own people.
Aoun's remarks, which were interpreted by some as a call for the Lebanese to apologize to Syria, were met with fierce criticism from the March 14 Forces.
In an interview with Future news television, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt said: "Aoun should have rather asked the Syrian regime to apologize to the Syrian people for the massacres that it has committed in the past; he should have also asked the Syrian regime to apologize for invading Lebanon."
Hizbullah's number two, Sheikh Naim Qassem, defended Aoun's visit to Damascus.
"Many of those who visited Syria went there as thieves asking for high positions; as for General Aoun, he went there to give and take for the sake of his country," Qassem said on Thursday.
But MP Nayla Mouawad said the visit was an "insult to Lebanon's memory and a cover for the Syrian regime's re-invasion of Lebanon."
In a statement released on Thursday, she accused Aoun of undermining efforts to reach balanced relations between two free, independent and sovereign countries.
"No one asked Aoun to represent Eastern Christians and usurp the role of Bkirki," Mouawad added, referring to Lebanon's Maronite Church.
Another March 14 MP, Samir Franjieh, accused Aoun on Thursday of trying to "link the Christians with the Syrian-Iranian coalition and isolate them from the Arab and international communities." - Agencies, with The Daily Star

 

 

I thank God I live in the era of Michel Aoun
By Labib Chemali
11/12/08
Few figures throughout the pages of historical account have been able to stand out from the rest whilst maintaining their Integrity and Honour; I have had the privilege to meet with such a figure, General Michel Aoun (Lebanon’s Former Army Chief, Prime Minister and current Member of Parliament).
A quick glance at his history shows that he has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to hold together the Lebanese Army in the 1970’s, 1980’s and contributed to thwarting the regional plan to topple the Government of Lebanon and have it transformed into a substitute homeland for the Palestinians at the expense of the Indigenous Lebanese population.
At the end of the 1980’s when he was appointed as Prime Minister of Lebanon he worked on rebuilding the Lebanese state; free of militias and free of the Syrian and Israeli military occupation of this small Eastern Mediterranean Nation.
He fought for a Free, Sovereign Independent Lebanon and was thusly exiled by joint Syrian Army and a multiple Lebanese Militia military offensive that had the blessing of the International Community all the while insisting that he wanted the best relations with Syria; so long as it was out of Lebanon. He was able to inspire Lebanese of all faiths and denominations to rally around a United and Sovereign Lebanon.
During his 15 year exile he campaigned tirelessly; his testimony to the United States Congress and his diligent work resulted in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, and later United Nations Resolution 1559 in 2004.
These acts drew the ire of the ruling class that had embedded itself as Lebanon’s post war “mafiaocrisy” for it was during his 15 years exile from 1990 to 2005 that corruption was institutionalised and the Christians of Lebanon were marginalised. His work secured the withdrawal of Syrian troops in 2005 (a withdrawal that was accelerated to early 2005 as a result of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s assassination in February 14 2005).
He returned to Lebanon to a hero’s welcome, stepping foot on Lebanese soil only after the last Syrian soldier had left Lebanon. He went about crafting a new vision for Lebanon of Change and Reform so that Lebanon would not fall to the same pitfalls as it had in the past. He was deserted by his new found “allies” that had found a spine once the Syrians withdrew from Lebanon, ironically the very people who were Syria’s prime advocates during its military presence.
It is significant to note that his most fierce critics against the stand that he took, and continues to take are the very proponents of foreign intervention in Lebanon and once camped out on the doorsteps of Syrian leaders in order to secure places for themselves in the Lebanese Parliament and Cabinet; they used to shower the Syrian occupation with praises and tenaciously defend its presence at the expense of their own people and their own country. We are still unsure to this day whether it is the fear of Change and Reform which would inevitably threaten the pockets of this ruling class or the preference for foreign intervention as a means to subjugate their own people and thus cement their positions of leadership; as a genuine democracy in Lebanon seems would strip them of that right. My belief is that it is a combination of both.
In 2006 Aoun signed the historic Memorandum of Understanding with Hezbollah that addressed all of Lebanon’s problems off the last 30 years including Hezbollah’s eventual disarmament. During the July war of 2006 he encouraged the Christian population take the million plus refugees into their homes; most of whom were of the Shiite faith for the duration of the war, a move that embedded national unity in the Lebanese psyche even further.
2007 signified his signing of the Christian Pact aimed at restoring the traditional Christian role in Lebanon and the East and the following year he led the opposition to achieving a fair electoral law, opposed to the previous laws that gerrymandered the electoral districts and deprived Christian voters of electing their own representatives.
In 2008 he visited Iran and met with many Christian figures in the Islamic Republic highlighting their right to live in dignity and with free will to practice their faith. He has recently made the trek to Syria, his former foe (on the premise Syria had agreed to establish Diplomatic Relations with Lebanon and accept it as a Sovereign State) with his head held high, as an equal - to candidly discuss the many outstanding issues from Lebanon’s war which spanned from 1975 to 1990. These issues include the rejection of permanently settling the Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon and the fate of the Lebanese Nationals that are believed to be missing in Syrian jails.
His reception in Syria was as profound as it was grand, where we saw the streets of Syria lined with Lebanese Flags and the populace greeted him with the fan fare of a true historical leader. He visited numerous holy sites in Syria, ancient Monasteries, Churches and the great Umayyad Mosque where he was hosted by the Mufti of the Syrian Republic.
Syria’s sizable Christian population came out en masse to greet him as he has cemented the right of Christians to live in the East, the birthplace for all three of the world’s major religions. What Aoun is working towards is not new, what is new however is his ability to stand true to his word after so many years and achieve tangible results on the ground.
There will come a time in the East where like in the West we can see Churches, Mosques, Synagogues and Temples lined side by side on the street; with coexistence and the right to live in dignity a secured right of the populace, and we will look back at this period in history and thank God we lived in the era of Michel Aoun.
Labib Chemali
The United Australian Lebanese Movement
 

Churches of the East: At the Service of Oppression

12/12/2008

By Tariq Alhomayed/ the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat,

Carlos Edde, head of the Lebanese National Bloc party made some important comments regarding Michel Aoun’s recent visit to Syria. He said, “It seems that General Aoun gained experience from this visit, as well as his previous visit to Iran, in how to exploit the church to serve the interests of totalitarian regimes.”

This means that Aoun’s alliance with Syria and Iran has compelled Lebanese Christians to ally with fundamentalist and oppressive regimes. This will have serious consequences, the most important of which will affect the Christians of the East as a whole.

Since the establishment of the Arab states in their modern form, the Christians of the East, as a whole, have played an important, active role. They have fulfilled a constructive role as political, cultural and economic symbols in most of the Arab world. The pan-Arab Christian role was an important one even as part of the armed resistance in Lebanon and elsewhere.

Today, through his alliance with Syria and Iran, Aoun has turned things around and placed the Christians of Lebanon, and the East, in the line of fire, especially as we are witnessing the Arab countries fighting an ideological and physical war against extremists and confronting them in a continuous manner. So how can Aoun throw himself into the arms of Syrian political extremism and religious fundamentalism in Iran?

Baathist Syria is a model of political extremism and the people of Lebanon are fully aware of that. Moreover, Syria is the only country (after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq) to have occupied a fellow Arab country, namely Lebanon, and it continues to make every effort to control Lebanon through the Lebanese themselves.

Aoun is moving away from his violent hostility towards Damascus at a time when even Syria is changing. However, Syria is heading in a different direction as it is now negotiating with Israel, albeit indirectly, and no longer raises slogans of resistance except to incite others. At the same time, Syria is flirting with Washington and US President-elect Barack Obama.

Moreover, Aoun is forming an alliance with Tehran and its Lebanese party, namely Hassan Nasrallah’s Hezbollah, while Tehran’s role in the region today has a serious impact on the security and unity of the Arab states. Aoun is standing in a row that does not even attract the curious lenses of the cameras.

Just picture the scene: Aoun standing with Hassan Nasrallah, Khaled Meshal, Muqtada al Sadr and the Quds Force. Furthermore, the timing of the alliance with Iran was eye-catching just like the alliance with Syria. We only need to look at what happened to the Christians of Iraq and those who failed to protect them.

For proof of the danger in Aoun’s actions, we only need to look at two recent events that took place on the same day in Iran and we will see two contradictory images. The first event was the demonstration that took place outside the Saudi embassy where people protested against inter-faith dialogue. The second event was the demonstration at an Iranian university calling for democracy and denouncing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.

Aoun is allied with the first image; the image of Mullahs protesting against inter-faith dialogue and peaceful coexistence with others. He is not forming an alliance with the second image; the image of those calling for democracy and a dignified life. If the Iranians themselves are demonstrating against Ahmadinejad’s regime, then how can Michel Aoun ally himself with one who harms his own country and nation?

This is where the importance of Carlos Edde’s comments lies; he highlighted the threat and warned against the danger of churches in the East becoming a tool to serve oppressive regimes