Lebanon's tripartite talks push for presidential elections against US pressures

As Lebanon faces Israel's vicious war machine, politicians are deliberating a tripartite initiative that seeks to usher a ceasefire through internal political change. These efforts, albeit constructive, are raising questions on the timing, with Hezbollah—the Lebanese political and military group with overpowering influence in the country—facing massive blows as it fights against the Israeli invasion.

Last week, reports emerged that acting premier Najeeb Mikati, speaker Nabeeh Berri and former head of the Socialist Party Walid Jumbalat have been holding talks to ultimately bring an end to the conflict in Lebanon that has killed over 2,000 people and displaced more than 1.2 million others. To negotiate a ceasefire with Israel, the initiative includes discussions on deploying the national army to southern Lebanon with full mandate as part of a UN decree passed at the end of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006 but not fully implemented, and electing a president to fill a post that has been vacant for two years. 

The drive to elect a president comes after the assassination of top leaders in Hezbollah, which has previously vetoed several presidential candidates it deemed intolerant to its influence in the country. It also comes as facilities and services in the cash-strapped country struggle to accommodate the exodus of internally-displaced people and attend to thousands wounded by Israeli shelling.

The initiative is also seen as a push against Washington's pressures to capitalise on Hezbollah's vulnerability following these assassinations, including that of its general secretary Hassan Nasrallah. On Thursday, while in a meeting with Lebanese acting foreign minister Abdullah Bou Habib, the State Department's top Middle East diplomat Barbara Leaf was quoted by the Lebanese official news agency as stressing the urgency of electing a president.

Saleh Hadifa, the media commissioner of the Socialist Party that is part of the talks, dismissed that foreign intervention is relevant. "This attempt stems from our national responsibility to exit the prolonged internal crises. This requires responses from all local parties, particularly the issue of the presidency, since it is necessary—at the time being— to fortify state institutions and have a president of the republic and a government capable of assuming executive authority with full powers," Hadifa said. 

Previous attempts over the last two years to reach consensus over a president have failed, largely because Lebanon's kaleidoscope of political and sectarian parties failed to reach consensus on a presidential candidate.

In Lebanon, where top political posts are filled based on power-sharing among the various religious sects, the post of the president must be filled by a Christian. 

Noting that Hezbollah has delegated Berri, it's strongest ally, to represent the group in the talks, Hadifa told The New Arab that the "positive atmosphere" following the first rounds of talks need "to be translated into positive steps, to elect a consensus president who unites the Lebanese around him to be able to continue negotiating for reaching a ceasefire and implementing Resolution 1701 from both sides."

As for the timing of this push in the midst of the most intense violence on Lebanon since 2006, Hadifa said, "If it is not at this time, when will it be? At this dangerous stage, the initiative aims to preserve the state of Lebanon."

'It's no time for presidency'

Meanwhile, journalist Mounir al-Rabei who is well-informed of the talks, said the group's lawmakers won't be able to attend any meetings for their safety, and therefore a parliamentary vote on presidential candidates before a ceasefire is out of the question.

"We can therefore declare these efforts futile," he stated.

"US politicians have doubled down their threats to Mikati which triggered this drive to elect a new president," explained al-Rabei, who said that both Jumbalat and Berri detected the foreign and domestic attempts to impose a "new reality" in Lebanon, "especially since parties resentful of Hezbollah are betting on this war to weaken the group, and usher in a new reality."

According to local press, the US has been pushing for the election of Joseph Aoun, commander in chief of the Lebanese army, as the president, which Hezbollah and Berri oppose. This, al-Rabei said, prompted Berri, Jumblat and Mikati to convene and unanimously voice their rejection to the "imposing of a president on the Lebanese people without a consensus."

"The Israelis aim to repeat what happened in 1982 and 1983, when their invasion of Lebanon imposed implications which then influenced the presidential elections at the time. But the political and military situation are very different in Lebanon today," concluded al-Rabei, alluding to the civil war that engulfed Lebanon at the time, and the subsequent invasion.

On his part, researcher and political writer George Al-Aqouri said electing a president today is a must, regardless of foreign intervention. "The situation in Lebanon is worsening daily with the intensification of the war, and the official responsibility lies with Berri and Mikati, who are seeking a president to lift much of that burden, especially since he is the supreme head of the armed forces and authorized to conclude international agreements," he explained.

However, Al-Aqouri believes that if there was seriousness in the new proposal to elect a president, Berri would have convened the parliament to elect a president. 

"I hope Hezbollah acts responsibly. The Lebanese nation neither wants internal clashes nor supports Israeli aggression. But there is a broad group of Lebanese who do not support Hezbollah's unilateral decision of war on the southern frontline on October 8, 2023," he said, adding that US mediator Amos Hochstein's pre-war efforts to resolve Lebanese-Israeli maritime disputes indicate that American influence has been ongoing for a long time, and that Hezbollah has been indirectly involved in it.

"The question therefore is: does Hezbollah see an urgent need for a president to bear the consequences of what the party has committed, or whether it considers the absence of a president to be less burdensome and facilitates its movement?" wondered Al-Aqouri.

This piece was published in collaboration with Egab.