After the Paris conference and the failure to issue a comprehensive statement, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri reaffirmed his public adherence to Suleiman Franjieh’s candidacy. Meanwhile, the “Franjieh vs. Nawaf Salam” equation has emerged again.
While there are those who go to explain this with another equation that the Lebanese experienced in the late eighties and is currently summarized as “Franjieh or chaos.” A number of facts prompted Berri to take this position: according to Al-Modon, the most prominent of which is the tension in the relationship between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, and the movement’s rejection of any elements of understanding or settlement. Secondly, the Christian forces obstruct the work of the House of Representatives and prevent the convening of a legislative session. Third, the ability of the Christian blocs to disrupt the work of the joint committees. Here Berri found himself surrounded, so he chose to jump forward in escalating his position against his opponents and in announcing Franjieh’s candidacy.
A second point prompted Berri to take this escalating stance and go further than the party’s stance, which is still silent about Franjieh’s candidacy. . Note that the President of the Council previously referred to the need for dialogue and not clinging, and also stressed the need for dialogue with Saudi Arabia to reach an agreement, especially since he refuses to elect any president without the consent of Saudi Arabia.
Berri made a mistake against himself and against his opponents in the position he launched towards candidate Michel Moawad, and this is a point that backfired negatively on him, and it could also backfire more negatively on Suleiman Franjieh. Although the latter considers himself comfortable with his situation, given that Berri succeeded in neutralizing Moawad and the army commander on his way to Baabda. Berri’s position called for a violent response from the head of the independence movement and the Lebanese Forces. On the other hand, the tension continues in the relationship between the Free Patriotic Movement and each of Hezbollah and the Amal movement, and this established a Shiite Christian division whose risks would be great if it continued, and no attempt was made to search for a settlement formula that some internal forces would push in addition to the external forces.
Diplomatically, Berri still insists on internal and external dialogue, especially with Saudi Arabia. The tour of the American and French ambassadors in the past few days involved two main points. Dorothy Shea worked on an exploratory tour on the positions of the powers, focusing on the need for stability and producing a settlement without going into details. As for the French ambassador, she urged the same principle, despite the leaks or interpretations of some that the French are dealing with realism that requires no objection to upholding the “Franjieh-Salam” formula. Which necessitated a symbolic Saudi response in rejecting this equation, and Saudi sources focused on leaking data indicating the refusal to proceed with this equation.
Major Lebanese forces mocked the movement of the two ambassadors, especially since after the Paris meetings, the ambassadors resorted to meeting officials, especially Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati, to inform them that they bear responsibility for obstruction. Here, a prominent Lebanese figure comments that this is the worst that the diplomatic policy of foreign powers can entail on the Lebanese scene. On the other hand, Berri’s statement and his adherence to Franjieh established a kind of internal tension that could establish more divisions amid the multiplication of calls for divorce, separation, or even division.
A few days ago, a new meeting was held between Representative Ali Hassan Khalil and the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon, Walid al-Bukhari. It is the second meeting between the two sides to discuss how to reach common points. After the first meeting, Berri considered that he had not heard of an official and public veto from Saudi officials on Franjieh’s nomination, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia’s position was clear in Beirut as well as in the Paris meeting. But Berri’s refusal to acknowledge this implies an attempt to engage in a deeper dialogue with Saudi Arabia.
In the second meeting between Ali Hassan Khalil and Al-Bukhari, the Saudi position was the same, but Berri also still maintained his position on the necessity of direct dialogue with Saudi Arabia to hear the situation, in an attempt to convince Riyadh of Franjieh’s choice.
Commenting on all these facts, a prominent Lebanese figure indicates that if the political mobilization continues, which takes on a sectarian nature, without achieving any breach in terms of dialogue, the crisis will be long and will be liable to go into successive explosions in the coming months.
While there are those who go to explain this with another equation that the Lebanese experienced in the late eighties and is currently summarized as “Franjieh or chaos.” A number of facts prompted Berri to take this position: according to Al-Modon, the most prominent of which is the tension in the relationship between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, and the movement’s rejection of any elements of understanding or settlement. Secondly, the Christian forces obstruct the work of the House of Representatives and prevent the convening of a legislative session. Third, the ability of the Christian blocs to disrupt the work of the joint committees. Here Berri found himself surrounded, so he chose to jump forward in escalating his position against his opponents and in announcing Franjieh’s candidacy.
A second point prompted Berri to take this escalating stance and go further than the party’s stance, which is still silent about Franjieh’s candidacy. . Note that the President of the Council previously referred to the need for dialogue and not clinging, and also stressed the need for dialogue with Saudi Arabia to reach an agreement, especially since he refuses to elect any president without the consent of Saudi Arabia.
Berri made a mistake against himself and against his opponents in the position he launched towards candidate Michel Moawad, and this is a point that backfired negatively on him, and it could also backfire more negatively on Suleiman Franjieh. Although the latter considers himself comfortable with his situation, given that Berri succeeded in neutralizing Moawad and the army commander on his way to Baabda. Berri’s position called for a violent response from the head of the independence movement and the Lebanese Forces. On the other hand, the tension continues in the relationship between the Free Patriotic Movement and each of Hezbollah and the Amal movement, and this established a Shiite Christian division whose risks would be great if it continued, and no attempt was made to search for a settlement formula that some internal forces would push in addition to the external forces.
Diplomatically, Berri still insists on internal and external dialogue, especially with Saudi Arabia. The tour of the American and French ambassadors in the past few days involved two main points. Dorothy Shea worked on an exploratory tour on the positions of the powers, focusing on the need for stability and producing a settlement without going into details. As for the French ambassador, she urged the same principle, despite the leaks or interpretations of some that the French are dealing with realism that requires no objection to upholding the “Franjieh-Salam” formula. Which necessitated a symbolic Saudi response in rejecting this equation, and Saudi sources focused on leaking data indicating the refusal to proceed with this equation.
Major Lebanese forces mocked the movement of the two ambassadors, especially since after the Paris meetings, the ambassadors resorted to meeting officials, especially Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati, to inform them that they bear responsibility for obstruction. Here, a prominent Lebanese figure comments that this is the worst that the diplomatic policy of foreign powers can entail on the Lebanese scene. On the other hand, Berri’s statement and his adherence to Franjieh established a kind of internal tension that could establish more divisions amid the multiplication of calls for divorce, separation, or even division.
A few days ago, a new meeting was held between Representative Ali Hassan Khalil and the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon, Walid al-Bukhari. It is the second meeting between the two sides to discuss how to reach common points. After the first meeting, Berri considered that he had not heard of an official and public veto from Saudi officials on Franjieh’s nomination, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia’s position was clear in Beirut as well as in the Paris meeting. But Berri’s refusal to acknowledge this implies an attempt to engage in a deeper dialogue with Saudi Arabia.
In the second meeting between Ali Hassan Khalil and Al-Bukhari, the Saudi position was the same, but Berri also still maintained his position on the necessity of direct dialogue with Saudi Arabia to hear the situation, in an attempt to convince Riyadh of Franjieh’s choice.
Commenting on all these facts, a prominent Lebanese figure indicates that if the political mobilization continues, which takes on a sectarian nature, without achieving any breach in terms of dialogue, the crisis will be long and will be liable to go into successive explosions in the coming months.
