Thursday, 10 April 2014

Crafty Chamoun relied on network of internal and external ties


Editor’s note: Ahead of the 2014 presidential election, this is the second in a series of articles examining the circumstances and conditions that shaped the elections of Lebanon’s 12 presidents since 1943.


BEIRUT: Charismatic politician Camille Chamoun came to power in 1952 thanks to backing he enjoyed from Lebanon’s powerful opposition and a strong network of regional and international ties.


Soon after his election, Chamoun – a lawyer from the Chouf village of Deir al-Qamar – turned against his local allies and agreed to sign controversial military pacts with western powers. Observers argue that such pacts significantly compromised Lebanon’s neutrality and implicated it in the regional tensions going on at the time.


Although the start of his mandate brought unparalleled prosperity to Lebanon and was often described as the “golden age,” the final years of Chamoun’s tenure were mired by crisis and turbulence which culminated into what came to be known as the 1958 crisis, Lebanon’s first ever civil conflict in the post-independence era.


The miniature civil war pitted Chamoun against the Lebanese supporters of the late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser, when Chamoun refused to break ties with Western powers in the aftermath of the 1956 Suez Crisis. The grudge against Chamoun grew after his opponents accused him of siding with the Western-backed Baghdad Pact established to confront Soviet Union influence in the Middle East.


Chamoun, who was a lawmaker since 1934 and who occupied several ministerial posts since, rose to fame as part of the Patriotic Socialist Front, a bloc of lawmakers and politicians which comprised figures such as Progressive Socialist Party leader Kamal Jumblatt and National Bloc leader Raymond Eddeh.


The PSF had constituted the main nucleus of opposition against the rule of President Bechara al-Khoury, whose second term was characterized by corruption, financial scandals and nepotism.


Eventually, Khoury yielded to the pressures of the opposition, which had declared an open general political strike, and submitted his resignation on Sept. 18, 1952, three years ahead of the end of his second term.


Some analysts – such as Farid al-Khazen, writing in an article submitted to a 2011 conference on Lebanese presidential elections organized by the Issam Fares Center for Lebanon – argue that at the time of Chamoun’s election, foreign intervention was minimal compared to the level of blatant intervention in the post-Taif Agreement era. But others disagree.


According to historian Fawwaz Traboulsi, a key external factor – Lebanon’s membership in Western military pacts – played a main role in Khoury’s downfall and Chamoun’s rise to power. Khoury and his Prime Minister Riad al-Solh had refused to join the so-called Pact for Collective Defense of the Mediterranean against communism shepherded by the United States and Britain in addition to France and Turkey.


In fact, Chamoun’s main contender in the presidential election of 1952 Hamid Frangieh, himself a prominent member of the PSF, was in favor or Lebanon’s neutrality. Contrary to PSF principles, Chamoun agreed to engage Lebanon in Western pacts and kept his promise after his election on Sept. 23, 1952.


In “A History of Modern Lebanon,” Traboulsi wrote that the PSF charter that Chamoun had committed himself to stipulated achieving Lebanese neutrality in international affairs, administrative reform and curb abuses of power.


“The extent to which the new president did exactly the opposite of what he has committed himself to do is quite amazing,” Traboulsi argued.


Chamoun’s election also set a precedent in Lebanese politics, whereby the shrewd politician sought the support of Lebanon’s biggest neighbor Syria in the race to the presidency.


Khazen wrote that Damascus has called on Lebanon’s Muslim leaders to back Chamoun against Frangieh.


In his book, “Lebanon’s Presidents: How they made it?” journalist Ahmad Zeineddine maintained that prior to his election Chamoun went on a hunting trip to Syria, where he met with President Adib Shishakli.


“Chamoun quickly realized that Shishakli could help him win the support of Lebanese groups over which Syria has influence,” Zeineddine wrote.


“Soon after, Beirut lawmakers and a considerable number of north Lebanon lawmakers vowed allegiance to Chamoun thanks to pressure exerted by the Syrian administration and the British ambassador to Beirut.”



BC-Noon Oil


The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.


The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.


Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.



Massachusetts increases line-of-duty death benefit


Gov. Deval Patrick has signed a bill increasing the state's line-of-duty death benefit for the families of public safety officers.


The Massachusetts House and Senate quickly approved the bill after two Boston firefighters — Firefighter Michael Kennedy and Lt. Edward Walsh — died in a blaze in the city's Back Bay neighborhood March 26.


The bill would increase from $100,000 to $150,000 the death benefit the state pays to the families of firefighters and police officers killed in the line of duty.


The benefit had remained unchanged since the law had passed in 1994.


The additional benefits would be available to the families of Kennedy and Walsh, as well as the family of Plymouth police officer Gregory Maloney, who died when his police motorcycle crashed April 1.


Patrick said he was honored to sign the bill.



Assembly passes change to campaign disclosure bill


A bill that would force political nonprofits to reveal the names of campaign donors no longer applies retroactively under an amendment pushed by Republican lawmakers and approved Thursday by the Assembly.


The Assembly agreed to the amendment by unanimous voice vote after SB27 fell one vote short of passing the Senate last month.


Sen. Lou Correa, D-Anaheim, introduced the bill in response to $15 million of anonymous contributions funneled through conservative nonprofits ahead of the 2012 general election. The money went to groups fighting against Gov. Jerry Brown's tax-hike initiative, which passed, and pushing for a failed initiative that would have restricted the use of union dues for political purposes.


The subsequent investigation into the origin of the money led to the largest campaign reporting fine in California history.


SB27 would require nonprofits to disclose the sources of donations that are intended for political campaigns. The bill also would require campaign committees that raise more than $1 million to keep a list of their top 10 contributors of $10,000 or more and make that available online.


Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff said he supported increased disclosure but objected to SB27 because it would have unfairly applied to donations made before the law took effect.


"Thousands of unsuspecting people who have already made a contribution to a nonprofit this year will unknowingly be exposed," Huff said in a statement after last month's failed vote in the Senate.


The amendment that passed the Assembly on Thursday is designed to answer Republican concerns.


Political nonprofits would not have to reveal the source of donations made before July 1, the date the amended bill would become law if signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Disclosure would be required for the November general election but not for the June primary.


Because SB27 would take effect this year, it is considered an urgency bill that requires a two-thirds vote in both houses. Senate Democrats lost their two-thirds supermajority after suspending three of their members who are involved in legal cases.


Senate GOP spokesman Peter DeMarco said the caucus is reviewing the amendment language before taking a position.


Republicans have criticized Democrats for slow action on the bill. It was introduced in December 2012 and approved by the Senate, with some Republican support, in May 2013. However, the Assembly did not approve an amended version of the bill until this February. When that version was sent back to the Senate, it did not get Republican support and failed to receive the two-thirds vote needed.


DeMarco said the bill could have been in effect for the entire 2014 election season without forcing political nonprofits to scramble to comply with new rules.



Lafayette home sales dip in first quarter


Home sales in Lafayette Parish were down 5 percent for the first three months of this year based on listings reported to the Realtor Association of Acadiana.


A market analysis prepared by Van Eaton & Romero Chief Executive Officer Bill BacquƩ shows sales dropped from 675 to 644 when compared to the first quarter of 2013.


BacquƩ tells The Advocate (http://bit.ly/1gaU4K8 ) the dip is nothing he is overly concerned about, considering 2013 was the best year on record for the local market.


The report finds the median sales price for homes in Lafayette Parish was up 8 percent when compared to the first quarter of 2013, rising from $173,900 to $187,950.



German Fears About U.S. Spying Could Hurt Trade Deal



A carnival truck caricatures President Obama and the NSA spying scandal during a parade through Frankfurt, Germany, last month.i i


hide captionA carnival truck caricatures President Obama and the NSA spying scandal during a parade through Frankfurt, Germany, last month.



Frank Rumpenhorst/EPA/Landov

A carnival truck caricatures President Obama and the NSA spying scandal during a parade through Frankfurt, Germany, last month.



A carnival truck caricatures President Obama and the NSA spying scandal during a parade through Frankfurt, Germany, last month.


Frank Rumpenhorst/EPA/Landov


Most Americans and Germans agree: more trade between the United States and the European Union would be a good idea.


But when you get down to details of a possible trade pact, suspicions pop up, according to a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with Germany's Bertelsmann Foundation.


"There is a lot of fear" now in Europe about how much Americans might pry into Europeans' lives if they could impose their more relaxed privacy standards on the EU, Aart De Geus, CEO of the Bertelsmann Foundation, said at a conference in Washington on Thursday.


De Geus presented the survey results along with Bruce Stokes, director of Global Economic Attitudes at Pew Research.


First, the two pointed to the overall positive response: When asked whether a U.S.-EU trade deal would benefit their respective countries, 53 percent of Americans and 55 percent of Germans said that "it sounds like a pretty good thing," Stokes said.


But when asked whether they would welcome one of the key provisions, namely, adoption of uniform regulatory standards for U.S. and EU goods and services, a trade deal becomes much less attractive to Germans. In the wake of last year's revelations about U.S. spying, 85 percent of Germans say they prefer European regulations for data privacy.


Documents released last summer by Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the National Security Agency, suggested the United States gathered information from around the world, including Germany. That has generated "a huge backlash" in Germany, De Geus said.


In contrast to the Germans, about three Americans in four think it would be good to harmonize regulations among trading partners, but that positive attitude may reflect their assumption that U.S. standards would prevail, Stokes said.


Stokes said the White House will continue to work on building support for a proposed Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership, and likely would ask Congress to vote on it next year. That's because "failure will have a cost," he said.


For example, Europeans may draw closer to China, and end up selling more goods into the growing market, leaving the United States behind, Stokes said.



Ryan Budget Vote Produces 'Win' For Both Parties



A copy of the House GOP budget advanced by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on a table in the House Rules Committee April 7.i i


hide captionA copy of the House GOP budget advanced by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on a table in the House Rules Committee April 7.



J. Scott Applewhite/AP

A copy of the House GOP budget advanced by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on a table in the House Rules Committee April 7.



A copy of the House GOP budget advanced by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on a table in the House Rules Committee April 7.


J. Scott Applewhite/AP


The House of Representatives saw a rare win-win day on the floor with passage of this year's Ryan budget.


Republican Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Democratic ranking member Chris Van Hollen both thanked the committee staff for all their hard work. Democrats made lots of speeches about how horrible the budget is; Republicans made lots of speeches about how wonderful it is. They took a vote, and then adjourned for a two-week break.


The actual effect on public policy?


None.


Congressional budget resolutions have never appropriated any actual money. And because the overall spending limits both for this year and the one that starts October 1 were agreed to last December, the vote on this House budget resolution was even less meaningful.


The Democratic-controlled Senate, after all, has no intention of pursuing its own budget resolution, let alone trying to work out a compromise — meaning the real relevance on what the House did Thursday will be seen in this autumn's campaigns.


Ryan himself seemed to acknowledge all this in his closing remarks: "We have made our choice with this budget. I trust the American people to make theirs. Mr. Chairman, let's call the vote," he said to a round of applause.


The House proceeded to vote, with Ryan's budget winning all but 12 Republican votes. All the Democrats voted against it.


Now, both sides can point to that vote in the run-up to the mid-term elections. Republicans can show their supporters that they produced a tough plan to end deficit spending. And Democrats can argue that they stuck up for society's worst off and middle class against GOP predations.