Election Process of the New Lebanese President

 9:00 A.M.

MODERATOR: Good morning to everyone, and thank you for coming this morning. This morning, we have the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman, with us by DVC from Lebanon, who will be addressing the topic of the election process of the new Lebanese president. So without further ado, Ambassador Feltman, the floor is yours.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Thank you very much.

It's worth remembering that at midnight tonight it will have been one week since President Emile Lahoud left office. Today, there's another missed opportunity to elect his successor when Parliament once again failed to meet with the election session now postponed until next Friday, December 7th.

I think it's worth remembering why there was no presidential election before Emile Lahoud's term ended a week ago today. At its very essence, the constitutional essence, it's because the members of Parliament from the bloc of Hezbollah, Michel Aoun Nebiberi did not show up to vote without having the knowledge of who was going to be the winner in advance of the actual vote.

So I would argue that the boycotting members of Parliament in essence used their absence to create the constitutional vacuum that Lebanon now is experiencing, which has, of course, constitutional, political and confessional aspects. The situation today with the presidency reminds me very much of the ministerial walk-out by the Shia ministers of November 11 last year, November 11, 2006.

The Shia ministers cited a breach of protocol, insufficient notification for a cabinet meeting, and they walked out of the cabinet. They then used the vacancies created by their walk-out to declare the cabinet illegitimate in citing popular resentment emotion against the senior cabinet. Tomorrow, in fact, will be the one-year anniversary of when the tent city from the sit-in downtown began.

So I see this failure to elect a president so far as actually part of a pattern of certain parties in Lebanon trying to prevent the parliamentary majority from governing and from exercising its Democratic right, including to elect a president. But now in terms of the presidency, because that's the topic of today, you probably all know that over the past couple of weeks the French took the lead in trying to work with the local parties in trying to broker a consensus solution. This is in response to a statement by many people, many players that said in a country as divided as Lebanon is today the president needed to be more or less equal distance from all parties, that the majority election in this case shouldn't really apply.

It was also difficult to see how Parliament would open, how Nebiberi would call a session to elect a president if there wasn't a consensus choice determined ahead of time. So the French in that spirit worked --

(Interruption to the proceedings.)

MODERATOR: They're calling us back. Thank you for your patience. Sometimes the marvels of modern technology don't necessarily go along as we want it to go.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Jumping ahead, basically the French initiative to try to broker a consensus presidential election based on a list provided by Maronite patriarchs there ultimately failed. What would have been nice to have happened had the list from the patriarch then gone to parliament for parliament to decide, but that clearly has not happened yet. So what I would argue though is even though there has not been presidential elections yet, and there needs to be presidential elections for confessional, political and constitutional reasons, in fact what's happened has been kind of a half-victory for Lebanon's democracy. It hasn't been full success or a full failure, a half-victory.

President Emile Lahoud left office on time last Friday night. That doesn't happen everywhere in the world. The president simply leave at the end of their term. President Lahoud did not appoint a second cabinet. He did not stand by the (inaudible). He did not appoint some kind of military council to take control of the country. All of these extra constitutional steps that people feared didn't happen.

Also, violence didn't break out at the end of the term. You know, the sky didn't fall in Lebanon. So, again, I would describe that what's happened so far could be a half a victory for Lebanon's democracy. Now, the important point is to get to the other half of the victory, which is a president elected without outside interference as quickly as possible.

You know, I don't see such urgency that one should settle for a terrible solution today, if a reasonable solution is possible tomorrow. But, I hope that the Lebanese can move very, very quickly. The Christians here, who may accept a temporary vacuum will naturally, understandably, become more restless as time goes on and the office that is always held by a Maronite Christian is not filled.

Michel Aoun, the opposition member of Parliament, will use this vacancy to whip up populist resentment against the cabinet, against the March 14th majority. There's always the danger in Lebanon, unfortunately, of security incidents and assassinations. The economy is declining. Time is not on anybody's side here. In other words, this needs to be resolved quickly, and the question is how.

Does it try again for consensus candidate in a country as divided as Lebanon is now, or does one try to assemble some kind of incentive, the right package of incentives, that would permit a majority election inside the parliament?

The news over the past couple days that's been reported in many of the media organs that you all represent, the news over the past couple of days, of course, is the emergence of the commander of the Army, General Michele Suleiman, as the current frontrunner in the Presidency. And, will General Suleiman get consensus backing, or will he be backed only by some parties?

There are lots of positive statements about General Suleiman, but it's not clear yet how his candidacy is going to be treated by parties, both within the majority and within the opposition. You know, in terms of the United States, and I am about to close to answer questions, in terms of the United States we've been clear.

We will support any President who is freely elected by the majority of Lebanon's members of Parliament. We can say that; we can stick to our principle because we have full confidence that Lebanon's members of Parliament will elect a President who will be committed to Lebanon's independence, Lebanon's sovereignty, Lebanon's democracy, to respect international resolutions -- things like that.

I'll be frank. It took us a while to convince the Lebanese here that we had no American presidential candidate, but we don't. We didn't before; we don't now. It took a while to convince people that we will truly accept a made-in-Lebanon President elected by Lebanon's Parliament acting freely. But, I think here, a lot of people understand that.

As I said, the next scheduled election, parliamentary session, is December 7, a week from today. If there's an agreement on General Suleiman or any other candidate before that, I suspect that people will want to move this parliamentary session forward to have it happen sooner. We certainly would like to see it happen as quickly as possible. And you probably all know that the start of a new presidential term triggers the constitutional resignation of the existing cabinet.

So the presidential election is only one step in the transition that Lebanon's facing right now. After the President starts his office, then consultations start to select a Prime Minister. Then there's a government formation exercise to pick a cabinet. Then there is work on a cabinet program. What will the cabinet's agenda be? A vote of confidence for the Parliament follows that. Then there's all sorts of other appointments from security, military to political to follow that.

So the presidential election is the essential first step, the most important first step to a whole series of political changes that Lebanon will experience, and let's hope this happens soon.

With that, I will open the questions.

MODERATOR: May I remind everyone to wait for the microphone, to introduce yourself and the organization that you're representing. Joyce?

MS. KARAM: Hello Ambassador. My name is Joyce Karam. I am with Al Hayat newspaper.

I wanted to see if you can tell us on the record what's your position on the constitutional amendment, the U.S. position. And there is a lot of talk in Lebanon that there has been a back deal signed with Syria at the expense of Lebanon, if you can address that as well.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Thanks, Joyce. Constitutional questions first. Everybody knows that in 2004 we were one of the sponsors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 that calls for free and fair presidential elections. So at that time we were on record. We were part of an international coalition that did not believe that the best course for Lebanon was to amend the constitution to extend the Presidential term of Emile Lahoud. As became clear later, with the parliamentary petition, we were right. This was a Syrian imposed constitutional amendment. Syria ordered and threatened members of parliament to vote for a constitutional amendment to extend the term of President Emile Lahoud.

That was the real issue. It was less the constitutional amendment and more the imposition of Syrian orders onto Lebanon's legislative body. I guess I would say on the record that arguably constitutions need to be respected.

But, constitutions also usually have mechanisms for amendment; and, whether or not Lebanon's constitution should be amended is a question, first and foremost for Lebanon. The Lebanese members of Parliament who have the responsibility, obligation, the authority to amend the constitution in accordance with the creed submitted by the cabinet. So this is actually a Lebanese decision; not for the United States or Syria or anybody else.

On the question of the rumors floating around, there was and is no Syrian-U.S. deal on Lebanon's presidency. There is no U.S. bargaining with Syria at Lebanon's expense.

MR. AL-BARAZI: Tammam Al Barazi from Alwatan Alarabi Magazine. Still in today's New York Times, if you read it, they said -- let me quote it exactly, so I'll be precise: "A deal is likely to increase Syrian influence, and here they attribute to a Lebanese analyst. The Syrian traded their participation in Annapolis was a deal on Lebanese presidency." That's in New York Times today.

Still, I mean, the rumor apparently persists through now published story in the New York Times. So why the Syrian came then? Because, you know, Golan Heights was not really discussed or put on the agenda in Annapolis.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: I can't speak for serious motivations in going to Annapolis. Of course, Syria did mention the Golan. I did read the New York Times article today. And I am aware; I'm working in Lebanon. I see the press, the media, I talk to people here. I am aware of the conspiracy theories floating around, but the proposal to nominate or to back General Michele Suleiman came from the March 14 majority leaders. It did not come as a result of any kind of understanding between Syria and the United States. There has not been any discussion between Syria and the United States on Lebanon's presidency.

The decision to support the presidential candidacy of Michele Suleiman is a made-in-Lebanon decision that came from the March 14 majority.

MS. MUSALI: Irene Musali from L'Orient le Jour.

Last week you did a declaration about Hezbollah. Also that triggered a lot of reaction.

Can you explain?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Irene, I'm sorry. I don't remember what was my declaration last week?

MS. MUSALI: About Hezbollah, that you said they were very popular.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You're referring to the Newsweek interview, I think. I think what I said reflects reality. Hezbollah has genuine popular support in Lebanon. We don't dispute the fact that Hezbollah has genuine popular support among the Shia population in Lebanon, who for generations felt marginalized, impoverished, left aside. That's not something that is a value judgment one way or the other. It's fact. Hezbollah has genuine, popular support among the Shia population support among the Shia population in Lebanon. And what I said, this is something that certainly when I'm making recommendations to Washington about our own policy, when I'm analyzing situations in Lebanon, I keep in mind this is not an organization that simply can be ignored.

But one of the reasons why I raised this is given that it has such popular support among the Shia population in Lebanon, why can't Hezbollah simply participate in the political process like other political blocs, like other political parties?

Why does Hezbollah have to maintain a state within a state status?

Why does Hezbollah have to continue to smuggle arms into Lebanon putting Lebanon at risk, build an independent telephone network, things like that?

Hezbollah's popular support should enable it to play a very significant role to the legitimate organs of the state through the democratic electoral process of Lebanon and not through under-the-table means.

MS. AYOUBI: Roula Ayoubi, BBC. Follow-up on this question of Hezbollah. Are you not linking the Hezbollah arms to the presidency now?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: I think that the international community would expect that the new government, the new Prime Minister, the new President of Lebanon respect the international resolutions that are designed in part to protect Lebanon's sovereignty and independence.

All of us recognize that the question of Hezbollah's arms is not going to be answered tomorrow. I certainly have heard the Lebanese themselves talk about the need for a viable political process within Lebanon and within the region that Hezbollah's arms become part of that.

I would be naive if I would sit here and tell you that I would expect the next President of Lebanon to order the army to disarm Hezbollah by force tomorrow. It's not going to happen. But what I would hope is that the next President of Lebanon, the next government of Lebanon are committed to Lebanon as a state -- to strengthen the state institutions in a way that benefit all of the citizens of Lebanon -- the publicly accountable institutions of the state, including the Lebanese armed forces. The defense of Lebanon first and foremost should be with the institutions of the state, the Lebanese armed forces.

MS. AYOUBI: Clearly, this is a new position. How do you explain this? A new American position on Hezbollah, why is the shift? Is it linked to Annapolis or something else. I don't know.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: I don't believe I've announced a new position on Hezbollah. In fact, let me be clear. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that risks Lebanon security. It smuggles arms into the country. It is acting in violation of Security Council resolutions in violation of international norms of how states act.

Hezbollah claims to be defending the state of Lebanon when in fact Hezbollah is weakening the state of Lebanon in all of its activities. All I am saying is Hezbollah is a fact-on-the-ground that I cannot wish Hezbollah away tomorrow.

MR. MACARON: Joe Macaron from Kuwait News Agency.

Mr. Ambassador, I just want to ask about what do you think has made the March 14 change to suggest the presidency of Suleiman? What changed in the last week for them, you think, to acknowledge this?

And, my second question is do you have a concern that a military person in power again would repeat the experience of the former President Lahoud. Do you have personally this concern?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You know, I will respect the members of Parliament in who they decide to elect. Whatever my personal views are -- positive or negative -- the decision on who will be Lebanon's next President is not for the U.S. Ambassador or for the American government to make. It's a question for the Lebanese members of parliament. And we have enough confidence in the Lebanese members of Parliament that we'll trust their choice would be how I would answer the second part of your question.

I think that everyone, including General Suleiman, recognize that one of the treasurers of Lebanon is a civilian democrat that's democratic where government's change, where the Presidency changes. So it's my conviction that General Suleiman, when he becomes President, if he becomes President, if he's elected President, I should say, it's President as a civilian, not President as a general.

Now, why did March 14 decide to come out in favor of General Suleiman over the past week? I think you all have contacts with March 14 people both in the states as well as back here; and, I think there's probably many reasons for it; and it's not altogether an official, unified position yet. It's coming together, I would say, behind General Suleiman.

But one thing is the vacancy itself. Nobody likes this vacancy. The fact of the constitutional vacancy, with confessional implications, with political implications, has changed some of the thinking inside Lebanon. It's no longer hypothetical if Babda is empty. Now Babda is empty. People want to see a President in Babda palace exercising constitutional authorities.

The other thing, frankly, is March 14th saw no way to exercise its majority to elect a President of its first choice. I think you know that March 14th had two official candidates that were announced Meshib Lehud and Butrosar. I believe that had Parliament met as a normal body, everyone show up to vote to exercise their obligation and responsibility to vote, probably one of those two candidates would have been elected President. But, that's a hypothetical now. It didn't happen.

Parliament didn't open. The members of Parliament allied with Hezbollah, Emile and Michel Aoun, did not show up to vote. And Nebiberi did not call the session in the meeting. And I don't think that March 14 saw any way to force an election that was based on majority/minority practices. They had to recalculate their moves. And, of course, I have heard as long as I have been here a lot of respect for Michel Suleiman for the protection that the Army gave to the original March 14 demonstration and the whole seat of revolution move it in the spring of 2005.

So I don't think that it was certainly a lead from March 14 to move away from its own candidates and away from the list that was provided by the patriarch. But I don't think it was an inconceivable leap for them to now be looking at Michel Suleiman as a candidate. You know, you all have heard the March 14 talk about a half plus one or absolute majority election -- about whether or not they could use that in order to elect by Democratic majority a President from their own ranks. And I think sufficient numbers of March 14 deputies were uncomfortable with that approach and saw it as perhaps provoking a reaction from the other side that they didn't wish to see. So I think there are many reasons that went into March 14 thinking, and I probably have just given you a small number of the reasons that March 14 leaders decided to consider Michel Suleiman as a candidate to back.

MR. NADER: Samir Nader with Radio Sawa. It's nice to see you, Mr. Ambassador.

Syria is accepting to attend Annapolis went against the desire of Iran. Do you expect to see a rift between Syria and Iran after this?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You know, I've been in Lebanon so long that I like the Lebanese and I don't see the regional forest for the Lebanese trees sometimes, I will admit.

It was also interesting to note, Hezbollah made very, very strong statements against the Lebanese participation in Annapolis. Certainly, the time that I've been in Lebanon I've heard many Lebanese tell me of their concerns about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict -- particularly their concerns regarding the Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon. So I think it should be something positive that Lebanon made its own case to the participants of the Annapolis conference. But, Hezbollah like Iran criticized participation in Annapolis.

What this means in the broader term, I think, remains to be seen. I'm not going to speculate now on what this means, but it is something worth watching.

MR. GHANEM: Ambassador, this is Pierre Ghanem from Al Arabiya.

Do you expect the French and European to come back this week to Beirut and try to help electing a new President? Or, is it now for the Lebanese only to put their acts together?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Let me know, first of all, even when the French and other European diplomat, Amir Moussa too from the Arab League, when they were all here, they weren't in the business of selecting candidates. They were in the business of trying to broker, challenge communication, broker mechanisms, promote a process.

The international community, and perhaps this is not like previous Lebanese elections, the international community is fairly well united. That this time, this election, it has to be the Lebanese to pick their candidate. I don't know what the travel plans of the European foreign ministers, but if they come back in the coming days, I'm sure it's going to be for the same reason, which is to promote a process to get to Presidential elections as quickly as possible. It's not to throw their weight behind this or that candidate or to veto this or that candidate. All of us agree. This year, Lebanon has to make the decision on who's going to be the next President.

MR. GHANEM: It is Pierre Ghanem again, Mr. Ambassador.

You've been in the country for quite a while. What is your assessment or description to the Army and to the security in Lebanon?

Do you consider the Army and the DARAK and the internal police to be like a friend to the West, or they are still allied to Syria?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: I think, in general, they're friends to Lebanon, more than to either Syria or the West. And, they need help. They help from the West, both the Army and the police need training, equipment, ammunition. They need to build up their capacities, and I hope that a coalition of the West, not one country alone, and Arabs will be able to help them rebuild.

But let me say how much I respect the Army and watching the Army over the time that I've been here. This country is now deeply divided. There's a debate going on about the Lebanese identity. Is this a consensus democracy, whatever that means. Is this a minority democracy? Is this country naturally allied with Syria and Iran more than with the West? There's a huge debate going on in Lebanon. There's a deep division in Lebanon.

Many constitutional institutions and other organs of the state are discredited or paralyzed but the Army has maintained, I would say almost miraculously, the near universal respect of the Lebanese. This is a real credit to the Lebanese armed forces -- that no mater what side of the political fence people sit on, whether it's March 8th or March 14th, whether they're Hezbollah supporters in General Aoun's bloc, within Sagarir's bloc, within Wally Junblat's bloc, everyone agrees that the Army is an institution that deserves respect, that's worthy of respect, that needs to say United, that needs to become stronger and more modern. This is something unique in Lebanon.

MS. KARAM: Yes. If I can ask you during your meetings with Michel Suleiman on March 14, and given that Suleiman has good ties with the Syrian government, did you get any kind of assurances that he would respect? U.N. resolutions and, you know, all what we've seen after the Cedar revolution in Lebanon, mainly the tribunal, justice for those who have been killed, and he for example would not release, you know, people that were arrested before and that Lehud was calling for the release the generals?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: My assumption is that I could be wrong, but my assumption is that the parliamentary leaders, the parliament who would elect General Suleiman who decided to -- I don't know if I pronounced it right, two words -- who've decided to state their support of General Suleiman as President. I assume that they've asked him these sorts of questions.

General Suleiman, I believe, is very well aware of the views the United States, the views of the national community about international legitimacy, about the tribunal, about the implementation of 1701 -- things like that. I believe he's very well aware of this, because we've had these sorts of discussions with him, particularly on 1701, well before there was any hint of a General Suleiman candidacy for the presidency.

But if there are any assurances that General Suleiman needs to give, it's to these members of parliament who are going to elect him. It's not to the United States, to the international community.

Our ability to work with the new President to support a new government to assist Lebanon the way forward does of course depend on that government, that President's commitment to international resolutions. But in terms of conversations on assurances, it's between the candidates for the Presidency and those that would elect them in the parliamentary leaders in my view.

MR. AL-BARAZI: Al-Barazi, again.

But Michel Suleiman was appointed in 1998, if I am not mistaken, to be the chief of staff of the Army. And at that time the Army was a tool of the Syrian regime, and you know, the Syrian regime controlled everything in the Army.

Secondly, every politician comes to Washington; and repeat, Sad Hariri and Jamal completed this equation: that as long as the Syrian dictatorship in Damascus is there, there will be no real democracy in Lebanon.

How fair was what our expectation of really electing a new president?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You know, the basic philosophy of what we in the United States have tried to do and in partnership with other security council members, other friends in the international community, what we've tried to say is the Lebanese need to make decisions for Lebanon.

If the Lebanese today say freely that they have decided, given the circumstances inside Lebanon that they want to back General Suleiman for President, they want to elect General Suleiman for President, it's their decision. We respect it.

You know, I think in 1998 our own position about the Syrian role in Lebanon was somewhat different than it is today. So I'm not going to go back and Judge people on what they did or didn't do or did and didn't say in the past in terms of our own relationship. I think that one needs to look at the current circumstances and how people are operating in the current environment, rather than try to guess what they might do based on a different reality than currently exists in Lebanon.

So, again, I've said this before but I'll say it again. I'm convinced that we in the United States will back the President. Will support that president that is elected by the majority of members of the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies acting without foreign intimidation, outside pressure on them, because we believe the members of parliament aren't going to elect somebody that isn't committed to Lebanon's sovereignty, democracy, independence.

You know, the Lebanese people starting back in the Cedar Revolution days in the spring of 2005, they made their views clear. They wanted independent Lebanon. They wanted a strong state. They wanted Democratic principles respected. They wanted an end to these assassinations that have unfortunately continued. They wanted to know the truth behind the assassinations that took place, particularly at that time the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. And so I feel confident that Lebanon's members of Parliament will elect somebody that's committed to those goals, if the Parliament is allowed to meet and elect freely.

MR. AL-BARAZI: In Syria, what about the second part, which Lebanese peoples like Hariri and Jemlat repeat here in Washington? As long as the Syrian dictatorship there, Lebanon cannot find Jemal democracy. Syria will not allow it, the Jemal democracy.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: I will agree that I think that the behavior of some of the parties and politicians allied with Syria, linked to Syria, have not demonstrated the best democratic practices over the past two and a half, three years. Rather than trying to make their case and waiting for the next scheduled legislative elections, allow these parties allied with Syria seem to have decided that the best way to get their way is through force, shutting down downtown Beirut for now a year, boycotting the cabinet, declaring it illegitimate, things like that. I will agree that some of the parties and figures allied with Syria have not been good examples of democracy in practice.

Nevertheless, Lebanon's democracy lives. Emile Lahoud left office on time. He didn't take an extra constitutional step. People want the President elected. People want the constitution respected. I don't think the situation is that bleak. In terms of Syria, I think you know. You've heard it from other people in Washington more authoritative than me who have addressed you that we would like to see Syria in support for destructive behavior in Lebanon.

We would like to see Syria's behavior toward Lebanon change. Everyone in Lebanon that I meet tells me that he or she years for a positive relationship with Syria -- a positive relationship based on mutual respect, diplomatic recognition, non-interference in the internal affairs of the other state, etcetera.

It would be nice to see Syria show that they would like to return that sort of relationship. It's not a question of the Lebanese wanting to be against Syria. It's a question of Syria showing Lebanon that it respects its democracy.

MS. AYOUBI: Mr. Ambassador, we've been watching 40 MPs living in a hotel in Phoenicia in downtown Beirut, and it's been like a funny story in the world, I think. Are you concerned about your own security in Lebanon?

And does the United States have any plans to cooperate with Lebanon on this security and how, whether it be through the international tribunal or other means?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: I think it's shameful that a parliamentary majority have to be holed up in a fortified hotel secluded from their constituents, secluded from public life. It's shameful that the situation has become like that.

In terms of our own security, you know, embassies around the world have to take certain security measures based on how they see the threat information. You know, I feel that we adjust our security posture as the situation warrants it. In terms of Lebanon though, I would answer your question by referring to several things.

First of all, yes, the tribunal. The tribunal is important. We want to see the tribunal up and operating as quickly as possible. We were the second country in the world to announce a financial contribution to the tribunal, the first country after Lebanon, because the tribunal showed in the era of impunity when it comes to assassinations. So, let's get the tribunal up and running as quickly as possible.

The Lebanese armed forces, the internal security forces, other security agencies need help. The Lebanese state needs to be in control of security in Lebanon, and they need help. They need equipment training, ammunition. We are one of several countries that are trying to help the Lebanese armed forces and the Lebanese police deal with the security threats. There has to be a political resolution to the current stalemate, starting with the presidential elections.

Let's hope that that reduces tension. I don't think there's going to be one magic formula, one single element that's going to bring the security and environment back to normal in Lebanon. It's going to have to be a number of factors working together, but I repeat what I said in the beginning. It is absolutely shameful that a parliamentary majority has to hide out because out of fear of being hunted down and killed.

MR. MELHEM: Good morning, Ambassador. This is Hisham Melhem. How are you?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Hi, Hisham.

MR. MELHEM: Ambassador to the United States is on record as opposed to amending the constitution and your colleague, Ambassador Welsh, as well as the Secretary herself also are on record as essentially saying, why don't you go for 50 plus one?

Could you please clarify to us if there is a subtle shift or not so subtle shift in the American position on these two issues?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Hisham, if there's a subtle shift, it's based on a consistent philosophy. The philosophy is the Lebanese need to be in charge. The Lebanese majority needs to set the agenda. We are taking our cue from the Lebanese, so if there's a subtle shift that you're detecting with us, it's actually a shift on the part of the Lebanese, because we are being consistent.

The Lebanese need to be in charge of Lebanon. The constitutional amendment, as I said earlier, is different than it was in 2004. In 2004 as everyone now knows, Syria imposed by threat, by intimidation, by other means a constitutional amendment on Lebanon's Parliament. The Lebanese members of Parliament were not acting freely. They acted under threat. It was not so much the constitutional amendment that revolted the international community. It was the specter of Lebanon's larger neighbor imposing through force measures on Lebanon's legislature.

If Lebanese members of Parliament today are looking at a constitutional amendment, I hope they're looking at a constitutional amendment of their own free will, of their own determination of what's best for Lebanon. If that's the case, I can't see that we would have a serious reservation on that. We hope that they're taking their constitution seriously. This constitution has been touched many times, but the situation is far different if the Lebanese themselves are making a decision.

After all, constitution does have a clause for how to amend it. It's not that it's a holy book. But the point is who's deciding for constitutional amendment. Is it Syria? Then it's bad. If it was the United States, it also is bad. But if it's the Lebanese members of Parliament themselves, I don't know that we have much right to comment. It's a Lebanese decision.

MR. MELHEM: Fifty plus one?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Hisham, this is another one that you're talking to people as much as I'm talking to people. You probably sense the shift among March 14 leaders and members of Parliament and activists yourself.

I think that they have listed to statements from the opposition, statements from the pro-Syrian parties that are rather threatening. Taking that into calculation, they've taken some of their own legal advisors who are uncomfortable with this into account, and they've taken the Maronite Patriarch's fair comments into account.

I think that March 14th has taken a lot of factors into account in thinking about the half plus one, and they've decided that at least for the time being they would like to look at another option for solving the presidency beside half plus one.

MR. NADER: Mr. Ambassador, this is another question about the training the Lebanese internal security forces. It was reported that the U.S. will be starting a program worth $60 Million to train the Lebanese internal security.

Did this program start, and how long will it last?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: The program, yes. The basic answer to your question is yes, we are starting a program that's about $60 Million. The State Department INL Bureau is running that program as they have run other police training programs worldwide.

We have the congressional appropriations for that program. It's part of a comprehensive look at Lebanon's security. The assistance of Lebanese armed forces since last September, the commitment has been about $321 Million, so we have $321 Million, a little bit more for the Lebanese armed forces, and a little bit more than $60 Million for the ISF. In both cases, the program is being planned and implemented completely in partnership with the Lebanese.

And in recognition of what other countries are doing, we aren't the only donors to either one of these organizations. There are Arab and European donors also working with the Lebanese armed forces, also working with the ISF. So what we're doing is one component of what is an international commitment responding to the Lebanese request to help build up their security capacity.

MR. AL BARAZI: Al Barazi, again.

But you did not answer still. I'm still at Syria. You know, will Syria allow a functioning democracy in Lebanon. That was my question. My question is not about the Lebanese.

Will the Syrian allow this?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You know, I think the international commitment to Lebanon's democracy is clear. The international commitment to Lebanon's sovereignty and independence is clear, and I think we've had a lot of achievements working in partnership with the Lebanese over the past couple of years. And it is time for Syria to respect Lebanon's democracy and Lebanon's independence. And we hope that Syria at last is getting that message.

MS. KARAM: I know you don't want to do it all over again, but if you were to go back three weeks from now, we're hearing some criticism in Washington from former officials it was a mistake to subcontract the Lebanese election that you asked to subcontract the Lebanese elections to the French, which essentially led to the vacuum.

Can you assess at this point the French initiative in Lebanon and whether it succeeded or not, and if you would do it all over again the same way?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Well, first of all, the vacuum wasn't created by the French. The vacuum was created by members of Parliament allied with Hezbollah, Amal and Michel Aoun didn't show up to vote. You know, that they used their presence or lack of their presence in order to create a constitutional vacuum in order to create a crisis.

That's the primary purpose, the primary cause of the vacuum. It's not because of the French. It hasn't been a surprise, as you know, that Lebanon was going to have presidential elections this year. The November 23rd midnight deadline of Emile Lahoud's term was specified in the constitutional amendment that was passed on September 3rd, 2004.

So, we've known since September 3, 2004, when Emile Lahoud's extended term was going to end and there hadn't been -- despite a whole lot of contacts and workloads there had not been -- a solution to the presidency early. They missed. I think the first call to Parliament was September 25th or something, and the members of Parliament missed that call. So I think that the French were working with the best of intentions; and from the principle of international legitimacy, the French were committed to helping broker a process by which the international resolutions would be respected.

Lebanon's democracy would be respected, and within the context of the sort of call for a kind of consensus on a President, I don't think that they were at all wrong to try. And, as I said, we had sort of half of a victory, because President Lahoud did leave office on time without taking extra constitutional steps. That's not insignificant. But, now, we just have to get to the other half of that victory.

MS. AYOUBI: We see clashes like two weeks ago I think in Northern Lebanon between Talhid and small groups said to be funded or financed by Mr. Hariri. And there are growing concerns about militarization of different political groups in Lebanon. What do you make of that?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You know, all of us are concerned by the reports of training, of arms smuggling. It's not something to dismiss. It's something to watch with great concern.

I am somewhat heartened by the fact that over the past year there have been several instances by which had Lebanese political leaders acted irresponsibly, the situation could have tumbled out of control quite easily. I'm talking about the demonstrations on January 23rd, the demonstrations on January 25th, the murder of the two young Ziads, the Ziad couple, and I forget the other name; later, the murder of two members of Parliament.

There have been several points of tension, times of tension, over the past year, that could have easily led to something bigger. And everybody stood back, took a deep breath, and intentionally calmed the situation. And the same thing happened after the incident you're referring to in Tripoli a few days ago. People here recognize the danger. People here remember the history.

I believe that this is almost an insurance policy against the worst happening, but I don't underestimate the danger. And that's one of the reasons why we would like to see a President elected as quickly as possible that starts this transition. It's time for the entire system to start functioning again as a state, and that starts with getting the Presidential election going.

MODERATOR: From Washington, D.C., we thank all of you for attending today. Have a great day.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Thank you very much.