The Global Week Ahead: 10-16 Dec - A Lot of Microconflicts Developping

1) Argentina: Kristina Kirchner becomes President of Argentina !
What ? Kristina Kirchner, wife of the incumbent President, swears oath and becomes president.
When? Monday, 10 December 2007, Buenos Aires.
Who? Hugo Chavez, Francois Fillon, and a lot of Latin American leaders.
What to watch out for ? Check out who else is present at the ceremony in particular from the US, Colombia and Mexico. Then, pay attention to her speech, it is likely to be a tone-setting speech for domestic policy as well as foreign policy. How will she speak of her husband's policies ?
Geopolitical significance: Kristina Kirchner arrives at a time when the Argentine economy is showing signs of overheating. She needs to reform the energy sector, cut back on government expenditures, and tame the worker unions demands. Her Husband had no problems flirting with Hugo Chavez, she is expected to be different on foreign policy, let us see what she will say and how she will behave towards Venezuela and the US. Latin America socialist scare might get another punch if she distances herself from Morales and Chavez.

2) Kosovo: UN Troika submits its report to the UN secretary general
What ? UN troika contact group (Russia, US, EU) report to the UN secretary general on the results of their second round of negotiations with the Serbs and Kosovars regarding a solution to Kosovo's demand for independence. In theory this is just supposed to be a technocratic step, kicking-off an UNSC review process that should culminate with a decision on the mandate of the UNMIK somewhere around the 19.12.07 or in January '08. The UN is widely expected to hand over its mandate to the EU. Kosovo could then unilaterally declare independence.
When? Monday 10 December 2007, New York.
Who? Mr Wolfgang Ischinger (EU), Mr Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko (Russia) and Mr Frank Wisner (US)
What to watch out for ? As the event is technocratic it will be largely symbolic. Watch out for Russia's statement and try to discern any loosening of the RU's rejection of Kosovo's independence. Security slippages are very possible in Kosovo, as ethnic Albanians are litterally boiling for independence. Watch out for the words of the newly elected leader of Kosovo, Thaci. Will he appease his citizens's expectations for independence, will he make independence committments with a date, or will he give a vague committment ?
Geopolitical significance: the Kosovo could go on fire and unleash a very hugly war in Kosovo, Macedonia, and Bosnie.

3) Lebanon: The cedars' president - 7th attempt.
What ? Constitutional amendment, followed by Presidential election of General Suleiman (expected candidate).
When? Tuesday 11th December 2007, Beirut.
Who? General Michel Suleiman.
What to watch out for ? Any delays, or a terrorist attack. What becomes of Aoun ?
Geopolitical significance: An election will put an end to the constitutional vacuum in one of the Middle East's most volatile country. It will aslo signal the US and Syria have agreed on Lebanon.

4) US-Fed: time for a cut ?
What ? The US Fed holds its monthly monetary policy meeting. It could cut rates by 50 or 25 bps, or stay neutral.
When? Tuesday 11th December 2007, New York.
Who? Ben Bernanke.
What to watch out for ? The magnitude of rate cut.
Geopolitical significance: 50 bps will send the markets on a rally and the barrel of oil 1-4 notches higher. a 25bps could be seen as neutral by the markets.

5) Palestine: Olmert and Abbas Meet for First Time since Annapolis
What ? Peace negotiations between Mahmood Abbas and Ehud Olmert. First round since the Annapolis Peace Conference on the 27.11.07.
When? Wednesday, 12th December 2007, tbc.
Who? Mahmood Abbas, Ehud Olmert.
What to watch out for ? Delays ? What will Ehud Olmert say about the settlements ban and the military vehicle delivery to the Palestinian Police Force.
Geopolitical significance: As the first meeting since Annapolis the meeting is important in determining the resolve of the leaders to build on the good spirit of Annapolis.

6) US-China: Strategic Economic Dialogue
What ? Strategic Economic Dialogue between China and the US.
When? Tuesday, 11-12th December, 2007, Beijing.
Who? Secretary Paulson leads a delegation of US trade officials (Schwab and Guttierrez) to meet Chinese officials.
What to watch out for ? China's committment to correct the trade deficit (I have no hopes about the Yuang). The level of satisfaction about the results of the talks expressed by the US delegation.
Geopolitical significance: China is under enormous pressure to do something about the Yuang undervaluation and the humongous trade surplus it has with the US (ca. $ 240bn). failure to appease US resentment could lead to protectionist measures by the US congress.

7) EU: Signing Ceremony of the Lisbon Treaty
What ? Signing ceremony of the Lisbon Treaty (ex-constitutional treaty) .
When? Wednesday, 12th December, 2007, Lisbon.
Who? 27 EU Member States.
What to watch out for ? Foto-opportunity.
Geopolitical significance: the EU will have a single treaty, president and minister of foreign affairs. Voting procedures in the council will allow double majority votes (55% of council and 65% of EU inhabitants).

8) South-Africa: ANC leadership elections
What ? election fo leader of ANC.
When? Thursday 13th December, 2007, Johannesbourg.
Who? Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma, Tokyo Sexwhale.
What to watch out for ? any last minute withdrawal of candidacy. Any court proceedings against Jacob Zuma.
Geopolitical significance: Leadership of the ANC is a red carpet towards the presidency of the country (elections in 2009). Mr Mbeki and Zuma have fallen out with each others and risk splitting the party if the competition is played out in the leadership votes. The ANC could suffer immensly from an internal feud. Jacob Zuma is a leftist populist politician, which is not a great omen for businesses.

9) EU: EU-summit
What ? EU heads of states and government summit.
When? Friday 14th December, 2007, Brussel.
Who? 27 EU member states.
What to watch out for ? EU committments to opening Chapters with Turkey, to the activities of the PKK. EU strategy for Kosovo.
Geopolitical significance: Harmony-projects power. Divisision in EU ranks projects weakness. Kosovo, Turkey.

10) Pakistan: Musharaf lifts emergency rule... or not?
What ? self-imposed deadline for the emergency rule.
When? Sunday 16th December, 2007, Islamabad.
Who? Perwez Musharaf.
What to watch out for ? Will he stick to his words, will there be any terrorist attacks. Watch out for Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Shariff.
Geopolitical significance: this is a preliminary steps for free elections on the 8th of January 2008.

Iraq and the US: surge + Annapolis + NIE on Iran = Baker Hamilton report

Don’t you think there is something intriguing about the consecutive occurrence of the Annapolis conference and the NIE report on Iran’s nuclear intentions? After all, in less than 7 days the US administration has maneuvered an implicit foreign policy U-turn. What is more surprising, however, is that this short succession of developments coincides perfectly with the first anniversary of the Baker-Hamilton report (also known as the Iraq Study Group Report), which was released on the 6^th of December 2006.

Willingly or not, US President George W. Bush, has celebrated the report’s anniversary by laying a solid groundwork for the implementation of all its recommendations including the most sensitive ones engaging Iran and Syria.

Proposing an “internal approach”, the Iraq Study Group recommended that “the Iraqi government … accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security...and [that the] United States significantly increases the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops…”. That has been done and seems to succeed!

The report also proposed a different “external approach” that would include “a new diplomatic offensive” engaging Iran and Syria. Annapolis, on the one hand, sent the unmistakable signal that Syria had graduated from the axis of evil. Facts on the ground in Lebanon, and Iraq indicate that Annapolis was in fact the public culmination of an ongoing process. The latest NIE report, on the other hand, has taken the heat and military urgency away from the Iranian “file”, and instantly out-flanked the Iranophobic hawks in Washington. The administration can now contemplate talking seriously with Iran in a more constructive atmosphere.

Finally, the Baker-Hamilton report highlighted that “the United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict”. By all accounts, Bush is now doing this; both with Annapolis, and with his recent announcement that he will visit the Middle East in January 2008.

The facts are clear and all point in one direction: President Bush has decided to implement the most salient recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report. And if you are tempted to doubt the sustainability and depth of this change of cap, be reminded of two things. Firstly, that not only the policy has changed, but also the people implementing it. Ronald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz are all gone ! Secondly, the NIE was not released by mistake, or without prior approval of the President, Secretary of State, and Defense Secretary. They all knew the report’s outcome since the end of October, if not before. Allies of the US, such as France, the UK, Germany, Turkey, and Russia, judging from their non-reactions, were also briefed.

Although the administration’s motivations behind the policy shift include fascinating topics such as the mid-term election defeat, the upcoming Presidential battle, and bi-partisan dynamics, I favor considering its many implications, of which five are crystal clear to me.

One, Bush is as serious as he can be about the Palestinian Peace process and is likely to put all his weight, plus the little of Condoleeza Rice, behind it. The fact that Syria and Iran are now “engaged” reduces the downside risks emanating from the Hamas. The Baker-Hamilton report mentioned commitments to Afghanistan and some redeployment from Iraq in 2008, Bush will make good on this as well.

Two, the administration has done away with the “doctrine of unilateralism” and it can be sure to reap the benefits of that in Europe, Russia, the Sunni Middle East, and in non-Chinese Asia. Work the UN’s effectiveness, including passing resolutions against Iran, will benefit from this.

Three, The real lame duck in the White House will be Dick Cheney. From Cheney’s viewpoint, the NIE report has done to foreign policy what the mid-term election defeat and the Scooter Libby scandal did to domestic policy; it has discredited and silenced him. I wouldn’t be surprised if the wise men of the GOP convinced him to resign “for the sake of his ailing heart”.

Four, bi-partisan commissions, in a context of embattled White House and split congress, seem to be a constructive policymaking tool. The congress should consider putting up such a platform to decide on a “way forward” for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Finally, President George W. Bush, has demonstrated unsuspected political acumen in dealing with the one of the US citizen’s biggest concern: how the unsuccessful war in Iraq affects the country’s standing. This indicates that Bush is intent on winning back public opinion, probably for the sake of the GOP. If he succeeds, and he can, the presidential contest will be much tighter than predicted and maybe a straight loss for Democrats that have spent a lot of energy and time blocking the President since they won the mid-term elections. I am no fan of Bush, and I do not think that the GOP deserves a third term in the White House, maybe that is why I can’t avoid noticing that they are doing the right things to give the Democrats a very, very hard time in the run-up to November 4, 2008.

Lebanon: Who sacrificed who at Annapolis (part I- editorial comments)

Following Annapolis two line of thoughts have appeared regarding Lebanon in the aftermath of Annapolis.
The first, and most shared one is that the US has cut a deal with Syria handing over Lebanon (incl. the Hariri Tribunal) to them in return for support in Palestine and against Iran. This viewpoint is supported by General Sleiman surprising emergence as a compromise candidate.
The second viewpoint, is that no such deal has been cut but that Syria had an interest to start getting out of the Iranian axis and that it did so at Annapolis. Logically, therefore Syria stopped looking dangerous to the US. The emergence of Sleiman is then a reflection of this organic development.
This blog has decided to look into the arguments during the coming days. Polibel will publish a series of posts looking at question of Who Sacrificed who at Annapolis. This question bears particular importance, simply because Lebanon is the geopolitical barometer of the Middle East.

Lee Smith from the Weekly Standard, offers an apologetic (from US perspective) answer in his latest column "The Price of Annapolis", 30.11.2007.
His message is that there was no "deal", but that Syria manage to get away with its terrorist tactics because the US was so focused the Palestinian Peace process. Click here to read the article.

The Conference of the Year: Annapolis Conference

The conference is extraordinary in all aspects.

The attendee list is eye-popping, the absentee list is extraordinary short: Iran (and its part of Hamas). Moreover, the accross the board dismissal of its chance of success, a topic on which Mr Khamenei and the US media seem to strangely agree, has downplayed expectations in such a way that the absentees now seems to be shouldering all the downsides of the event (if the event succeeds they are left with nothing), while the attendees are left with the potential upsides (if the event fails well everybody had expected it). But the real significance of the conference is to be found in the implications of the attendees list. Let me flesh out the ones that are most obvious (feel free to add the ones that are missing).
1) Syria is making its first public steps outside its alliance with Iran. While Khamenei and Ahmadinejad sing in unison calling it a waste of time, Syria will be in Annapolis.
2) Saudi Arabia's FM presence within meters of the Israeli PM, for the purpose of discussing arab-israeli peace, blasts away all taboos about contacts with Israel. In that sense the meeting amounts to a historic ice-breaker, a game changer.
3) When media reports and pictures of the event hit the frontpages on the 28th, Iran will be left pondering whether it is not truly isolated. China is telling Iran to obey the UN, Russia tells them to forgive enrichment, the US-UK-FR are crystal clear about what they think of Iran's nuclear programme, Israel-Saudi Arabia and all major Sunni States find themselves weirdly aligned in their suspiscion of an Iran's nuclear ambition...surprise surprise all these sceptics will be at Annapolis.
4) As Bradley Burston writes, the secret weapon og the conference is the weakness of the protagonists. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/928139.html
5) Bush has picked up a strategic objective for 2008 that will be the key vector of the Administration Middle Policy in 2008: Middle East Peace process. The republicans are gonna love him for revamping their image in this crucial electioneering year. And as all america watchers know well the republicans are less dependent on the Israeli lobby than the democrats.

Syria's ultimate objective is NOT Lebanon.

I am always shocked to read distinguished analysts, such as the admirable beirutspring editor falling fool to the typical lebanese syndrom of "Syria wants to own us" (probably because we are all too smart and beautiful).

In principle it is indeed true that Annapolis could be inconsequential for Lebanon. I do however disagree with the bulk of your reasons, which I think reflect a fundamental misconception of Syria’s interests.
“Syria’s real demand is Lebanon, not the Golan” . That quote expresses the intellectual symptom of a profound, though understandable, misunderstanding of Syria’s key interests.Bashar El-Assad’s real interest is to stay in power and “in the money”. Power as far as Assad is concerned is based on a full spoon of fear among the populace, as well as a need for legitimacy. Legitimacy of the Assad regime is based on 1) arabism, whose sole rationale is the struggle against the “zionist enemy”. 2) it relies on a certain social pact with the Syrians by which the regime provides food and stability in return for political apathy. That is why the Golan and not Lebanon is so important to Bashar and his clique. If they want to consolidate their legitimacy they have got to get Israel on its knees and present themselves like the triumphant victors of a 40-year long struggle. Lebanon in this respect is only important in so far as it allows Syria to increase its leverage on Israel through the southern borders. Syria did that first through the Palestinians until 1983 and then with Hezbollah. Lebanese need to understand that, especially the Christians from the FL, if they are to have a sober view of what is happening today.Now, “what about the murder of Harriri” you will ask me! The Syrians had without doubt a key interest in this horrific murder. But not because they so wanted to own Lebanon per se. The problem they had with Rafiq Harriri is that he had become too important to control. Rafiq Harriri enjoyed solid international support, he was about to realign with the Christians, but most importantly as a successful and Powerful Sunni he was the only moderate Levantine politician from the Sunni sect capable of mounting a very serious challenge to the Assad regime from within Syria. Rafiq Harriri’s friendship with Abdul Halim Khaddam has to be understood in this light. Syria, who still needed, and still needs, Lebanon at that time had no other choice than assassinating a person who had the charisma and network necessary to uproot the Assads in Syria.
Finally a brief word on being “in the money” (which means to be profitable). Assad does not need to own Lebanon to be in the money. Quite to the contrary. What he needs is economic reform, FDIs, trade relationship with decent countries, and a nice pipeline from Kirkouk to Tartouz. The problem is that he cannot liberalize the economy without loosening the nod around the average Syrian’s neck and without challenging his own internal barons. In order to have the strength to do that, Bashar need to regain the Golan, parade in Damascus as the long awaited hero, and implement the long awaited reforms. It is doubtful whether he has the necessary skills for that, but that is not what I am discussing here and he still has some times left to learn and be convinced.

Annapolis will be inconsequential for Lebanon, if Syria and the US cannot agree on the price of Syria’s return to the community of decent nation. Bashar will want guarantees that the UN tribunal will not incriminate him, nor his brother in law (that will suffice to keep the latter happy), he will want guarantees that Israel will dismantle the colonies on the Golan and agree in principle on sovereignty over the waters of the sea of Galilee, he will demand to keep a Syria friendly president in Lebanon so that he can regulate Hezbollah and use it as his last bargaining chip that he will only drop once the Syrian flag floats on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. It is not at all sure that the US will agree with that price. That is why I agree in principle that Annapolis might be inconsequential.

The Global Week Ahead - 26 Nov-02 Dec: What you have to watch out for

1) Annapolis Peace Conference (www)
What ? United States will host a conference at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. It is intended to be the "launching point for negotiations leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state and the realization of Israeli-Palestinian peace".
When? Tuesday, 27 November 2007.
Who? George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Prime Minister Olmert, Palestinian Authority President Abbas, along with the Members of the Quartet, the Members of the Arab League Follow-on Committee, the G-8, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, and other key international actors including Syria (deputy FM) and Saudi Arabia (FM), but NOT Iran.
What to watch out for ? A recognition of UN 242; Israeli commitment to stop settlement expansion and start dismantling illegal colonies; a firm timeline; Engagement of Syria; any signs of Syrian-Israeli meeting; the role of Russia in the peace process, any sideline agreement between Russia and US on Kosovo, conventional arms treaty, and Missile defense shield. Geopolitical significance: Middle East peace process, departure of Syria from the Syrian-Iranian axis, Lebanese presidential elections, implicit recognition of Israel by Arab League.

2) EU-China Summit & France China-Summit (www)
What ? annual EU-China Summit, by nature focused on trade and economic ties. This year it will be preceded by a visit of the Eurozone monetary policy makers.
When? Monday 26 (France-China), Tuesday 27 (Eurozone Policy-makers) and Wednesday (EU-China Summit) 28 November 2007, Beijing.
Who? Monday: Sarkozy, Hu Jiantao. Tuesday: Jean-Claude Trichet, Jean-Claude Juncker, Joaquín Almunia. Wednesday: Barroso, Joaquín Almunia, Peter Mandelson, Wen Jibao
What to watch out for ? Hu Jintao's comments on Iran, Lebanon and Kosovo. Who exactly is representing the Chinese side ? Any CB officials, Minister of Economy, Finance ? Scrutinize the closing remarks for a Chinese promise on currency re-evaluation; any signs of tensions (no progress).
Geopolitical significance: the beginning of a serious trade row between China and the EU-US.

3) Lebanon: The cedars' president.
What ? Presidential election, in Parliament has been postponed beyond constitutional limit, despite enormous diplomatic efforts to have it done on time.
When? Friday 30th November 2007.
Who? Possible candidates include: Michel Aoun, Michel Edde, Robert Ghanem, Damianos Kattar, Nassib Lahoud, Boutros Harb.
What to watch out for ? Is it actually taking place on time? US-Syrian understanding in Annapolis, Iran's position.
Geopolitical significance: A successful presidential election will signal that Syria and the US have converging views in the Middle East, confirmation of the Syrian rupture from the Iran-Syria axis.

4) Pakistan: the first week of the internal trio
What ? For the first time in 10 years the three political juggernauts and archrivals of the 1990s are inside Pakistan at the same time.
Who? Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, Perwez Musharraf.
What to watch out for ? Assassination attempts against any of the three, Terrorist attacks, political rallies, Release of Iftikar Chaudry, Resignation of Musharraf as General, end of Emergency rule.
Geopolitical significance: extreme domestic instability in a nuclear armed country, preventive strike potential from India and USA.

5) Russia parliamentary elections: democracy for dummies
What ? Duma elections.
When? Sunday 2nd December 2007.
Who? 450 seats contested by: Liberal Democratic Party, United Russia, Other Russia (opposition coalition); Communist party.
What to watch out for ? Any surprising results from the opposition and the communists, Putin's hints at his role in United Russia.
Geopolitical significance: Parliamentary election in G8 country, strong suspicion sub-standard election could spark serious international outcry, putin's stronghold over the country will determine his indirectly proportional to his intransigence on Kosovo, Conventional Arms treaty, and the missile defense shield, Georgia, Ukraine.

6) Kosovo: last hopeless sprint
What ? final negotiating round of Troika (EU-Russia-US) with Serbs and Kosovars.
When? Monday- Wednesday 26-28 November 2007, Vienna.
Who? Diplomat level, maybe some foreign ministers on Wednesday.
What to watch out for ? Any signs that Kosovo could prematurely decide to declare independence, Any sign that they would do so by the 10.12.2007 even if the EU advises against. Geopolitical significance: Bosnia, Serbia, EU-Russia relations, Macedonia.

7) Venezuela: the day of Truth for Chavez
What? National referendum to remove terms limit on serving president.
When? Sunday 2 December, 2007.
Who ? Chavistas vs anti-Chavistas and Students.
What to watch out for ? Army coup if Chavez wins, former General and Defense Minister warned that the referendum amounted to a coup, large demonstrations in the week to come, watch out for army comments.
Geopolitical significance ? a serious blow/consolidation for the socialist/bolivarian revolution in South America at a time when Argentina is turning more pragmatic and Cuba is about to loose Castro.

Lebanon's Presidential Elections : explode-defuse, explode-defuse.... it is a 45/55 case

The Lebanese parliament has until the 23rd of November to elect a President, that is no more than 5 days. The term of the current president, Emile Lahoud, will end on the 24th, day on which he will hand-over power...but to who ?
The constitution stipulates that the president "shall be elected by secret ballot and by a two thirds majority of the Chamber of Deputies. After a first ballot, an absolute majority shall be sufficient. see constitution . In a manner reminiscent of the dynamics of the last Turkish presidential elections the Hizbollah-Aounist opposition interprets the constitution as requiring a 2/3 quorum for all sessions. The president is to be elected for a 6 years-term, and by customs has to be Maronite. One can dwell endlessly on the details, but suffice to state that the parliament (128 seats) is divided between a Sunni-Christian (ca 70) majority of and a Shiite-Christian (Hezbollah-Amal-Aounist) minority (ca 58).
The opposition's quorum claim has super-heated the debate for anything else than a consensus candidate (a candidate elected with a 2/3 quorum) would lead to the opposition to claim that since the majority had acted unconstitutionally, it was entitled to act as such and to elect its own president. yes, Lebanon might well have 2 presidents and two governments by the end of the week.

Behind the two blocs hide all major regional powers. The majority has the open support of France, the US, and Saudi Arabia, while the minority can count on Iran and Syria. One noteworthy absentee from this shortlist is Israel...the reason for that is that the US represents its case.

Two questions will need to be answered before a presidential nominee will be agreed on. Firstly, will the US agree to talk eye to eye with Syria and to accommodate their requests for a president acceptable to Syria ? Or will they instead beat the democracy drum and tell Syria, for a second time, that it is either "with them or against them"?
The second question is who is an acceptable candidate for the Syrians ?

On the first question, the US willingness to backtrack on its democratic rhetoric vis a vis a plainly undemocratic regime bent on using muscles and TNT to get things its way in Lebanon is a function of US and Israeli interests. The US republican administration needs to stabilise Iraq, and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. In both case they will need the support of Saudi Arabia and also of Syria. The crux of the matter is that Saudis and Syrians aren't on speaking terms anymore. As to the Israeli, its interests lie in prolonging the current rock-bottom weakness of the Arab states in order to settle its borders and its issue with Palestinians under favourable terms. Translated into a Syria-policy, this means keep the Assad regime, enlist it into a Palestinian peace deal favourable to Israel in return for which the Syrians will get the Golan. The alternative for Assad is such a messy anti-Semitic/turbocharged fundamentalist perspective that Assad is honey to the Israeli. The only regime, they argue that can rein over Hezbollah and the fundamentalist forces of the Levant is the Assad dynasty. Regarding Iran, Israel has a very clear incentive to contain its ambitions as well.
To sum it all, the only hurdle to a US-Syrian entente is Saudi Arabia. The tensions between Saudi Arabia and Syria are essentially about the leadership of the Sunni world, and of the fight against the historic enemy Israel. Since Saudis also have an interest in bringing Syria back to the anti-Iranian league, they might well support an entente with Syria but at what price ? Presumably, Saudi could just be satisfied with a Syrian-acceptable president in Lebanon if the Prime Minister is a strong Sunni figure and if Syria supports an Annapolis peace deal at the end of November. To reach that the US will need to pressurize Israel to make the necessary concessions to the Palestinians, allow a pro-Syrian candidate to emerge in Lebanon, and squeeze Walid Jumblatt and Samir Geagea a bit.

As to the Syria-acceptable candidates. There are too many Maronite in Lebanon to present an exhaustive list. A better approach would be to proceed by elimination. As a principle Syria will want a president who guarantees that it keeps some form of control of Hezbollah, and that slows down the development of the Harriri tribunal. Nassib Lahoud is out of question for his strong affiliation with the Harriri camp. Michel Aoun, would be too risky for unpredictable and capable of cornering Hezbollah if he unifies the christians. Demenaos Katar, possible. Robert Ghanem, acceptable, due to his decent stance towards Syria and his Bekaa constituency which makes him an easy subject of Syrian intelligence services.

My hunch is that it will be either Katar or Ghanem. The next questions however, will be who will be Prime Minister.
Although tensions are likely to defuse in the short-term as the elections of a president pushes away the prospect of two governments in Lebanon, no solutions will offer magic answers regarding the electoral law that requires drafting before 2009, the Harriri tribunal, and Hezbollah's normalisation into Lebanon's polity.

Lebanon will be the last neighbour of Israel to stabilise. First the Palestinian will need their just deal. Then the Syrians will have to get their shore on the Lake of Galilea. And then only will it be possible to have realistic hopes that Lebanon will enjoy political stability, economic reform, and peace. Look at Annapolis Peace conference if you want an indicator of where the country's prospects stand.