By Dr. Ali Awad Asiri
In my capacity, as ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and by virtue of my knowledge of the Lebanese peculiarity and the extensive discussions that I had with those who represent its symbols, including politicians and businessmen, I believe that the agreements reached during the Doha meeting - which were publicly disclosed to ensure transparency, are the best palliative remedy for the impasse that the country is experiencing.
I say that it is analgesic on the basis that after reducing the level of pain resulting from stiffness and stubbornness, it is possible to move to something better.
As for why I see this, it is because the parties that met and deliberated on the case of the Lebanese patient practically represent the Arab and international dimension of the Lebanese specificity. It suffices to reflect on the positions of each of the five countries to confirm my saying, in my capacity as connoisseur of the depth of the Lebanese specificity.
One might think that practically involving Iran in the talks that took place would have made the solution more attainable. However, Iran’s non-participation does not mean that those who held the discussions in Doha and not elsewhere did not look at the Qatari role in hosting and managing the meeting. However, it represents, in some aspects of the consultations and what was agreed to be announced publicly, the unspoken Iranian desire to see an objective and dignified end to the intractable Lebanese crisis.
In my opinion, the fact that part of the symbols of Lebanese peculiarity carefully read the outcome the five-party consultation concluded in Qatar is sufficient to make the temperature of stubbornness, which exceeds the weather temperatures these days, recede a little, then a lot.
Without this careful reading, one can say goodbye to this particularity. This is what I do not wish for a country that enjoys great attention from those who participated in the talks in Doha, just as the people of Lebanon deserve the blessing of stability.
The rotation of demands and the re-selection of names somehow dispels the atmosphere of stubbornness that is reflected in phrases that neither serve the country, nor build hopes or preserve a national and sectarian formula.
I conclude with a question: Is this logical in anything? To have a realistic safety umbrella called the Taif Accord, and five friendly and active Arab and international countries that are keen on Lebanon more than its politicians - those who were elected to perform the tasks stipulated in the constitution, and not to deal with these tasks with an irresponsible behavior?
*Former Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon