Related Resources

Q: I have two questions: the first one is with regards to political status in Lebanon. We are seeing a shift back to the status quo with regards to the infighting and bickering between the different political groups in Lebanon. And, unfortunately, it is taking a tone that is very reminiscent before the July war and I was wondering if you could comment on whether that will continue. My second question is with regards to any future settlement with Israel. You mentioned a return to the pre-1949 treaty plan, that was an idea to be considered but with regards to the line by the Siniora government, stating very clearly that Lebanon would be the last country to make a comprehensive agreement with Israel. What are the internal decisions among in March 14th Alliance? What is actually being debated in private with what is actually happening?

A: Let me answer the last one first. When war ended in Lebanon in 1990, the civil war with the Taif Accords in 1989 it is clear that there are different points on which we have a consensus from different political groups and the consensus was that concerning the Israel/Lebanon situation we would go back to the 1949 truce. I don’t think Lebanon has a possibility to share a separate peace with Israel. I do not think it is on the agenda and when Siniora said we would be the last one to make peace and because unless there is a comprehensive peace for the region, Lebanon does not have to take such an initiative. The 1949 truce would be important because it would guarantee that Lebanon would not be a proxy battlefield for all Arabs to fight against Israel. We do not want Lebanon to be a platform for Iran to send missiles to Israel. We want the 1949 truce that would guarantee the possibility for Lebanon to rebuild its sovereignty by the time there will be a global or comprehensive settlement for the region.

As for the political rhetoric that is happening, I think it was worse before the war. It was worse because it is clear that the pro-Syrians were trying to go back to control the government of Lebanon internally. On one side is Hizbullah and on the other side is the government, and they would want a compromise with the National Unity government. And let me tell you, I say that the current government is already a compromise because it has Hizbullah in the government already. And the compromise should not be giving the pro-Syrians control of the country. Why? Because their agenda is clear, they would like the agenda to be used for Syria. And this is to say there would definitely not be any chance to build a new Lebanon. So I would consider the 14th of March to be on the other side of the government. Siniora represents a compromise; I would say have the 14th of March be on one side and Hizbullah and the pro-Syrians on the other side. This compromise is represented by a stable government that has proven itself in times of war and at difficult moments. And when everyone disagreed with the 14th on the conflict that was triggered, they kept it bipartisan and we supported a unified Lebanese front during war. And I think that the government should have been rewarded for not taking such an attitude, and not triggering an internal debate during war. I don’t think that the solution is to remove such a government, otherwise there would be a vacuum and it would destabilize internal politics and give the possibility for the Syrians to gain control. This would leave place for a step back for the implementation of 1701. It could lead to a confrontation with the international community and this would not be constructive for Lebanon.

Q: The tribunal on the Hariri assignation, when I was in Lebanon last month, I sensed a lot of skepticism that the tribunal had much momentum and that it could peter out, particularly because of the war, that the Syrians could sort of destabilize Lebanon as a way of keeping the tribunal down. That is my question: What is your assessment of the tribunal?

And the second, was about empowering the Lebanese armed forces. There is also a lot of skepticism that the United States would really come through in its pledge to come through and arm the Lebanese forces. For years, there has been the international community who wanted the LAF to disarm Hizbullah and reclaim the control of the south, but they were not getting much support the international community. Is there much support from the outside? Are you confident that support is coming?

A: I think that we, in Lebanon, think that disarming Hizbullah should be done in cooperation and not in confrontation. And the LAF's task is not to go and trigger war. Let me remind you that the IDF tried to do it and failed. So how would the LAF be able to disarm Hizbullah while it is struggles to get 3,000 machine guns? It is a must to support and rearm the LAF. I have had lots of meetings in town here and I have been talking about that, and I heard that people do understand this priority. There is a certain amount of money-that $230 million that has been promised to Lebanon lately, I think that $10 million has been given-and the Lebanese army needs more than that to be a real deterrent to anyone who wants to destabilize the country or at least, for it to be able to defend itself.

As for the international tribunal, I would like to quote the tribunal - one of the speeches of President Assad where he was insinuating after having 1,500 civilians killed--there should be a tribunal to judge the assassinations of these 1500 civilians, that the assassinations of one person is not a priority and then saying the assassination of one person, even if it is a Prime Minister, is no more of a priority. I think it is a priority because I don't think it should happen. Let me tell you why. We do not want anyone to be able to assassin whoever does not agree with you politically and get away with it. We need a guarantee that such behavior will not be repeated. So it is a must to have the international tribunal. And it is a must to have any Lebanese person coming from any background, because there would be no guarantee that such behavior is stopped There wouldn't be impunity any more, and we would go back to the jungle that we were living in, excuse my language.

I am confident that there is a will. We have a majority in parliament but this is something they are trying to undermine. There have been lots of threats of new assassinations to diminish the majority in parliament. So lots of members from the majority have been threatened to be assassinated because they are trying to keep the pro-Syrians from taking charge again. It is not easy, but it is a priority for us because it is the only possibility to put a limit onto Syrians meddling in Lebanon.

Q: Today there is no one more popular than Sheik Hassan Nasrallah of the Shi'a Hizbullah organization. Why do you think that is?

A: Hizbullah definitely gained lots of sympathy in the predominantly Sunni Arab counties. Iran for a long time did not have the legitimacy to be a part of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Because everyone said, "You are Persian and Shi'a and this is a conflict that concerns Arab-speaking Sunnis." Iran literally bought its boarders with Israel by supporting Hizbullah militarily, and it became a major player. So this sympathy not only goes with Hassan Nasrallah but also with Iran. So finally there is someone who can confront one of the strongest armies that has been defeating the Arab armies over the last decades. But, let me tell you that people in Lebanon are finally asking big questions. And for the first time, we have loud voices even in the Shi'a community, asking where do we go now? If we rebuild now, will we be destroyed in three or five years? Do we really want to be a proxy battlefield for Syria and Iran agendas? So do we really want Lebanon to be destroyed in 5 or 10 years, while no one else moves in the Arab world? Why should we continue to be destroyed every four or five years while Syria is respecting a truce on its boarders, and here I am talking about in the Golan Heights where for 40 years they have had a truce, and there was not one shot this time? And everyone else has to understand that they would never do it because it would effect the Syrian economy. What about the Lebanese economy? So I think that they have a very good campaign claiming victory in Lebanon and there is a victory if you want to consider it as a resistance against the strongest armed forces in the region. But it is definitely not of the perception that there is a culture of life, while rebuilding the economy and offering a perspective to new generations.

Lebanon does not have the same sympathy as the rest of the Arab world and this is why the rhetoric of Hizbullah is being escalated lately, and this is why they are organizing the rally tomorrow to celebrate "the divine victory." So the confrontation is not over and I hope Lebanon would not want a second round. And here I think that holding the Lebanese central government accountable for anything that might happen in the future is absolutely not constructive because if ever the Lebanese central government were to be hit by Israeli forces this would definitely paralyze all the initiatives taken to restore sovereignty and to rebuild the institutions. And this would make a very fertile ground for extremists to develop and it would create chaos in Lebanon.

Q: In terms of your earlier points, you mentioned that the strongest army in the region with regards to Israel, but that there is also, in Iraq, the US which is being significantly bogged down by determined insurgency campaigns. It seems that the lesson that violence and jihad against the Westerners is paying off particularly when there is an absence of negotiations, especially with the Arab/Israeli conflict. Now you have had a lot more meetings in DC. Is there any hope that there is going to be a push so that Lebanon can focus on growing its democracy and so that Lebanon can focus on growing boarder security that there will be some resolution to the outstanding boarder conflict between Arab/Israelis? Do you have any sense that there is an interest in Washington?

A: Yes I think so. You cannot consider doing that, as a Lebanese, without a Lebanese agenda. This is something that did not exist for over three or four decades and I think the West is to blame because they kept a blind eye on what was happening to Lebanon. For over six years, as a Lebanese, I was very unhappy to see weapons crossing the boarder and coming inside of Lebanon. While everyone probably thought let them have their weapons since they are filtering their borders against any groups that might be coming to possibly throw bombs on Israel, and at the end of the day they would not dare. But they did dare to use their missiles. I think Lebanon would have the possibility to have its own agendas and I think Lebanon could be a model for all of the Middle East.

Once again, I remember when I was first elected to parliament in Lebanon, I have been in for 10 years, I was one of six in the opposition in 2000 who dared vote against the electoral law. And so they always maintained what they called the Lebanese Democratic Folklore, saying that at the end of the day they will be discouraged and leave. That is probably true, but it was hit completely so rebuilding from scratch in Iraq might be impossible but rebuilding or restoring democratic institutions that still exists in Lebanon is completely doable. If such a thing happens and there is a possibility of having a cross-confessional group having the same views and putting together a structure in the country can be a model for the rest of the region. So the idea is definitely speaking, and I am not one of those who discourages speaking. I think communication is very important but it should not be communication speaking on the basis that Lebanon should be the price paid again to maintain security. Let me remind you, Clay, it is not only security that is to be taken into consideration in the region, but it is also social development. Times have showed that the more misery, the more extremism, and the best way to get rid of extremism is to fight it with weapons sometimes but also to fight it by rebuilding a social structure that gives a chance or a perspective to those people who would have instead blown themselves up by suicide bombings to kill themselves.

Q: If you go watch CSPAN or CNN or Fox in Iraq the US journalists cannot go among the population, they have to be protected. If you were watching during the war, France Adler was taken by Hizbullah by to the area of the Shi'a and that is a positive evolution how the Shi'a or the Hizbullah community in Lebanon is perceiving this situation. And we should point out this is positive and should plan on building on after the give their weapons.

There is a crime by action and a crime by inaction. So, the accountability you have been seeing it the enemy, and Israel is the enemy, they have been going as a team into making inquiry for why the wars are happening. We never had this in Lebanon as to why the wars are happening and we need this in Lebanon. We need accountability! The rule of law and accountability are the main points for a real democracy. First, no one uttered the question "why is there no shelters in the south of Lebanon with all of this Iranian money they build only shelters for he military?" There was not one shelter for the civilians. Not even the government thought about shelters, not even Hizbullah thought about shelters. This is crucial- there should be accountability. It is not only that we want to use civilians to see they killed so and so, I am not defending Israel, they committed crimes against the Geneva Convention, but also there is accountability. You should talk about it. The shelters, who is paying for this, when and how it should be done? This is first. Second, accountability in the political views. Why the government didn't support its minististrael deceleration resistance that was, according to us, a mistake? Why it didn't make any relations with other parties? Second, now we are paying the price of going through the year 2000 electoral low, which gave the authority to Hizbullah to have that branch of deputies otherwise we would have a third party coming from the Shi'a. Thank you.

A: First of all accountability, I think that, government strategy was never to make war, that is why I started my intervention by saying the Lebanese government was surprised and shocked by what happened. And it took a distance from the kidnapping of soldiers. So had the Lebanese government had any strategy to make war with Israel, they would have been accountable on not building shelters. But, I think that the Lebanese government is representing what comes out of the Taif Agreement. The Tiaf Agreement stipulates that all Lebanese factions have agreed on going back to the 1949 truce with Israel.

So Hizbullah is accountable, yes they are accountable. This is what we are saying. And this is why Hizbullah is escalating their rhetoric by saying we are an Israeli product. I am an Israeli product? I don't know how, but that is what they are saying. So because you are a product, that this why have to be on the defensive. And they are totally okay with being with Syria and Iran. As a Lebanese, it is simple; I am very tired of Iran, Syria and Israel. It's enough. Now, as for the resistance -

No really, everyone is talking about the criminal weapons coming from the Israeli planes and I agree they are totally criminal because they killed civilians and destroyed infrastructure. But, also I think that that Iranian missiles, underground, are not charity. They did not come through the Iranian Red Cross to Lebanon. I think they are also criminal. I think they are both criminal.

I know...And this is their problem, I don't think that we, as the Lebanese government, should be building shelters for our next confrontation. This is not our target. So, those who triggered the confrontation are accountable. I am being loud and this in front of you, and its on television: I think that they are accountable for the 1,200 civilians who died, for all the infrastructure, for all the repercussions on the economy and I think that the Lebanon should be judging that.

As for the 2000 law, I think that the strategy at the time, I told you that I voted against it, I was one of 6. But, in 2005, I encouraged them to hold elections. The alternative would have been stalling elections. Stalling elections, by doing what? Stalling elections to create a vacuum or a chaos in the country, and work and play on those divisions that we have seen over this year and a half? Whoever is there and who ever is moving where, accusations of corruption, etc. Let me tell you, all of what they have seen from the 14th of March is our alliance as opposition with a couple of faces linked from the government of the past and eventual linkages with corruption. We never would have had the chance to have Syrians withdraw if we didn't have major politicians joining and had we not put our arms together. So I think the priority now, although it is facing corruption now, is to gain sovereignty. You cannot combat corruption in a country with meddling to from different forces and having armies. So the priority now is going from one dynamic to another. And unfortunately, people don't understand certain groups positions that are based on personal agendas and not on a national agenda. I would like to tell you I was never in government and everyone knows I was never mixed with corruption, but I am very proud to be in alliance with those who are criticized now who were accused of corruption otherwise we would not have gotten a chance to get anywhere. How do you say it, the sterile debate. This sterile debate created this - this made all the Lebanese people disgusted from the political situation. This is what you need to get out of.

Q: In your introduction, you mentioned in the beginning, the deployment of the LAF and UNIFIL to the south to patrol the boarder and control the rearmament of Hizbullah. You also mentioned the controlling of the boarder to control the arms movement on the boarder from Syria. I was wondering if you can tell us how effective that has been so far.

A: It is not easy task, because boarders are porous. There is a structure that has been built over years - there are probably tunnels etc. So I think that at least for the first time, there is control: air, maritime and even boarders with Syria not only by LAF but also by international backing with UNIFIL forces. And once again, they have new prerogatives here. We are not talking about 2,000 but we are talking about 15,000 but there are some forces particularly on a technology level, and here I am talking about the Germans, who have high technological possibilities to control boarders with infrared, balloons etc. I am not a specialist on that. I think it is a Lebanese request; one has to be clear on that. It is a Lebanese request, it is not an international request, but a Lebanese request because it is the only way to gain sovereignty. I think that we need to be supporting the LAF and supporting the Lebanese government in asking for this control and making sure weapons do not cross. This is an alternative that should be scrutinized by the international community, because we need this support from the international community on that; if there is anything wrong it has to be dealt with. I would rather have a slow process making sure that those borders be less and less porous than having a new confrontation holding Lebanese government as accountable.

Yes it has until now, I hear about weapons crossing, it is definitely harder and much more complicated with all of those people there and it definitely is not a hundred percent. We are not there yet, but there is much more control there than we had even during war. One has to think about having people on our side. I was talking to someone from the Bekaa Valley who told me now that the Lebanese government came you have lots of clans who are leaving from smuggling on the boarders and not smuggling weapons. So now the small smuggling has left and so there is no alternative proposed. So I think that one should be working on productive businesses, on generating jobs and would have people scared that they might loose those industries, or small businesses, or their jobs if they see weapons crossing. So, in addition to the army we would see people not willing to see weapons crossing.

Q: Before the war, here in Washington, policy makers were very concerned about political paralysis in Lebanon. And in looking at how the trajectory was that Lahoud remained in place, national dialogue was going on, a lot of talk not a lot of action, the electoral law, the committee - the discussion for electoral law had come to a new impasse and that new progress was not being made. In the post-war environment, you mentioned 1701 providing a lot of new diplomatic tools and so forth. How do you see Lebanon moving forward politically and breaking through logjams that have really slowed down political transformation?

A: Yes, as for the electoral law, it was facing an impasse at a moment, but there was an agreement on a law that was agreed upon by everyone. And it was going to be sent to the government and to the parliament to be discussed. The problem with the electoral law is that it is a little 'the chicken or the egg' because it is being agreed upon by whom, by the same politicians that have their own interests in mind. So it was looked at in a certain way to maintain interests on all sides. This is why I think that there should be a real control on that in parliament and in government and here I trust President Siniora. And I trust him because I did not expect him to have such an attitude during difficult moments that he has been through, and he did not fall in many traps and has been listening and taking notes and it is reassuring that there is someone to truly talk too. As well as that there is a platform that would put things on the right track for the future of the country. I would not say that the team he has is the perfect team. But he is doing quite a good balance and he is being tough on not accepting any compromises that would not be good for the country.

As for your first question that was about the dialogue, was the dialogue table was gaining time. There were points that have been agreed upon, but not for the presidential issues. There is not a way to have power moving with two speeds. President Lahoud definitely does not represent the will of the Lebanese people. And those who are talking about holding new elections, before changing the president, I would like to remind them if they justified it by the 2000 law it is not a good law, but it is the same 2000 law that elected the parliament in 2000, that renewed Lahoud's mandate. And so when they say he is constitutionally protected, that is absolutely nonsense. If the parliament is not legitimate, then the parliament before it is not legitimate, and President Lahoud's amending of the constitution is not legitimate. And I think it is a must that to change the president. So anyone interested in changing the government now, must be faced by a request to change the president now before getting there.

As for what has been agreed on the dialogue table. Unfortunately, it takes two to tango, so we agreed on exchanging embassies with Syria. Fine, but they did not to. We agreed on delineating, it was not demarking, of the boarders. But Syria has always only been outspoken about the fact that the Shabba farms are Lebanese but they never wanted to document this statement. They have agreed only on the points that have been blocked by Syria implementing them. On the points that have been blocked internally, they did not agree.

Q: You mentioned in your talk the brain drain; 40 percent of Lebanese students wanting to leave the country. In my own personal sense from my experience with the Lebanese Diaspora in this country, there is a real reluctance to get back involved in this helping go back because 'when will we have to go back through this again?' My question to you is: one, what can you do to stop this brain drain? Secondly, what actions can you use to harness this potential of the Lebanese Diaspora to get back to Lebanon to improve the situation?

A: Let me tell you that this is a normal reaction. Lebanon has been though reconstruction seven times. Like I was saying, so I understand that anyone should be skeptical. For the first time, a small country like Lebanon that does not have the means to become independent on their own, they have the international attention to do it right now. And this way I think that in Lebanon we have to take quick actions to use this international attention quickly by implementing the points that I mentioned before. I think that rebuilding the economy, or even by putting things back on track, by making sure that it is not going to fall again to the pro-Syrians or Syria or Iran. It must remain on a Lebanese agenda. It is a Lebanese central decision. It is not a proxy battlefield for what is happening in the region and we have to give assurances on that level and we have to look for the support of the Lebanese Diaspora.

For the fist time, people believe the private sector should be helping the public sector. And the good thing about it is that we will go through the private sector mechanically, so there will be the transparency and auditing for anyone investing the in the private sector. So that will be hitting on the things that are not financed right now because everyone is thinking about rebuilding houses an bridges and the government infrastructure. Hizbullah is bringing money to pay for rentals by the time there will be housing. But I think a productive economy will be helpful.

I think that is where the Lebanese Diaspora can be helpful. Because by triggering a productive economy this will help change the political map of Lebanon because this would bring the possibility for the old families that were put aside to have their chance in generating jobs and gaining political credibility. Someone who might have 400 or 500 people working for them and who comes from a prominent family might have the opportunity to gain a political career. And out of 100 or 200 projects there would be at least four or five leaders who would emerge, and actions like this would be helpful. And they are made by rich Lebanese abroad and we hope hat there would be contribution from the international community.

Q: What are the expectations in Lebanon about the possibility of US military action in Iran, bombing nuclear sites. What do you think the effects would be in Lebanon if this were to happen?

A: I should be asking you this question. I don't know, I think that the effects I can tell you about. When war was triggered, Iran that lost quite a bit of its deterrent in the region by having Hizbullah lose its military structure and have all this limitations put on it. So by having, before the 12th, Hizbullah's weapons would have been much more difficult to have dealt with. But right now the situation is totally different. I don't think that Lebanese situation would be very mixed to any action like this if this were to happen with Iran. I think that it's more something between Israel and Iran. And our agenda in Lebanon is to be out of any confrontation in the region. Let Israelis and Iranians deal together. So, lets hope that the Americans will be supporting Lebanon to be once again away from being a proxy battlefield.