Samir Geagea
On March 6, the Lebanese News Agency posted an interview conducted by the Saudi newspaper Okaz with the leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea.
The following is the text of the interview:
Q: Are you optimistic or pessimistic, and how do you read the campaign circulated lately? It appears to be a campaign or attack aimed at spreading an optimistic atmosphere.
A: You are right; they are carrying out an optimistic attack. But I am afraid this optimistic attack is a cover for their rejection of the proposed project. I have some indications that point to this. I see no intention to endorse the international tribunal and no intention to reach a government of national consensus on the basis of the 19-10-1 formula.
Q: Are you optimistic vis-à-vis the movement and the summit that was held between Iran and Saudi Arabia?
A: The agreement that was reached through the Saudi-Iranian Summit over the Lebanese affair is good. But in a summit with such gravity, the Lebanese dossier was not the most important one, and they did not tackle the details. They reached some principles such as the formation of an international court, the necessity to end this standoff, and the formation of a national-unity government on the basis proposed by Mr. Amr Moussa. But the translation of these principles depends on the other camp [the opposition].
Q: The Saudi-Iranian Summit decoupled the Iranian and Syrian “jaws” and neutralized the Iranian side. Is it possible to separate between the Iranian movement and the Syrian one?
A: No, we can”t assume that this “give and take” will set Iran aside from this struggle in some countries. I am not with this theory.
Q: But Iran endorsed the international court?
A: This approval is still theoretical until now. The coming days will show us whether it will be translated practically through the stances of its allies, namely Hezbollah.
Q: How do you evaluate the Saudi movement, although Ambassador Khoja denied the presence of any Saudi initiative? You, as the March 14 forces, how do you view this movement, especially as some sides suspected the position of the Lebanese Forces toward it?
A: This is clear evidence that they are bothered by the Saudi movement and by the position of the Lebanese Forces, especially as this theory is baseless. The Saudi movement is a very important movement, and it is really a friendly one aimed at ending the crisis in Lebanon. At the same time, this movement does not commit the Lebanese rivals, but it rather urges both sides to resolve the current deadlock, and it carries the suggestion from a camp to another. The Saudi role is very constructive.
Q: As-Safir daily reported that you will move to the opposition. How do you explain this?
A: This is woven by the imagination of the writer. We have issued a statement denying these reports, and no one from our leaders or officials had said such a thing. This is very untrue and baseless, since there is harmony and agreement among March 14 forces over all issues.
Q: How do you view these attacks on Dr. Samir Geagea and Deputy Walid Jumblatt?
A: The other camp truly realized that all sides within the March 14 forces maintain the same position. No one has a moderate or extremist stance. This is not true; they are trying to stir up disagreements through these reports and rumors and attack the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party, while setting the Future Movement aside. This is an imaginary and baseless thing and will never come true. Thus, I tell them that all their efforts in this regard will lead nowhere.
Q: To what extent do you think civil disobedience would reach – if it occurred? Everyone knows that there are some preparations.
A: Talking about civil disobedience is a very dangerous thing. I don”t know if it is serious or if its outcome will be similar to all the movements we have witnessed. But I want to comment on one point and say that what happened has turned into a crime. For example, we have about 100 firms in downtown Beirut that are shut down. The protestors are people who receive salaries in return for their stay in Riyadh al-Solh Square.
Where is the public sit-in? What is going on? Not to mention that it is against all democratic principles and rules. They can do whatever they want, but our position will remain unchanged. Let them know that they are being unfair toward their country, people, themselves and history as well. All these movements will lead nowhere. What they are doing is a pure crime and violence without achieving any outcome, except for harming the Lebanese citizen, the firm owners and the Lebanese economy.
Let us go back to the Iranian discussions, which underscored two points. The first was the establishment of the international tribunal with necessary amendments that should be made in the coming days by a group that includes representatives of the March 14 and March 8 forces. But these amendments should not affect the essence of the court. The second point tackled by the negotiations was forming a national-unity government on the basis proposed by Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, which means according to the equation 19-10-1.
Q: Are reports saying that the opposition had relinquished the blocking third true?
A: No way, not at any time.
Q: Is this the position of Dr. Samir Geagea or the March 14 forces?
A: It is that of the March 14 forces.
Q: Including Deputy Saad Hariri?
A: Absolutely yes. When did Deputy Hariri or the Future Movement issue a different position? They [the opposition] are fabricating stories about the position of others. They want to save face, and this is why they said this. They [are ready to] endorse the formation of a government on such a basis, but without announcement. But this means a government based on the 19-10 -1 equation.
Q: Are you ready to help Hezbollah and offer a “media” concession to form the government?
A: We have already made a concession and endorsed the 19-10-1 formula. Instead of having the two-thirds-plus-two votes, we agreed to have less than two-thirds and gave the opposition 10 votes instead of 7. Doesn”t that mean that we crossed halfway toward the opposition?
They do not accept anything less than the blocking third. This will lead to immobilizing everything. They want the blocking third. Let us carry out the presidential elections so a president will come to resolve the conflict. Today, the presidency is immobilized and so is the parliament. They also want a blocking third in the government to immobilize it as well.
Q: They demand early parliamentary elections, and it seems that you are not refusing?
A: This demand is unconstitutional, and it is a political demand. If they want a settlement, we are not Caritas [a charitable organization]. We want something in return for every demand. We are not afraid of elections, and all opinion polls show the reality. But we have our timing, and their agendas do not take into account our priorities. Thus, we should reach an agreement. Let us conduct the presidential elections.
Q: [Resigned] Minister [Mohammad] Fneish said that if the other side did not endorse the settlement, there would be a serious escalation. Last time, the Lebanese Forces thwarted the strike.
A: This is not true, we did not foil the strike, but we helped people reach their work. The Lebanese Forces would not have moved unless this movement surpassed the principles and frames of democracy…
Q: It has been noticed recently that the debate over the international tribunal [raised] by Deputy Walid Jumblatt and you shifted to the issue of disarmament [of Hezbollah]. Does this mean escalating the crisis, or is it because you oppose any incomprehensive solution?
A: Neither this, nor that. How could a state be formed while we have secondary weapons? For example, a car that was smuggling weapons affiliated with the Syrian National Party was confiscated few days ago. Another truck smuggling weapons for Hezbollah was also confiscated earlier. How would the state be formed? I have tackled this issue in the past because weapons smuggling was restricted. When we talk about the issue, they say they are the resistance. It is not right for anyone to decide who the resistance is. The Lebanese state should solely determine the resistance and determine whether it needs resistance or not.
After the Lebanese government unanimously agreed on the seven-point plan and endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1701, it wasn”t permitted for any group to say it was a resistance [group], since the Lebanese state and the Lebanese army have become a resistance. Thus, neither side is allowed to possess weapons.
Q: Is it possible to discuss the disarmament of Hezbollah in this period?
A: I hope this issue will be discussed with Hezbollah in every period, since we can”t build a state unless all weapons become restricted to it.
Q: How can we disarm Hezbollah without a compromise or without offering certain guarantees?
A: Is there anyone threatening Hezbollah?
Q: Political threat without any guarantees?
A: Hezbollah has enough popular support, which allows it to give guarantees to others. The party has its political power, and it can win the elections and partake in authority. Where is the problem then?
Q: What about the fears of Israel”s invasion of the Lebanese territories once again?
A: This thing is not Hezbollah”s business. It is the duty of the Lebanese state…
Q: Do we need a new Taif Agreement?
A: God forbid. We haven”t implemented the Taif Accord yet. We need to implement the Taif Accord.
Q: How could the Taif be implemented, since the Syrian presence was a partner in the Taif?
A: No, all Arab countries were partners in the Taif. Saudi Arabia was a partner, and the Security Council was a partner, too. Today, Syria is in Syria and Lebanon is in Lebanon. But if Syria wants to continue attacking Lebanon, similar to what is happening today, this is another issue. The Taif Accord is our current constitution, which we should stop playing with.
Q: How do you view the international tribunal? Is it a critical junction to form your hoped-for Lebanon?
A: In the recent period, some Lebanese people felt they were oppressed by the Syrians. Over all the past years, we were among this oppressed group. However, we did not stop at this reality. We do not forget it, but we overcame it. The international court to us is a means to uncover those who assassinated Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and all leaders and journalists. But indeed, the most important thing is that the international court will highlight the past 30 years. It will not look into the things that occurred during this period, but through investigating the events [that took place] between 2004 and 2007, it will highlight a certain period of our history, uncovering what was really going on.
Q: Some say that ratifying the court under Chapter VII [of the UN Charter] will lead to turmoil and a civil war?
A: Why? Will they kill us if the Security Council ratified the court under Chapter VII?
Q: They are afraid it might be politicized?
A: We will not allow them to politicize it. I want to announce this through the media: We will not allow the prosecution of Hezbollah.
Q: What if Hezbollah was involved?
A: This is another thing, especially if it was serious and proved. But we will not allow them to prosecute anyone from Lebanon, whether he was the Secretary General of Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah or Patriarch Sfeir…