FT interview: Fouad Siniora, Lebanese prime minister
Published: October 16 2008 16:23 | Last updated: October 16 2008 16:23
Fouad Siniora, Lebanon’s prime minister, spoke to Lionel Barber and Roula Khalaf earlier this month at his office in central Beirut
Q: How do you assess the progress of national reconciliation?
A: This is quite important and really arriving at a situation where you accept the opinion of others without necessarily agreeing. It is a way of organising our differences. In fact the most important thing in this country is diversity and during the past, over the past few decades - we have been in this situation for the past three decades - there has been a gradual [hardening of these differences] but it’s becoming more shocking now.
First of all the degree of tolerance has fallen significantly and some are resorting in one way or another to resolving their differences through the use of violence, which is entirely contrary to the very principle of accepting others’ opinions. Because this country is composed of at 18 confessional groups and has been open to accept views from all over the world and you can see in many parts of Beirut many quarters that are cosmopolitan in the real sense of the world, in which you can see people from all four corners of the world with all sorts of opinions. The degree of tolerance was very high.
During the last two decades in particular, there has been a continuous effort to make Lebanon conform to the model of others. For example, imposing constitutional limits on the term of the president, the rotation of power - which is very important as a model of democracy. We have been suffering in matters that are completely alien to our culture and to the Islamic culture. This mentality of dividing the world into two camps – the camp of the good and the camp of the evil. Everybody thinks that they are in the camp of the good and that the other is in the camp of the evil and wants to get rid of them through verbal aggression and sometimes through real violence.
Lebanon is like a laboratory in this part of the world. Some people say: why are you making a fuss about this country? It is only 4m people, 10,000 square km. But anyone who thinks that Lebanon is just these meagre numbers is completely mistaken. Lebanon has much more value and influence and impact in the Arab world than these numbers indicate. Hence it is so important at a time of pressure and suspicion and violence to stand up and say, this is wrong. It is not easy, it is not easy during these times.
Hizbollah did a great job, a really great job. And the whole country was with them practically, until the year 2000 when Lebanon really fought and we made a great deal of sacrifices. Hizbollah did a great job in fighting the Israelis, until they liberated lands in the year 2000. That was the thing that one could really have arranged to find other ways, without really asking Hizbollah to disarm. We could have managed not to subject the country to an additional test and pressures and experiences because of additional invasions that may be made by the Israelis.
Up to the year 2006 we definitely considered Israel as an enemy – we still consider them the enemy – and we have to protect the country against the attacks, the invasions, the attempts that may be made to undermine the Lebanese state.
But we consider that Hizbollah’s act in kidnapping two Israel soldiers was a miscalculation because this had consequences. The Israelis did not succeed in defeating Lebanon – I’m being fairly objective. They did not have a victory, we did not have a victory. We managed to stop them from defeating us, but in the final analysis they ended up occupying part of the country and we had to resort to political means to push them back out of the country.
Some think we should not underestimate not being able to score a victory, for Israel is extremely powerful. Israel cannot afford not to score a victory. And that is what you are seeing there – the repercussions of not being able to score a victory. The repercussions resulted in this friction within Lebanese society that should have been handled with greater care in order to maintain the unity of the Lebanese against the Israelis. This is the miscalculation.
Q: Hizbollah makes no secret it is rearming. What is your position on this?
A: This is something that at the end of the day, whether they realise it now or later, this is not the way to find solutions to problems or to take over the country.
One has to understand clearly that the victory that was scored in the year 2000 [when Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon] was the outcome of a number of factors that played together to achieve that victory, which is the real boldness and sacrifices that were made by the resistance and the ability to stand up and do all these heroic things.
Secondly, Lebanese society was really behind the resistance. Like everywhere else in the world, it swims in friendly waters, it doesn’t swim in unfriendly waters. The Lebanese government – one has to always remember the achievement that was made by the late prime minister [Rafiq] Hariri in the April understanding [of 1996, when Israel and Hizbollah undertook to limit their attacks, particularly on civilians and infrastructure].
Effectively, immediately after the incident in which these two soldiers were kidnapped [in 2006], I brought the people of Hizbollah into my office and I had a long discussion with them because what happened was contrary to all the promises that were made to the Lebanese government.
I said, let’s put everything aside, now we have to work together to stand up to the pressures of the invasion. The successes that were made in not allowing the Israelis to score a victory was because of the bravery of Lebanese society. Q: One member of your government asked what is wrong with having a paramilitary force that is not part of the army.
A: This is something you might be able to have for a short period of time but it is not something that can be worked out for a long period of time, where you have areas that are beyond the control and the government and people who are allowed to do what they want without being subject to the rule of law.
Particularly in a society that is highly diverse and in which there is a certain group that monopolises this aspect of fighting the Israelis, this puts all the other groups outside and this in a diverse society makes the situation much more difficult.
You see, building a state is something that can not wait and it is unacceptable not to have a state. Even if you look at it from a theological point of view, even in Islam, there can’t be any situation in which you don’t have leadership. I recall a saying that was said by my father – two captains in one ship will send the ship sinking.
Q: Is there anything real in the reconciliation? Or is it just lip service?
A: It is not in anyone’s interests to resort to violence or the use of weapons because this will mean destruction. Since May, there has been a covenant among the Lebanese that weapons are not to be used domestically. Somebody broke this covenant. How to deal with it? By going all the way and fighting against your countrymen? This is unacceptable.
What was arrived at in the Doha agreement is not to translate a certain dominance through the use of weapons into political achievements and a pledge not to resort to the use of violence. This is something that fits into our thinking and this is in the interests of the country. We have to organise our differences and rely on democratic means and on the voters. The voters will be the judge in the end and one has to respect that. I agreed to the principle of having a reconciliation government, this is something that happens in many democracies, but ultimately, after the elections, I think that whoever gets the majority has to rule. In other words, if those who really believe in that opinion, if they win, they should take the lead. Q: What if the opposition wins? A: They should really take the responsibility and take the lead, and definitely bear all the consequences. This is democracy. Q: Do you think the March 14 [ruling coalition] can win?
A: I strongly believe that the commitment of the majority of the people is in getting back to a situation where the state is in control. If it is a state run by Hizbollah, fine. But somebody is in charge. There is one captain. This situation is unsustainable where there are many captains.
I believe in March 14 and the people who subscribe to what they say it stands for: democracy, openness, tolerance, independence, excellent relations with Syria. I
am fully in favour of excellent relations with Syria but on the basis of mutual respect and on an equal basis. Equal partners. Syria is our neighbour and we have a history of thousands of years together, and we will be together for thousands more. Israel is an enemy, Syria is not an enemy. But we cannot and we should not continue to be a satellite state to Syria.
These Sunni extremists are a scarecrow. I don’t mean that there are no Salafis [al-Qaeda-linked fundamentalist Sunni Muslims]. There are Salafis. But they are really creating this giant and magnifying it in order to create a perception that there is a need for a policeman. And at the same time, to intimidate. [If] they are coming from Anbar [in Iraq] they are coming from where, through where? They are coming through Syria? They are not coming by parachute. Instead of waiting for them to come in from Lebanon, they would do better to control them when they are coming from Iraq. All the people caught or killed in Nahr al-Bared did not come via legal Lebanese points of entry, they came through these porous points. Q: Are you ready for security coordination with Syria?
A: On any issue we are fully ready to talk like two mature brothers.
Syria is not an enemy it is a sister country, we are ready to co-operate on any matter that is good for both countries with all sincerity and openness. But as two mature brothers.
Q: It is surprising that you say Syria is not an enemy, when there is a suspicion that Syria was responsible for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri? A: This matter is in the hands of the investigators and there is an international tribunal. Q: Saad Hariri called for international help over the presence of Syrian troops at the border
A: I don’t think it is possible any more for Syrian troops to enter Lebanon. This is unacceptable domestically, in the Arab world and internationally. I don’t think this is in the mind of the Syrian leadership. This is not the way to co-operate with Lebanon. I am an Arab, I will always behave as an Arab and I will proud of that and convinced of that. I will not undermine that.
Q: Do you see the recent fighting in Tripoli as a Syrian/Saudi confrontation? A: I do not believe in any way whatsoever that the Saudis would do such a thing. They wouldn’t do it, they wouldn’t know how to do it. In Afghanistan they are not the ones who did it, they just provided money. I don’t think somebody kidnaps a brother and asks for a ransom from the third brother. I strongly believe that the people don’t want [the fighting], neither the Sunnis nor the Alawites. Q: Who has an interest in creating this situation?
A: You have to conclude that there are certain people who act like a gun for hire.
Q: What about the reports of people buying weapons during the ‘reconciliation’ period and that Hizbollah is rearming? A: There are some people who might be doing so but I don’t believe this will lead anywhere. The types of weapons that Hizbollah are acquiring are of a different magnitude. Q: What are the security services doing?
A: This is where we differ from Hizbollah. [Hassan] Nasrallah [Hizbollah leader] said go build your state and when you have finished come and talk to us. We have to build a state together. This is not the way. You can’t have a state if you’re not going to work for it. They want to get all the fruits of the state but not to comply with what the state is really for…
we want to have fair play, a democracy, and to work towards having a proper election. Q: When will Syria open its embassy in Beirut?
A: Very soon. The foreign minister will visit Damascus and we will talk about it. There has not been any agreement to determine a date. We have to take them at their word.
