مشكلة لبنان في إدارة علاقاته الخارجية لم تكن يوماً منفصلة عن مشكلته في إدارة علاقاته الداخلية، خصوصاً أن القوى المحلية تربط، صراحة، علاقاتها ومواقفها بتحالفاتها الخارجية. وهذا ينسحب على السياسيين والاقتصاديين والناشطين والإعلاميين أيضاً. لنأخذ، مثلاً، صاحب إحدى المؤسسات الإعلامية البارزة في لبنان، الذي تربطه صداقة بوزير الإعلام المستقيل جورج قرداحي. إذ إن هذا، عندما طالبه الأخير – من باب الصداقة – ألا يكون شريكاً في سفك دمه، ردّ بأنه يتقاضى راتبه من السعودية وليس من قرداحي نفسه.
الرواية – حتى ولو نفاها الطرفان – تعبّر عن طريقة تعامل اللبنانيين مع أزمات من هذا النوع. هل يمكن، مثلاً، أن نجد إعلامياً أو سياسياً أو ناشطاً أو حزباً أو رجل أعمال يرتبط بعمل أو علاقة دخل مع دول الخليج العربية، يبادر بانتقاد أي خطأ يقع في أي من هذه الدول. هل عثر أحد على ملاحظات نقدية لبرامج التدريس أو التعبئة الدينية أو السياسات الاقتصادية أو الاستهلاكية في هذه الدول، قبل أن نسأل عما إذا كان كل أدعياء الحريات قد علقوا على جريمة قتل وتقطيع الصحافي جمال الخاشقجي؟
الوثائق المسرّبة من عواصم ممالك القهر والموت كافية – ما نشر منها وما لم ينشر – لتشرح لنا طبيعة علاقة طبقة من السياسيين والإعلاميين والاقتصاديين مع هذه الدول وممثليها. ما من دونية يمكن أن تنزل إلى قعر أعمق مما حيث هم اليوم. لا يجرؤ أحد – أي أحد – على انتقاد أو توجيه ملاحظة. هل تتخيّلون، مثلاً، أنه يوم وقعت انفجارات في ميناء دبي في تموز الماضي، لم يجرؤ لبنانيون كثر على التواصل في ما بينهم للسؤال عما يحصل. تماماً كما هي الحال مع عاملين ومقيمين في السعودية ممن يتحدثون، عندما يعودون إلى بلدانهم، عن الحرب على اليمن وآثارها الداخلية، ويهمسون عن تعرّض قصور ملكية في الرياض لإصابات مباشرة بالقصف. أما السؤال حول كيفية تعامل اللبنانيين المقيمين هناك مع الإعلام الوارد من لبنان، فلهذا فصل آخر. إذ إن جلهم عمد إلى كل الخطوات التقنية التي تحول دون العثور في حواسيبهم أو هواتف أولادهم أو حتى في باقة القنوات الخاصة بشاشاتهم الصغيرة، على أي أثر قد يعرّضهم لـ«خطر» الاستماع أو قراءة أو متابعة ما يصدر عن جهات قريبة من محور المقاومة. وبالمناسبة، فإن الضغط في هذا المجال لم يعد يقتصر على العاملين اللبنانيين في السعودية، بل حتى على العاملين مع السعوديين ممن يقيمون في بلدان أخرى. وبلغت الأمور حدّ تجنّب وسائل إعلام لبنانية وعربية، قدر المستطاع، استضافة من يحتمل أن يوجه انتقادات مباشرة أو انتقادات لسياسات السعودية ودول الخليج.
الانقسام اللبناني لا يقتصر على الهوية الوطنية والسياسات الاقتصادية والاجتماعية بل حول مفهوم الكرامة أيضاً
عملياً، نحن في مواجهة آلة من الشر تقودها السعودية بمشاركة الغرب. وعندما يتجاوز رئيس فرنسا كل أطروحاته حول الحريات وحقوق الإنسان، ولا يخشى أن يصافح قاتلاً كمحمد بن سلمان، فهو يفعل ذلك لأنه يعرف أنه لا يوجد في فرنسا نفسها من يحاسبه، ولأنه يريد تحصيل ما أمكن من عقود توفر أموالاً لشركات بلاده، مع إدراكه بأن الرياض بقيادة ابن سلمان تتجه إلى تولي الإدارة المباشرة لعشرات الشركات التي كانت تتخذ من دبي أو الدوحة أو الكويت أو حتى المنامة مقراً لإداراتها الإقليمية، وبدأت إبلاغ شركات عالمية كبرى بأن عليها نقل مكاتبها الإقليمية إلى جدة أو إلى نيوم (بعد اكتمالها) تحت طائلة عدم التعاون معها (وزيارة السعودية من بوابة جدة تبدو تعايشاً سعودياً مع الوجهة الجديدة لابن سلمان بنقل كل شيء إلى جدة وإلى الساحل القريب من البحر الأحمر، ونيته جعل جدة العاصمة السياسية والتجارية والدينية ومنطلق الأنشطة السياحية والإعلامية). ولا يأخذ ابن سلمان بالاعتبار، في ذلك، غضب شيوخ أبو ظبي ودبي الذين باتوا يستشعرون هذه الخطوات التي ستدفع بعشرات الشركات للانتقال إلى السعودية، وبينها ما يشغّل عشرات الآلاف في الإمارات، كما هي الحال بالنسبة لوسائل إعلامية كبيرة تخشى على نفسها إن جرى إلزامها الانتقال إلى السعودية، وفي مقدمها شبكة «mbc».
عملياً، يتصرّف ماكرون في السعودية كأنه نعمة طعمة! الأخير مقاول مستعد لمراضاة آخر مولود في عائلة آل سعود إذا كان في ذلك ما يحفظ له عقود عمله في السعودية. وهذا الأخير، شأنه شأن غيره من رجال الأعمال في لبنان ومصر وسوريا والأردن، مستعد لممارسة كل أنواع الضغط في بلده لتحسين صورة السعودية. هذا، بالضبط، ما فعله ويفعله ماكرون الذي يسعى إلى تحقيق جملة من المكاسب في هذه المرحلة، لكنه لا يريد صرفها إلا في الانتخابات الرئاسية الفرنسية المقبلة. في هذه النقطة بالتحديد، نجح ماكرون في جرّ طبقة سياسية لبنانية بأكملها نحو مربعه، لخدمته في تنظيم علاقة خاصة مع الرياض لا نتائج لبنانية لها سوى أن «مملكة الخير» قد تفكّر في «العفو» عن لبنان، إذا ما استكمل خطوة استقالة قرداحي بخطوات عملية أخرى.
لكن ما هي هذه الخطوات؟
ظاهرياً، يحق لنجيب ميقاتي الزهو بأنه حقّق انتصاراً إعلامياً كبيراً في نجاحه بدفع قرداحي إلى الاستقالة، وهو يعتبر أنه انتصر على جمع كبير من القوى في لبنان، من حزب الله وميشال عون إلى سليمان فرنجية وآخرين، كما نجح في التنمّر على حلفائه – خصومه من نادي رؤساء الحكومات بأنه أقدر على الوصول إلى ابن سلمان منهم، بالتالي لا يحتاجهم لتحقيق ذلك، ومن دون أن يقدم تنازلات من كيسه. وفوق ذلك، انتزع التغطية التي تتيح له الاستمرار في الحكومة وطي صفحة «البحث» في استقالته أو استقالتها. لكن ميقاتي يعرف أن ما حصل في الرياض لا يعدو كونه كلاماً بكلام، لأن تحقيق ما تطلبه السعودية يتطلّب حرباً أهلية في لبنان. فالدب الداشر يريد من اللبنانيين جميعاً، ومن الفرنسيين أيضاً، الدخول في معركة مع حزب الله كرمى لعيونه، وإلا سيظل غاضباً… والويل لكم من غضبه. كل ذلك في مقابل «تنازله» بقبوله الاتصال بميقاتي، في حضور ماكرون وبإصرار منه، أو الطلب إلى وزير خارجيته فيصل بن فرحان تسهيل «زيارة عمرة» لرئيس الحكومة وترتيب لقاء معه، من دون ضمانة مسبقة بأن يستقبله ابن سلمان نفسه.
لكن، ما الذي حصّله لبنان من هذا كله؟
أمر واحد، وهو تأكيد أن الانقسام ليس فقط حول السياسات الخارجية والاقتصادية والمالية والإدارية والانتخابية، بل هو انقسام حول مفهوم الكرامة الوطنية، خصوصاً عندما لا يرف جفن جيش كبير من التافهين، سياسيين واقتصاديين ورجال أعمال وإعلاميين، إزاء ما حصل، بل يواصلون إعطاء الدروس في كيفية بناء العلاقات مع الدول… وإذا كانوا بهذه الوضاعة أمام ابن سلمان، فكيف ستكون صورتهم أمام ماكرون، وهم الذين يعانون دونية مستمرة تجاه الرجل الأبيض…
استنكر رؤساء الحكومات السابقون، فؤاد السنيورة وسعد الحريري وتمام سلام، «المواقف الخارجة عن الأصول والأعراف والمواثيق العربية والدبلوماسية والأخلاقية، التي صدرت عن وزير الإعلام في الحكومة جورج قرداحي، سواءٌ تلك التي أدلى بها قبل تشكيل الحكومة، أو بطبيعة التبريرات التي صدرت عنه بعد ذلك، لأنّها أصبحت تشكل ضربة قاصمة للعلاقات الأخوية والمواثيق والمصالح العربية المشتركة، التي تربط لبنان بالدول العربية الشقيقة، وتحديداً مع دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي، ولاسيما مع المملكة العربية السعودية».
وشددوا على أن «الخطوة الأولى المطلوبة، وفي الحد الأدنى، هي في أن يدرك الوزير المعني إلى ما أوصلته مواقفه من إِضرار بالمصلحة الوطنية العليا للبنان، وبالتالي، في أن يبادر ويسارع إلى تقديم استقالته»، معتبرين أن «استمرار قرداحي في الحكومة أصبح يشكّل خطراً على العلاقات اللبنانية- العربية، وعلى مصلحة لبنان وعلى مصالح اللبنانيين في دول الخليج العربي وفي العالم».
ورأى رؤساء الحكومات السابقون، أن «هذه الانحرافات والاختلالات الخطيرة في التوازنات الداخلية والخارجية للدولة اللبنانية، هي التي تفاقمت بدءاً من العام 2011، وتعاظمت منذ العام 2016، والتي ظهرت نتائجها المدمّرة من خلال جميع المؤشّرات الاقتصادية والمالية والنقدية، والتي كان من نتيجتها الانهيارات المعيشية، وكذلك على الصعد الوطنية والسياسية التي أصبح يئنّ منها اللبنانيون الآن. فلقد أصبح واضحاً أن لا حلول تكفي لمعالجة هذه الانهيارات التي يعاني منها لبنان واللبنانيون، من دون تصحيح وتصويب حقيقي لذلك الاختلال الكبير في السياسات المتّبعة من قبل الفرقاء المسيطرين على القرار في لبنان».
وأوضحوا أن «ازدواجية السلطة تفاقمت إلى أن ظهرت على السطح إطباق الدويلة على الدولة، فبات لبنان يتحمّل أوزار مواقف لا تمتّ لمصالحه بصلة، ولا تتناسب مع تقاليده ونمط عيشه وأصول العيش المشترك». وأضافوا: «لقد طفح الكيل أيها السادة، ولبنان لا يمكن أن يكون إلا عربياً مخلصاً متمسكاً بإخوانه الذين أسهموا في دعم استقلاله وحريّاته وسيادته وتألّقه وتفوّقه».
After the armed ambush in Tayouneh, former Lebanese Prime Ministers express their “deep shock and sorrow,” condemning the reprehensible events.
Former Prime Ministers have called for immunities to be dropped
Former Lebanese Prime Ministers Fouad Siniora, Saad Hariri, and Tammam Salam expressed their “deep shock and regret,” and completely condemned the reprehensible events which left seven martyrs in the Tayouneh (Beirut) area on Thursday.
The Ministers released a statement articulating that instead of directing efforts to agree on the adoption of reforms that would bring Lebanon out of its economic disaster, there are those who still try to distract and divert attention and attempt to push Lebanese people back to their sectarian and doctrinal squares and stir up strife.
The statement added that in light of the incident, the Ministers reiterate their firm position with a commitment to respect public freedoms, the first of which is the right to express an opinion and peaceful demonstration, and the inadmissibility of using violence in any form and under any circumstance.
On Thursday, October 14th, 7 peaceful protesters were martyred in the Tayouneh by snipers.
There is also a need, the statement added, to work through Parliament to issue a law that lifts immunities for everyone without exception, in order to achieve full and non-selective or fragmented justice.
Former ministers urged the Lebanese Army and security forces to use extreme vigilance in order to prevent all types of violence and shooting, as well as to promptly apprehend the shooters who perpetrated these crimes, in order to protect people, prevent assaults on them, and maintain civil peace.
A national tragedy
Lebanon mourned its martyrs on Friday in a warmhearted ceremony which was attended by the head of Hezbollah’s executive council Hashim Safi Al-Din. The official said the victims were murdered treacherously, adding that death and killing “do not scare us, and martyrdom is our dignity.”
Seven were martyred in the peaceful demonstrations, where protesters were taking a stance against the politicization of the Beirut Blast probe by Judge Tariq Bitar.
The kin of several martyrs held their funerals, and Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent reported, on Friday, that bitterness and sadness prevailed in Chiyah due to the treacherous ambush. Despite the feelings of grief and sorrow, the people of Chiyah were still insisting on averting the strife that brought Lebanon to the brink of civil war.
Our correspondent to the area reported that three funerals were held, and among them was that of Maryam Farhat, who was shot in her own home by a sniper.
Speech of Hezbollah’s Secretary General, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, tackling the latest developments – Tuesday 9/29/2020
I seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace be upon our Master and Prophet, the Seal of Prophets, Abi al-Qassem Muhammad Bin Abdullah and his good and pure household and his good and chosen companions and all the prophets and messengers.
Peace and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you all.
I haven’t addressed you for a month, since the tenth of Muharram. Important developments and events have taken place during the past few days and weeks, putting me at your service, God willing, to tackle these developments and topics.
The first point:
Let me start with the first point and perform a moral duty towards Kuwait and the people of Kuwait. I start with the first point, which is to offer condolences over the departure of His Highness the Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah to Kuwait, its people, the crown prince, the Emir’s family, the government, the National Assembly, and the people of Kuwait on this occasion.
Of course, we in Lebanon remember the late Emir’s personal and great role in ending the Lebanese civil war in the late 1980s. Likewise, the Lebanese people, us included, will never forget the distinguished position of the Emir, the government, the people, and the National Assembly of Kuwait during the July war and in the face of the “Israeli” aggression on Lebanon. The political position was clear and decisive. We will never forget their generous contribution to the reconstruction of what the Zionist aggression on Lebanon destroyed in 2006.
From our position as nationalists and a resistance movement in the face of the “Israeli” aggression and the Zionist project, we commend Kuwait’s coherent position, under the leadership of its late Emir, in the face of all the pressures imposed on Arab countries, especially the Gulf ones, to join the convoy of normalization.
Kuwait still maintains this honorable and coherent position that is consistent with its national, Arab, and Islamic commitments towards al-Quds and Palestine.
On this occasion, I ask Allah Almighty to grant the late Emir His mercy and forgiveness. I ask God Almighty to preserve Kuwait and its people and enable it to calmly transition to the new stage.
The second point:
We start with the local developments. This is also related to security. The second point concerns the events in the north. It begins with the security side. I call on the Lebanese to take note of what happened during the past few weeks in the town of Kaftoun where three of its youths and men were martyred. This in addition to the confrontations that took place between the Lebanese army and armed groups in the north, resulting in the martyrdom of Lebanese army officers and soldiers, as well as the great confrontation that took place in the Wadi Khaled area, fought by the Internal Security Forces, especially the Information Branch, with the support of the Lebanese army, achieving great accomplishments.
At this point, we, as Lebanese, must appreciate these efforts and these sacrifices, and we must also extend our condolences to the Lebanese Army leadership and the families of the martyrs of the Lebanese Army for the loss of their loved ones.
We must also commend these families for their patience, steadfastness, and enormous sacrifices in defending Lebanon, its safety and security. We must also praise the position of the people and their rallying around the army and security forces in the north, in the northern villages and towns where these confrontations took place.
By exposing these diverse groups, it has been revealed so far – from those killed, arrested, and identified – that there are groups made up of Lebanese, Syrians, and Palestinians who are armed with various weapons. According to the available information, quantities of explosive materials, weapons, and explosive belts were found with these groups. But the most dangerous were the mortar rounds and LAW missiles. This means that these groups were not only preparing for suicide attacks or small and limited operations here and there. But they were preparing themselves for a major military action.
In the coming days and weeks, investigations conducted by the security services might reveal to the Lebanese people the magnitude of the great achievement of the army, the internal security forces, and the Information Branch in the recent confrontations, as well as any calamity that was thwarted by the grace of God Almighty and the efforts of all these people in the north. In any case, we have to wait.
Regarding this point, if you remember correctly, I issued a warning a month ago and called on you to pay attention. I said that there was a revival of Daesh in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Unfortunately, some people responded with sometimes sharp, negative, and violent comments. In any case, hatred, blindness, and ignorance sometimes prevent some people from seeing the facts. This is primarily because they are unable to read what is happening in the region.
In our region, specifically after the “assassination of the era” by the United States of America that saw the targeting of martyr Commander Hajj Qassem Soleimani and martyr Commander Hajj Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, the Iraqi people’s demand for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, and the decision of the Iraqi parliament in this regard, the US started reviving Daesh. If you notice since that time, Daesh has returned to Iraq, launching operations and taking control of some territories, mountains, and valleys, storming and setting up ambushes.
They are in Syria as well, in Syria’s Jazira region. Daesh was resurrected in many areas and started its operations. It is natural that it starts preparations in Lebanon to justify the continuing presence of US forces in the region under the rubric of the international coalition to confront ISIS. It is also that the battle is not between one country against another. Here lies the problem of reading the situation in Lebanon. Some people in Lebanon always view Lebanon as an island isolated from everything that is happening in the region.
Lebanon is part of the region – in terms of events and its fate, its past, present, and future as well. Therefore, when Daesh is revived, it is revived in the entire region, and this is what is happening. These large groups have been raided and arrested. They are still searching for other groups, while others have not emerged yet. All these belong to Daesh. The investigations proved that these groups pledged allegiance to Daesh and follow it. They received instructions to recruit, organize, start formations, and prepare, awaiting zero hour. We do not even know what exactly what was being prepared for our country.
In this context, I once again call for caution and to be aware of what is being prepared for the region. When the Americans reach a dead end while confronting the people of the region and when they sense failure, they resort to these methods that we are all familiar with. This matter needs attention, caution, and awareness. It also requires everyone to stand behind the military and security institutions to confront this imminent and approaching danger.
The third point:
The third point tonight concerns the southern border. Along the border with occupied Palestine, the enemy’s army is still in the highest state of alert, hiding, exercising extreme caution, and attention. This is a good thing. Perhaps this is the longest period of time that the enemy’s army experienced such suffering on our southern borders with occupied Palestine since the establishment of the “Israeli” entity that usurped Palestine in 1948. Its soldiers do not dare to move. Sometimes at night, we might notice a tank moving here or there. It is not clear whether there are soldiers in the tank because they use automatic vehicles and tanks. In any case, we are following up. Our decision is still standing. We are following up, watching, and waiting patiently because as I said on the tenth of Muharram the important thing is to achieve the goal. We will see what will come in the coming days and weeks.
The fourth point:
Another point related to the “Israeli” issue. A little while ago, the prime minister of the enemy’s government was speaking at a live broadcast before the United Nations. Before I entered this place to talk to you, the brothers told me what he said. Some of what he said was to incite the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. As usual, he took out his maps, locations, etc. He talked about a location here between Beirut and the southern suburbs of Beirut. He claimed that this place is where Hezbollah stores rockets and that it was near a gas station. He then warned the Lebanese that if an explosion happens, it will be similar to the port blast.
Because there is no time now, I will rely on the brothers to call. Hezbollah’s media relations department are supposed to start making calls. I am talking to you now, and they may have started or they will start contacting the various media outlets to meet at a close point at 10 p.m. Since I am still giving my speech and I do not want to disrupt it… In any case, anyone who would like to go to that area from now, there is no problem. We will allow the media to enter this facility and see what’s in it. Let the whole world discover Netanyahu’s lie live on air. Of course, he finished his speech a little while ago. If there are missiles there, and now I am talking to you, and its 8:43 p.m. according to my time.
I think that if Hezbollah has placed dozens of missiles or even one missile there, it will not be able to transfer it within half an hour from my announcement. Of course, this will not be a permanent policy; this does not bind us, Hezbollah and the resistance, to the principle that whenever Netanyahu talks about a place, we call the media to check it out. This means that Netanyahu will have something for you to do every day.
However, we accepted to resort to this method because we understand the sensitivities surrounding the explosion that took place at the port on August 4 and the lies, deception, and injustice that befell us after the explosion. Any local and foreign media outlet that wants to go can coordinate with the media relations department from now. And at 10 p.m., the media relations department in coordination with the brothers will determine the rendezvous point and head to the facility from there.
And whoever wants to go now to make sure that we are not removing the rockets, that is not a problem. In any case, he specified the exact location. This is only for the Lebanese to be aware in the battle of awareness and incitement – we do not produce rockets neither in the Beirut port nor near a gas station. We know exactly where to store our missiles.
I move to the political aspect. In the internal political aspect, we have the issue of the government – meaning the formation of the new government – the French initiative, and the recent conference by the French President Mr. Macron. I would like to talk about this topic.
First:
Let me explain to the Lebanese public what is happening. There are some details that I will, of course, not delve into. There are also some facts that I will postpone talking about it to keep the doors open. But I would like to paint a clear picture – I think it will be sufficient – of what is happening. I will also talk about our remarks on the French President’s conference and where we are heading.
Regarding the government, after the port explosion, August 4, the resignation of Prime Minister Hassan Diab’s government, the visit of the French President to Lebanon, and the launch of the French initiative. Two meetings took place in the Pine Residence with the presence of the French President and eight parties, forces, bodies, or parliamentary blocs. In the second meeting, there were nine parties. An initiative was proposed. The text [of the initiative] is distributed and published in the media and on social media. People can read it, and there is nothing hidden regarding this topic. We all said we support and back the French initiative.
The first step is to form a new government. I will delve into the details shortly. The first step in the first stage is to designate a prime minister to form a government. I will say things as they are and mention names because the Lebanese people have the right to have clarity. Everything is clear because there are no secrets in Lebanon, nor am I revealing any. I am stating facts. Who are we going to designate?
We agreed. There is no problem with parliamentary blocs consulting each other. If Prime Minister Saad Hariri wants to be prime minister, it’s welcomed. We did not have a problem. If he liked to name someone, we see who he will name, and we discuss it among each other. We either accept it or not. This was the beginning of the discussions. Of course, during that period a club was formed. We call it the Prime Ministers Club.
We will talk about the club of the four former prime ministers more than once. Prime Minister [Salim] Al-Hoss (may God prolong his life) is still alive, and he is one of the former heads of government. Hence, this club is made up of the prime ministers of the previous four governments. Prime Minister Hassan Diab also became a former prime minister. So, they are two. However, this club started meeting.
They said that they met and sat with each other. We do not have a problem. On the contrary, we are calling for the broadest possible understanding between the political forces, parties, and blocs in Lebanon. They have representative blocs and they represent political forces, so they presented three names with the preference of Mr. Mustapha Adib, or that was our understanding. Of course, all indications suggested Mr. Mustapha Adib.
Of course, that night as people were all in a hurry and during the 15-day deadline, we asked about the man. The information we got was reasonable, good, and positives.
In order to facilitate matters, we did not set conditions or demanded to sit with him. We did not engage in a prior understanding. Now some people might say this was a mistake, while others might agree. This is another discussion. But we did so to make matters easy. We wanted to facilitate matters, and who is most important in the government? the prime minister. The most important thing in the government is the prime minister.
We relied on Allah Almighty and on the rule that – yes, we want a government to be formed with the widest representation and support so that it can do something at this difficult stage. We relied on God, and this step was accomplished. Excellent! Everyone was relaxed. The French President came on a second visit and met with some people after appointing Mr. Mustapha Adib. He said: “Please go ahead and begin. We want to complete this reform paper, etc.”
Following the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib, protocol meetings with the parliamentary blocs took place, and the matter was concluded. The prime minister-designate was asked to do so. Of course, he is a respectable man with high morals, and I do not have any remarks on him.
He was told to wait for the parliamentary blocs to negotiate with since they are the one who will give their vote of confidence to the government. It is not enough just to give a name. there might be blocs that might not give a name, but they can give a vote of confidence.
However, they did not talk to anyone. According to my information, no discussions, meetings, or extrapolation of opinions took place. The President of the Republic later had to send for some heads of blocs or representatives of blocs to discuss them. It was considered that there was no reason – I will say why – to even consult with the President of the Republic, who is in fact here not a political force, but according to the constitution, a partner in forming the government.
This means that from the start the prime minister-designate should go to him and discuss with him, not bring him some files. He should discuss with him the distribution of portfolios, the names of the ministers, the nature of the government, the perception of the government. This never happened, not even once. It is as if the government should be formed and the President would be told that this is the government, these are the names, this is the distribution of the portfolios. Then, President Aoun would either sign on the government or not. There is no third option. If he signs, it means that this is a de facto government. Neither the distribution of portfolios nor the names were discussed with him. what does mean? What is the most important authority the president has following the Taif Agreement? It is taking part in the formation of the government. It means that it is over.
And here the French must pay attention to where they are making mistakes. This means that they are covering a political process that would have led to the elimination of the most important remaining powers of the President of the Republic in Lebanon.
And if President Aoun did not sign, there will be an upheaval in the country. The media and the opponents are ready, and there is French pressure. If President Aoun does not sign, he will be accused of disrupting [the formation] to support Gebran Basil. So, nothing happened. I don’t know if there were negotiations with the Progressive Socialist Party or the [Lebanese Forces]. But I know that there were negotiations with the blocs that are our friends and allies and are the parliamentary majority. There were negotiations with us – for this reason or that – because they cannot overpass this component and duo – Hezbollah and the Amal Movement.
We went to the discussions. Of course, the one who was negotiating with us was not the prime minister-designate. We had no problem negotiating with anyone that is acting on behalf of the prime minister-designate or the four former prime ministers. But former Prime Minister Saad Hariri was negotiating with us. Of course, the discussion was calm, objective, scientific, and careful. We understood several points related to the government since the beginning of the discussions. There were some differences in opinion. The first point is that the government will be composed of 14 ministers.
The second point is rotating the portfolios. So basically, it means give us the Finance Ministry. The third point is that the prime minister-designate, i.e. us, that is the club of the four former prime ministers will be the one naming the ministers of all the sects – not just Sunni or Shiite ministers. No, Sunni, Shiite, Druze, and Christian ministers. The club will name them all. The fourth point is that they will specify how the portfolios will be distributed. Brothers, how are you going to distribute the portfolios? What will the Muslims take? What will the Christians take? The Shiites, the Sunnis, the Druze, the Maronites, the Catholics, the Armenians? There is no answer. This is up to them. This means that us and the rest of the people in the country just take not that the government will be made of 14 ministers.
This was the result. The discussion unfolded in a respectful manner, but the result was that we take note that there will be 14 ministers, of the rotation, of the distribution of portfolios, and of the names of the ministers that will be representing the sects.
We engaged in the discussions, and we agreed on the number of the ministers. It was concluded that a government made up of 30 ministers is tiring, even 24 ministers is too much. But 14, this means you are handing one person two ministries, at a time when a minister is given one ministry and is barely succeeding in running it.
This is one of the problems in the country. The competent ministers who are able to run their ministries, why do you want to give a minister two ministries. Let there be 18 or 20 ministers. The discussions regarding the number remained open, but the other party insisted on 14 ministers, knowing that most of the parliamentary blocs who were later consulted by the President, were against having 14 ministers and wanted the broadest possible representation.
We come to the second point: the rotation. We also disagreed on it. The discussion over the Finance Ministry has become known in the country. The third point, naming the ministers. Here, it is not intended only as naming the finance minister. Let us assume that certain portfolios are the responsibility of Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, or Druze ministers. They want to name those ministers, not the parliamentary blocs that represent these ministers’ sects or the parties that represent their sects. These ministers were elected by the Lebanese people and the people from their sects as well. But neither the sect nor the parties will name their ministers, they just have to take note.
Of course, we rejected this issue and was out of the question. It was not only the Shiite ministers. We consider this manner when someone wants to name all the ministers for all the sects in Lebanon a threat to the country.
Let’s go back a little bit. Let us talk about what the Taif Agreement, the constitutional powers, and customs tell you regarding the formation of the government. Talking about the formation of the government before the Taif Agreement is useless because we already have the Taif Agreement. Also talking about the formation of the government since the Taif Agreement until 2005 is useless; even though they might tell us that this is how it used to be during the Syrian tutelage or the Syrian administration.
From 2005 until today, most of the time you were a parliamentary majority and the main political forces in the country applying the Taif Agreement. The first government that was formed after the withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon was the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati. So far, people would agree on a prime minister. The prime minister then negotiates with the people. He negotiates with them, and no one negotiates on their behalf. They agree on the number, the distribution of the portfolios. The parliamentary blocs or the parties taking part name then ministers. The prime minister never discussed the names.
There was an amendment to this behavior or this custom that took place in 2005 with the government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab. We accepted it when discussions began that Mr. Muhammad Safadi or other figures might be nominated. We accepted this. There is no problem when the blocs or parties name someone to be head a certain ministry, for example.
The prime minister-designate can say that this person is not suitable for this position and can ask for another name. We were open to this process before the government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab. We applied this with the government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab. And we are ready to apply it again.
This is a positive progress, and this strengthens the powers of the prime minister. This does not weaken the prime minister. This was the prevailing custom regarding the prime minister from 2005 until today. He would agree with the parliamentary blocs and the main political forces that want to take part in the government. they would agree on the portfolios and the distribution. They name their ministers, and he did not discuss the names.
Of course, this is good. Now, we can argue with the names and refuse some, and whoever you refuse we put aside and suggest other names. In fact, this is a strengthening of the premiership position, unlike any stage from the beginning of the Taif Agreement until today.
Whoever wants to use sectarian language and say this is weakening the premiership position, not at all. This happened for the first or the second time. We accept it and consider it logical and natural, and there is no problem.
This remained a point of contention – the issue of distributing the portfolios. It was the same thing. Even with regard to the names, a couple were proposed that we had no problem with. We also told them. We told them in the end, this is subject to discussion. We can solve it together.
For example, some wanted non-partisans. There is no problem. This can be discussed. They said we want people who have not taken part on previous governments, new people. There is no problem. By God, if the prime minister-designate does not agree with the names, we told them there is no problem. All this is to simplify and not complicate the matter.
In any case, the answer came after all the discussions and on the last day of the 15-day deadline, the government will contain 14 ministers, knowing that all this did were not discussed with His Excellency the President as far as I know. They did not agree with him on whether there would be 14 or 20 ministers or how the portfolios would be distributed. Nothing of this sort.
We were back to the beginning again – a government made up of 14 ministers, rotation, they name the ministers, and distribute portfolios.
For us, this was not acceptable at all. And this is where things got stuck. Of course, you can discuss this method with relation to the customs from 2005 until today. To those who are talking about customs, these were never the customs in forming a government. you can even discuss this in relation to the constitution which includes an article that the government should include representatives of all the sects. This method is not in the Taif Agreement. The government, thus, became the authority and the decision maker. They said all the sects are represented in the government through representatives representing these sects.
I do not wish to infer from this text contained perhaps in Article 95, but rather I would like to say that at least debate this constitutionally. In any case, I do not want to delve into a constitutional debate, but these were not the norms that prevailed from 2005 until now.
Why do you now want to establish new norms that exclude parliamentary blocs, the parliamentary majority, the Lebanese president, and the political forces and confiscate the formation of the government in the interest of one group that represents part of the current parliamentary minority, even if we respect it and respect its representation and position? These are, however, new norms that go the constitution and democracy that Mr. Macron is demanding of us.
During the last few days of the 15-day deadline, the French intervened, calling everyone and pressuring them. They spoke to leaders and heads of political parties. Of course, the channel of communication with us was different. President Macron made good effort. But in which direction is that effort heading toward?
Regardless of the discussion that took place with others, I am talking about the discussion that took place with us. ‘Why are you obstructing? We want you to help and facilitate – of course, all this in a language of diplomacy that included pressure – otherwise, the consequences will be dire.’ This sort of talk.
We asked them: Our dear ones, our friends, does the French initiative say that the government has to have 14 ministers? They said: No. Does the French initiative say that the club of the four former prime ministers should name the ministers of all the sects in the government? They said: No. Does the French initiative say anything about this club distributing the portfolios among the sects? They said: No. Does the French initiative say anything about rotating the portfolios and take the Finance Ministry from this sect and give it to that sect? They said: No.
We have wished for a narrow government. 14, 12, 10, 18. The numbers are with you and how you call this matter is up to you.
So how are we blocking the French initiative? This is the discussion that took place between us. Since they spoke about this in the media, I am speaking about this on the media. They said, it is true. This, however, was never mentioned, and the text is there to prove it.
O Lebanese people, the text is on social networking sites. The French reform paper, which is the main article of the French initiative, does not include a government of 14 ministers, does not include rotation, does not indicate who appoints ministers, and it does not include who distributes the portfolios. These do not exist.
Allow me to continue laying down the details, and then I will mention our remarks. We reached a point where the French said: ‘We understand what you are saying. It is logical that the finance minister is a Shiite. There is no problem.’
I will not delve into discussion of why Amal and Hezbollah insist on this point. This point alone needs an explanation. But it will become clearer in my future addresses.
But allow the prime minister-designate to be the one to name. This means the club of the four former prime ministers. We told them that we are looking for a Shiite minister born of Shiite parents. We are insisting on a Shiite minister because it is a matter related to the decision-making process. Who does this minister follow when it comes to making decisions?
The club of the former heads of government can bring any Shiite employee who is 100% affiliated and loyal to them. But this is not what we are looking for. We are suggesting that the sect itself will name the minister responsible for a certain portfolio. For example, if a certain portfolio belongs to the Shiites, then the duo will be the one naming their minister. The prime minister-designate can reject this minister for as much as he wants until we agree on a suitable minister for this responsibility.
Of course, the idea was totally rejected by the club of the former prime ministers.
Later, former Prime Minister Saad Hariri came out and said that he accepts for one time that the finance minister be a Shiite, but the prime minister-designate will be the one to name him. We were already over this five days ago and that he drank the poison. There is no need for you, former prime minister, to drink the poison. God bless your heart, and may He keep you healthy. We can always go back and reach an understanding. There is no problem. But this is not the solution.
Then, the three former prime ministers say that they do not agree with what former Prime Minister Saad Hariri said. The whole matter is incomprehensible, “What do we want with it”.
We reached a point where there is a problem; we do not agree on the form of the government. We do not agree on the names of the ministers, on the rotation, or the distribution of the portfolios. The prime minister-designate, of course, apologized. I would like to point out that there was an idea of a fait accompli. I’m saying this so that I don’t accuses someone in precise. Let us form the government and ignore the rest. Let us name the ministers and then head to the President to sign. If he does not sign, he will face an upheaval. He will sign, though, because the Christians are in a difficult situation. The Free Patriotic movement is in a difficult situation, and the President wants his term to succeed. There are French pressure for the President to sign.
In any case, during the discussions between us and the side of the prime minister-designate, the man was clear. He said, ‘I came to be supported and positive and my government be supported by a large coalition so that I can help. I do not want to confront anyone, and if there is no agreement regarding the government, I will not form a confrontational government. The man was honest in his position and commitment, and he apologized.
Of course, we hoped that he would give more opportunities. Whether he could not handle it anymore or was asked to do so are details that I have no knowledge about.
I am still stating the facts and I will soon make our remarks.
Of course, the wave is already known since before the apology. The mass media machines and the writers, those groups that the American spoke about, had already begun to hold people responsible.
Whoever has a problem with the duo, Amal and Hezbollah, blamed the Shiite duo. There were those that focused on Hezbollah and those who attack President Aoun. The attack here focused on President Aoun and the duo, Amal and Hezbollah, because there were political orders issued.
The French were upset and announced that President Macron would like to hold a press conference. The Lebanese waited to see who the French would hold responsible. We all heard, we all heard President Macron’s press conference and the questions the Lebanese journalists bombarded him with.
I am done with listing the facts, and I would like to comment. In this context, the following points should be made clear to all:
First: The offer during last month, because the 15-day deadline has expired and another 15 days were added to it, so this makes a month. What was on the table? The formation of a salvation government and not to form a club of former prime ministers whereby all parliamentary blocs and parties in the country as well as the Parliament Speaker and the President hand over the country to this club unconditionally, without any discussions and questions.
What kind of government? what kind of distribution? What is its policy? There is no discussion. Just go and accept the government that they will form; otherwise, sanctions and French pressure will follow. You will be held responsible before the Lebanese people and before the international community, and you will appear as the ones obstructing. This is what was on offer last month, and of course it was based on a wrong reading.
The most important thing about this offer was whether the Amal-Hezbollah duo would accept or not. I will talk about things frankly. Basically, they did not speak with any other party. They did not discuss or negotiate, and they considered that if the Amal-Hezbollah duo agreed, no one will be able to stand in the way of this project. In the end, if President Aoun wants to talk about constitutional powers, he will be left alone, confronted and pressured. I am stating this just for you to know what position we were in.
So, the offer on the table during the past month was not a salvation government, but rather a government named by the club of former prime ministers, with 14 ministers and a board of directors of specialists and employees whose political decision absolutely stems from one party that is part of the parliamentary minority in Lebanon and represents one political team that is considered the largest group of Lebanon’s Sunni community. However, it is not correct to say that it represents the whole Sunni sect. There are many Sunni representatives who were elected by Sunni votes and have representation in the Sunni community.
This was what was on offer, and everyone was required to accept it. Of course, there was a misreading here – the people get scared, the country was in a difficult situation, people are on the streets, and pressure and sanctions were coming. The two ministers, Ali Khalil and Youssef Fenianos, were slapped with sanctions. There were also threats to sanction 94 people, the French pressure, etc.
Thus, we are a party that they take into account. So, they are telling you that if you obstruct, there will be grave consequences regarding this matter. This is how the discussions with us went. We don’t know how it went with the rest – what they threatened or pressured them with. This is first.
A. Regarding this point, I would like to say this method will not succeed in Lebanon, whoever its supporters and sponsors are, be it America, France, Europe, the international community, the Arab League, the whole world, the universe. This method does not work in Lebanon. You are wasting time.
B. President Macron accused us of intimidating the people. Those who are accusing us of intimidation are the ones who, during the past month, have practiced a policy of intimidation against the leaders, the blocs, the political parties and forces, in order to force a government of this kind. They resorted to threats, punishments, and heading towards the worse. You saw the language they used, and this was shown in the media. This does not work.
Second: We rejected this formula not because we want to be in the government or not. The main question that was before us was, is it in the interest of Lebanon and its people and saving Lebanon? Now we have two stages. One stage moves from bad to good and one from bad to worse. Where are we heading towards? Who are we handing the rescue ship over to? Who is the captain? The four prime ministers were prime ministers since 2005 up until a few months ago. Is this wrong or right? They have been prime ministers for 15 years. They are not the only ones to bear the responsibility. We all bear the responsibility. But they bear the bulk of the responsibility because they were heads of government and had ministers to represent them in the government.
On the contrary, I hold them responsible and also ask them to take responsibility, not to run away from bearing the responsibility, to cooperate, to understand, and join hands with us. Can saving the country be achieved with you handing over the country to the party that bears the bulk of the responsibility for the reason we are here now and for the situation over the past 15 years? What logic is this? Whose logic is this?
Third: To us, here I will talk about Hezbollah specifically. Regarding our brothers in the Amal movement, they have always taken part in governments even before we participated. In 2005, you know that we were not in an atmosphere to take part in governments. After 2005, why?
During the 2018 electoral campaign, I spoke a lot about this issue, and I said that we should take part in the governments, not greed for a position, a ministry, salary, or money. Thank God, Allah has given us from his grace. We do not need salaries from the state, budgets, or this state’s money. However, I spoke the reason clearly. Now, I will add a second reason.
The reason we were talking about is to protect the resistance. We have explained this, and there is no need to repeat it. Now, some of our loving friends might say that Hezbollah does not need to take part in the government to protect the resistance. This is a respectable point of view, but we disagree with this opinion. More than one friend has said this. But we disagree with them. Why?
We have to take part in the government to protect the resistance and prevent another May 5, 2008 government from emerging. Who were in the May 5, 2008 government? The people who want to form the new government, a government similar to the May 5, 2008 government.
A dangerous decision was taken by the May 5, 2008 government that would have led to a confrontation between the Lebanese Army and the resistance. It was an American-“Israeli”-Saudi project. This matter was overcome. Frankly, we are not afraid the leadership of the army, the army establishment, its officers, or its soldiers. This is a national institution. Yes, we have the right to be cautious of the political authority and the political decision, and we decided to take part in the government to protect the resistance. This is first.
The second reason that I will add now is, during all the previous discussions, Hezbollah was admonished for choosing to resist and fight in Syria, Iraq, Palestine, etc. We were admonished for neglecting the economic situation, the financial situation, and the living situation. Accusations and equations were formulated – the arms in exchange for corruption, and the economy in exchange for the resistance. this sort of talk.
I do not want to discuss this remark, but I want to use it to say that we cannot be absent from this government today, frankly, out of fear for what is left of Lebanon, economically, financially and on every level. We fear for Lebanon and the Lebanese people. I mentioned that I do not fear for Hezbollah. We are afraid for the country, for the people, and the future of this country. How?
What if a government we are not sure whether it believes in blankly signing on the terms of the International Monetary Fund was formed? I am not accusing anyone, but this is a possibility. I know people’s convictions. Should this be allowed? Should we as a parliamentary bloc in the country give our vote of confidence to a government I already know would blankly sign with the IMF without any negotiations and the people should agree and sign? Do we not have the right to be afraid of a government that, under the pretext of the financial situation, could sell state property?
This is suggested in some plans – selling state property and privatization under the pretext that we want to bring money to pay off the debt and the deficit, etc. Don’t we have the right to be afraid of such a government? I tell you, in the previous governments where we were the half or the majority and not the third that disrupted, we used to always have disagreements. We are not alone on the issue of increasing the Value Added Tax.
If a government was formed in the way it was going to be formed a few days ago, the first decision would have been to increase VAT on everything. The tax policy would have been imposed on the people. And we promised the Lebanese people that we will not allow or accept it. Will the people be able to handle a new VAT?
A few cents were added to the WhatsApp application, and the people took to the streets on October 17th. Don’t we have the right to be afraid of a government when we do not know what will become of the depositors’ money?
No, my dears, we fear for our country, our people, state property, and the depositors’ money. We have concerns regarding the conditions of the IMF, and we are afraid of going from bad to worse. I am not claiming to have magical solutions. We have proposed alternatives related to oil derivatives from Iran, which will save the Lebanese treasury billions of dollars, and are related to going eastward without leaving the West – if possible, with Russia, china, Iraq, Iran, etc. They were concerned about these proposals, especially the Americans. There are alternative propositions. But we are not saying that we are the alternative. We are calling on everyone to cooperate.
But, frankly, we can no longer, due to the resistance or anything else, turn our backs, close our eyes, and accept anyone to form a government and run the country and manage the financial and economic situations. This is no longer permissible at all. Therefore, to us, the issue is not a matter of power or being the authority. This is in the past, and these are also principles for what is to come, when we talk about any government that will be formed in the future.
Regarding President Macron’s conference, I will discuss the content and the form. I will quickly read them.
1- In terms of content, the French president held the Lebanese political forces responsible for disrupting the initiative. I repeat and ask him what we asked his delegates. Did the French initiative say that the four former heads of government alone should form the government and impose it on the political blocs and the Lebanese President, determine portfolios and distribute them, and name ministers from all the sects? Yes or no? The answer given to us was “no.” This was not in the French initiative. Then I look for the one responsible for causing the first stage to fail – those who benefited from the French initiative and pressure to impose such a government, to impose new customs, and to score political gains that they weren’t able to achieve in the past 15 years with your [French] cover and pressure.
If you knew and understood what was happening, then this is a catastrophe and no longer an initiative. There is a project for a group to take control of the whole country and eliminate all political forces. And if you were not aware of this, it is fine. Now you are aware, so deal with the issue in the second stage of the French initiative. Hence, there is no need to blame everyone for being responsible for the failure. You have to specify exactly who bears the responsibility!
2- When you blamed the failure on all the political forces, I do not want to defend Hezbollah, on the contrary, I wish that President Macron says that Hezbollah is the one that caused the failure and pardon the rest of the political forces. O brother, there are political forces in Lebanon that were not even consulted or negotiated with. They do not know what is happening. We, who were negotiating did not know the names and the portfolios, how will they know when they are clueless? How can they be held responsible? Later when it comes to the form, you’ll be accused. You accused all the heads of institutions. Fine, the Parliament Speaker is part of the duo. But where did the President make a mistake? Where did he fall short for them to hold him accountable? He [Macron] held everyone responsible. He said heads of institutions and political forces. This includes the Lebanese President. Where did the man go wrong? What were his shortcomings to be held responsible? He was not even informed about the government, the distribution of the portfolios, and the names of the ministers!
3- We are being held responsible and taking the country to the worse situation. No, on the contrary. What we did was prevent the country from going from bad to worse. We are still in a bad situation, and we hope that the initiative rethinks its way of thinking and the Lebanese people cooperate with each other so that we can move from bad to good.
4- What are the promises that we made and did not fulfill? A paper was presented on the table. Our brother, Hajj Muhammad Raad, may God protect him, the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, and the rightly representative of Hezbollah, of course read them. Frankly, he said: We agree with 90% of what is in the paper. Macron asked him if he was sure that we agree on 90 %. He said, yes. Of course, they did not specify the 10% that we disapproved. But let us assume that we said we agree 100%, this paper does not include this means and the formation of the government. Then, Mr. Macron, what did we promise and commit to and not keep it for us to be not respectable people who do not respect their promises? This is the harshest thing to be said. At the beginning, you said a national unity government. Then, you back tracked. We understood that. Some said it was a mistake in translation. Others said it was American and Saudi pressure. Fine. The best thing you said is that it should be a government made up of independent people with important competencies. But who will name these independent individuals? The initiative did not mention who will name them. No one has agreed with anyone on the process of naming these ministers.
You do not want the parties to name them. But former Prime Minister Saad Hariri is head of a party, former Prime Minister Najib Mikati is the leader of a party, President Fouad Siniora is a member of a party. Why is one party allowed to name ministers while the rest are not allowed?
Your Excellency the President and all the Lebanese at the table, we have not committed ourselves to pursuing a government whatever it is. We have not committed ourselves to accepting to hand over the country to some government. No one agreed with anyone how the government will be formed and who will name ministers. This was not mentioned in the plan or in the initiative. This initiative was used to impose this thought on the political blocs and the Lebanese parties.
Our friends and foes, Your Excellency, the French President, know that we fulfill our promises, our commitments, and our credibility to both the enemy and the friend. The manner in which we conduct our dealings is known. When we promise, we are known to fulfill our promises and sacrifice in order to fulfill our promises. We might upset our friends and allies to fulfill our promises. I do not want to give examples, but this is a well-known topic.
One of the points that I want to comment on is that no one should use promises of financial aid to write off the main political forces in the country and sidestep the election results. President Macron says: The Amal Movement and Hezbollah, Hezbollah and Speaker Berri, the Shiites must choose Democracy or worst [situation].
We chose democracy. What you ask of us is inconsistent with democracy. If elections are not democracy, then what is democracy? Democracy in 2018 produced a parliamentary majority. You, Mr. President, are asking the parliamentary majority to bow and hand over the country to the minority, to a part of the parliamentary minority. We chose the parliamentary and municipal elections and chose the parliament. We chose partnership. We did not choose the worst or war. We did not attack anyone. The Zionists are the ones who launched a war on our country, occupied our land, and confiscated our goods, and they are the ones who are threatening our country.
We did not go to Syria to fight civilians. We went to Syria with the approval of the Syrian government to fight the groups that you say are terrorist and takfiri, and which France is part of the international coalition that is fighting them. You are in Syria illegally and without the approval of the Syrian government. We did not go to fight civilians in Syria. We are fighting there to defend our country, to defend Lebanon, Syria, and the region against the most dangerous project in the history of the region after the Zionist project, which is the project of takfirist terrorism. We are not part of the corrupt class. We did not take money from the state’s funds. The source of our money is known. It is no secret. We do not have funds, financial revenues, or partisan projects that we want to protect. Everyone else is free to say whatever they want about themselves.
But we do not accept anyone to speak with us in this language or thinking of us in this way. When we talk about obstruction and facilitation, we accepted the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib without prior understandings and conditions. We only built on goodwill. But this means that we are heading towards compromise and facilitations. As for surrender, it is a different story. Blindly handing over the country is another matter.
We are not terrorizing or intimidating anyone in Lebanon. Unfortunately, President Macron stated this, even if it came in the context of being skeptical about the election results. You can ask your embassy and your intelligence services in Lebanon. They will tell you how small Lebanon is and how many politicians, media outlets, social networking sites, and newspapers insult us and falsely accuse us day and night. They are living and are not afraid of anyone. If they were afraid, they would not dare open their mouths against Arab countries under your protection and are your friends and allies. No one dares write a tweet to express an opposing stance against normalization, or support, or criticize a government, king, or prince. No, we are not intimidating anyone. If anyone is afraid, it is their business. But we are not intimidating anyone. You can come see for yourself and ask the people in the country.
5- The last point in the matter. I hope that the French administration will not listen to some of the Lebanese, and if it has this point of view to deal with it. Not everything is – Iran asked to block the French initiative, Iran requested strictness in naming ministers, Iran asked the duo to insist on the Ministry of Finance. This is nonsense and baseless. Iran is not like this. Iran is not like you. Iran does not interfere in the Lebanese affairs. We are the decision-makers when it comes to Lebanese affairs. We decide what we want to do in regarding matters in Lebanon. We, in Hezbollah, and the duo, Hezbollah and Amal, and we with our allies decide.
Iran does not interfere or dictate. At the very least, in the past 20 years and more than 20 years. I am talking about a long time ago, ever since I took the post of secretary general because the direct contact is with me. From 1992, anyone who spoke to Iran, Iran told them to speak with the brothers in Lebanon – talk to them, discuss with them, the decision is theirs. Every once in a while, they point to an Iranian-American agreement. Hezbollah is disrupting and waiting [an Iranian-American agreement]. There is neither an American-Iranian agreement nor American-Iranian negotiations. At the very least, in the elections, this is settled. The Iranians announced this. Iran does not want to pressure France for a certain interest in the Security Council. What is this nonsense! If this ignorance will continue and this wrong way of thinking remains, this means we will never reach any results in Lebanon because wrong introductions will always lead to wrong results.
Mr. Macron, if you want to search outside Lebanon for the one who caused the failure of your initiative, then look for the Americans who imposed sanctions and are threatening to impose sanctions. Look for King Salman and his speech at the United Nations.
Regarding the form, on what basis did you say that all political forces, the heads of constitutional institutions committed treason and betrayal – regardless of the translation? How? Who said they committed treason?
1- First, we don’t allow anyone to accuse us and say that we committed treason. We categorically reject and condemn this condescending behavior against us and all the political forces in Lebanon. We do not accept neither this language nor this approach. We do not accept anyone doubting whether we are respectable people and a respectable party or whether we respect our promises and respect others. We do not accept anyone to accuse us of corruption. If the French friends have files on ministers from Hezbollah, deputies from Hezbollah, and officials from Hezbollah that we took money from the state, I accept, go ahead, and present them to the Lebanese judiciary. We will hand over anyone who has a corruption file of this sort. And this is a real challenge, and I have spoken about this a hundred times, and I will repeat and say it again.
But the rhetoric of the corrupt class, the corrupt political class, and the corrupt political forces is not acceptable. We welcomed President Macron when he visited Lebanon and welcomed the French initiative, but not for him to be a public prosecutor, an investigator, a judge, and a ruler of Lebanon. No, we welcomed President Macron and the French initiative as friends who love Lebanon, want to help it emerge from its crises, and want to bring different points of view closer. This means friendship, care, mediation, brotherhood, and love. But there is never a mandate for anyone, not for the French President or for anyone to be a guardian, a ruler, or a judge of Lebanon. It is not to my knowledge that the Lebanese have taken a decision of this kind. That is why we hope that this method, form, and content be reviewed.
In this part, I conclude and say that we welcomed the French initiative. And today, His Excellency the President extended. It is also welcomed. We still welcome the French initiative, and we are ready for dialogue, cooperation, openness, and to hold discussions with the French, with all the friends of Lebanon, and with all the political forces in Lebanon. But the bullying that was practiced during the past month, surpassed the facts that took place during the past month. This cannot continue; otherwise, we will not reach a conclusion. We are ready, and we hope for this initiative to be successful, and we support its continuation. We are betting on it as everyone else. But I call for the reconsideration of the method, the way of action, the understanding, the analysis, the conclusion, and even the management and the language of communication. The most important thing is respect and people’s dignities.
In the past two days, the national dignity was violated. There are people who are angry at parties and at a political class. They have the right to be angry, but there was something else. When anyone generalizes an idea to include everyone, institutions, parties and political forces, this in fact violates national dignity. This is unacceptable. We know that the French are moralists and diplomatic and speak in a beautiful language. Even if the content is a little harsh, yet they try to beautify it. I do not know what happened on Sunday night.
In any case, we are open to anything that benefits our country. Now in the new phase, it is natural after what happened that the parliamentary blocs will return and talk to each other, consult and communicate. The French say that they will continue with the initiative. That’s good. But what are the ideas? What are the new foundations? I will not present neither ideas nor solutions, nor will I set limits for us as Hezbollah because this issue needs to be discussed with our allies and our friends. But we must all not despair. We must work together and understand one another. We still insist on everyone’s cooperation and everyone’s understanding, as well as positivity among everyone so that we can cross over from a bad stage to a good one and not from bad to worse.
The fifth point:
I will say a few words in this last section. We must say something about this. In the past weeks, a new development took place in the region – the Kingdom of Bahrain, the State of Bahrain joined the caravan of normalization with the United Arab Emirates. We must praise the position of the people of Bahrain. The youth took to the streets despite the repression and dangers. The religious scholars in Bahrain openly published a list of their names and clearly and strongly condemned this normalization. We must speak highly of Bahraini religious scholars and leaders inside of Bahrain and abroad, headed by His Eminence Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim (may God protect him), the parties and forces, the political associations, various figures, and some representatives in the House of Representatives.
Of course, this is an honorable position. This is Bahrain, and these are the people of Bahrain. The government, the king, the administration, or the authority that took this decision, we all know that this authority does make its own decision in the first place. It is dealt with as one of the Saudi provinces. Our bet is on the Bahraini people and pave the way for our bet on others. Of course, salutations to the patient, courageous, dear, and loyal people of Bahrain.
Despite their wounds and the presence of large numbers of their youth, religious scholars, leaders, and symbols being in prisons, they did not remain silent. They were not afraid. They expressed their position courageously, braved the bullets, and were prepared to be arrested. They said the word of truth that resonated in a time of silence, betrayal, and submission. We repeat and say that our bet is on the people.
There are honorable positions being expressed in the Arab world: the official and popular Tunisian position, the official and popular Algerian position, and other positions in more than one country and place.
Of course, today we want to appeal to the Sudanese people, whose history we know, the history of their sacrifices, their jihad, their struggle against the colonialists, and their tragedies. Do not allow them to subjugate you in the name of the terror list or the economic situation. The people of Sudan, its parties, and the elites must issue a statement because it seems that the country most eligible now to be on the line [of normalization] is Sudan.
In any case, even if governments normalized, they see it as a great achievement. There is no doubt that this is a bad thing. But this is not the basis of the equation. Our bet lies on the people. This is the basis. Camp David is more than forty years old. But are the Egyptian people normalizing? What about the Jordanian people and normalization? There is no normalization. Neither the Egyptians nor the Jordanians normalized.
The ruler of the Emirates says, “We are tired of wars and sacrifices.”
O my dear, you neither fought nor made sacrifices. The Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Lebanese, and the Jordanians are the ones who made sacrifices. These are the people that made sacrifices and did not normalize.
And as long as this is the people’s choice and as long as the Palestinian people hold on to their rights, we are not concerned about everything that is happening in the region. Those who normalized and those who are now standing in line have decidedly lost their Akhira [afterlife]. Their worldly calculations will fail, and they will discover that even their worldly accounts are wrong. These accounts will not last.
There is no time left to explain this point. Until here is enough. However, this meaning will be confirmed in the near future.
May Allah grant you wellness. Peace and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you.
رئيس الحكومة السابق سعد الحريري في حركة سياسية جديدة، وضاغطة يستأنف فيها نشاطه السياسيّ الأوليّ بعد سبات له أسبابه الخارجية، يريد العودة إلى رئاسة الحكومة على متن سياسات فرنسية خارجية تمهد له تأييد التغطيات الخارجية للبنان المتجسدة في الأميركيين والإيرانيين وآل سعود.
هذا يضع مستقبل المعادلة التي بناها والده رفيق الحريري في إطار معادلة جديدة تتأسس على نمط جديد من العمل في المعادلة السياسية اللبنانية.
فرفيق الحريري استثمر منذ بداية مشروعه في معادلة ثلاثية سعودية أميركية وسورية أصبحت إيرانية بعد انسحاب الجيش السوري من لبنان في 2005 وكان يريد الإمساك بكامل لبنان السياسي من خلال تطويع القادة السياسيين للطوائف ومرجعياتهم الدينية.
هذا يؤكد انه كان يعمل على إلحاق كامل لبنان في إطار حريرية سياسية مدعومة دولياً وإقليمياً.
هذا لا ينفي نجاح رفيق الحريري في كسب الجمهور الأكبر في الطائفة السنية بل معظمها، لكنه لم يذهب ناحية التحريض المذهبي او الطائفي بل للتأكيد على مرجعيته الداخلية انطلاقاً من طرابلس وبيروت، وذلك لمنع أي اختراقات سنيّة قد تعرقل أدواره اللبنانية.
لذلك حاول المرحوم رفيق الحريري الاستفادة من المشروع الأميركي الذي بدأ بالحركة منذ 1990 بعد عام فقط على انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي، معتبراً أن المنطقة ذاهبة نحو سلام مع «اسرائيل»، فراهن عليها معتقداً بإمكانية أداء دور سياسي كبير في الداخل السوري.
يتضح أن مشروع الرئيس السابق رفيق الحريري ذهب نحو الإمساك بكامل الطوائف مراهناً على ولاءاتها الغربية من جهة وانتهاء أدوار حزب الله من جهة ثانية، وارتباط زعاماتها بتمويل أحزابهم من الوظائف في الادارات والمال العام من جهة ثالثة.
هذه مداميك مرحلة الحريري الأب فماذا عن معادلة نجله سعد؟
الاختلاف كبير لسببين مركزيين: التبدل الذي حدث في المشهد الإقليمي شاملاً موازنات القوى فيه وصعود أدوار حزب الله وتحالفاته في الداخل اللبناني، وما كان ممكناً في زمن «الرفيق» أصبح متعذراً في مرحلة ابنه او المنتمين اليه سياسياً مثل السنيورة وسلام والميقاتي.
إقليمياً تعرض المشروع الاقليمي الاميركي لإخفاقات بنيوية في اليمن وسورية والعراق، ومنيت «اسرائيل» بهزيمتين بين الألفين وألفين وستة وسقط المشروع الإرهابي بالقضاء على دولة خلافة كادت أن تتحقق على اراضٍ سورية وعراقية.
ما استتبع صعوداً اضافياً لحزب الله باعتباره جزءاً اساسياً من المنتصرين عسكرياً.
هذا هو الفارق بين الشيخ رفيق الذي أتى الى لبنان بمشروع اميركي مقبل على المنطقة وبين الشيخ سعد الذي يحاول إعادة «قولبة» مشروع ابيه و»دوزنته» ليتلاءم مع الموازنات الجديدة، وعصر الانسحاب الاميركي القريب من الشرق الاوسط.
لذلك فهو مضطر لهذه الهندسة الجديدة على أساس أن الدور السعودي الكبير يتراجع بسرعة.
الأمر الذي اضطره لاستعمال الدور الفرنسي الطموح وقدرته على إعادة كسب السياسة السعوديّة الى جانبه.
داخلياً يعرف الشيخ سعد أن مشروع أبيه بالسيطرة على كامل طوائف لبنان من خلال الإمساك بالكاردينال صفير ووليد جنبلاط والعلاقات العميقة مع الرئيس بري. هذه مرحلة انتهت لمصلحة تأسيس دفاعات خاصة بكل مذهب، وله رئيسه ومعادلته الحزبية او السياسية بما يؤكد أن على الشيخ سعد العودة بقوة الى الملاذ السنيّ والسيطرة عليه. فبذلك يستطيع الإمساك الدائم برئاسة الحكومة عبر وسيلتين: سيطرته على المركز الأوسع والأكبر في السنية السياسية في لبنان وإقرار مبدأ عرفي يقضي بتسلم القوى السياسية الأكبر في كل مذهب للمواقع الدستورية الخاصة بها في رئاسات الجمهورية والنواب والحكومة.
لإنجاح هذه الطريقة، المطلوب من الشيخ سعد العودة الى اسلوب التحشيد المذهبي بالتحريض السياسي على قيادات من مذاهب وطوائف اخرى، والعودة الى أسلوب توزيع المكرمات والنجدات عند الأزمات. وهذا ما يجري تطبيقه حالياً من قبل الشيخ سعد ومعظم قيادات الطوائف والمذاهب اللبنانية الأخرى ومن دون استثناء.
يتضح أن الحريرية السياسية انتقلت نهائياً من معادلة كانت تعمل على الإمساك بكامل لبنان السياسي الطوائفي الى مستوى التموضع في إطار مذهبها السنيّ واستخدامه لتحقيق مكانة تقليديّة على غرار صائب سلام وتقي الدين الصلح وأمين الحافظ وآخرين.
هذا هو سعد الحريري الجديد بجولته على رؤساء البلاد وقادة الأحزاب بمواكبة العودة الى تجميع قادة الأحياء والعائلات في صيدا وبيروت وطرابلس وعكار والبقاع الغربي وإقليم الخروب.
لذلك فإن زمن سعد الحريري هو مثابة مدد لنظام طائفيّ كان منهكاً وعلى وشك الانهيار، فتأتي المرحلة الجديدة لإعادة نصب الحواجز المذهبيّة بما يوفر دعماً كبيراً لنظام 1948 و1990 – 2020 وتمديد عمر سياسيّ لطائفية يعمل كامل الوسط السياسي الحالي على تعميقها في المجتمع اللبناني لتحقيق مصالحهم وسياساتهم.
Having failed to take advantage of the crisis to hand over Lebanon to the Hariri-Miqati-Siniora clique, main responsible for the decay of Lebanon since 15 years, as well as to the diktats of the IMF, Macron crossed all the red lines, unable to understand that France no longer runs the show in the Middle East. Hezbollah, for its part, has firmly denounced his conduct while respecting the rules of diplomacy, as a mature actor who knows its political and military power and has nothing to prove. As for French mainstream newspapers like Le Monde, as the sycophant journalists they are, they engage in gross falsifications to support the official narrative, taking advantage of their virtual monopoly on information.
Read Nasrallah’s response in full below the article.
On September 26, Lebanese Prime Minister Mustapha Adib announced his resignation, having been unable to form a new government by the deadline. He was appointed on August 31, in the wake of the French initiative aimed at forming a government within 15 days. The previous government led by Hassan Diab resigned days after the Beirut port explosion on August 4, which killed some 200 people and left thousands homeless.
The Western media have blamed the Hezbollah-Amal tandem for this failure, accusing them of having demanded that the Ministry of Finance be devolved to a Shiite, allegedly violating the requirement of independence and neutrality, or even, according to France’s main newspaper Le Monde, trampling upon customs and the Lebanese Constitution:
But [Nasrallah] did not explain the Shiite duo’s stubbornness in [wanting] to control the financial portfolio, contrary to the Constitution and customary rules.
In a press conference on Sunday, September 27 that lasted nearly an hour, held in linkup between Paris and Beirut, Macron strongly criticized the Lebanese political class in general and Hezbollah in particular, using reproaches and epithets light-years away from traditional diplomatic language (is this why the Élysée does not provide transcripts of presidential speeches?). Macron notably denounced
[…] a political class subjected to the deadly game of corruption and terror. […] The leaders of the Lebanese institutions did not wish, clearly, resolutely, explicitly, did not wish to respect the commitment made to France and to the international community. […] The Lebanese authorities and political forces have chosen to privilege their partisan and individual interests to the detriment of the general interest of the country. […] They made the choice to hand over Lebanon to the game of foreign powers, to condemn it to chaos instead of allowing it to benefit from the international aid which the Lebanese people need. […]
Lebanese politicians have made it impossible, by their dark maneuvers, to form a mission government capable of carrying out the reforms. Some first preferred to consolidate the unity of their camp rather than that of the Lebanese as a whole by negotiating among themselves to better trap others, by reintroducing a sectarian criterion that was not agreed by all for the appointment of ministers, as if competence was related to faith. The others believed they could impose the choices of their party and of Hezbollah in the formation of the government, in total contradiction with the needs of Lebanon and with the commitments explicitly taken withme on September 1. They did not want to make any concessions, until the end. Hezbollah cannot simultaneously be an army at war with Israel, a militia unleashed against civilians in Syria and a respectable party in Lebanon. He must not think he is stronger than he is and it is up to him to show that he respects the Lebanese as a whole. In recent days he has clearly shown the opposite. […]
No one has lived up to the commitments made on September 1. All of the (Lebanese ruling class) bet on the worst with the sole aim of saving themselves, of saving the interests of their family, of their clan. They won’t. To all of them I say today that none of them can win against the others. I therefore decide to take good note of this collective betrayal and of the refusal of Lebanese officials to commit in good faith to the contract that France offered them on September 1. They bear full responsibility. It will be heavy. They will have to answer for it before the Lebanese people. […]
I assert very clearly this evening my condemnation of all political leaders. […]
[The Lebanese leaders] are afraid of Hezbollah, they are afraid of war. […]
The question really is in the hands of President [of the Parliament Nabih] Berri and Hezbollah: do you want the politics of the worst today, or do you want to re-engage the Shiite camp in the camp of democracy and Lebanon’s interest? You cannot claim to be a political force in a democratic country by terrorizing with arms and you cannot be around the table durably if you do not keep your commitments around the table. […]
I am ashamed. I am ashamed for your leaders. […]
You have a system of terror that has taken hold and that Hezbollah has imposed. […]
Macron therefore accused the entire Lebanese political class, all officials and all institutions, without exception, in extremely serious terms (traitors, perjurers, corrupt, terrorists, profiteers, clans, despising the people, untrustworthy, etc.), while absolving France of all responsibility, of any breach: “Where are the responsibilities? They are not those of France.” And clearly, according to him, the greatest part of the responsibility for this failure would fall on Hezbollah, characterized as “militia, terrorist group and political force”, and threatened with sanctions or even of war if it does not come to a better frame of mind:
Sanctions don’t seem like the right instrument at this stage, [but] I haven’t ruled them out at some point. […] There are two lines, there are not three: there is a line which, I believe, is still the one followed by the international community, which is to get behind our initiative and the (French) roadmap. There is another line which may seem attractive and which has been taken by some, which is what I would call the worst-case policy, which is to say basically, we must now declare war on Hezbollah, and therefore Lebanon must collapse with Hezbollah.
So many bellicose declarations which did not prevent the virtuoso of 49-3 [clause of the French Constitution allowing the government to compel the majority if reluctant to adopt a text without a vote, and end any obstruction from the opposition] and torturer of the Yellow Vests from concluding by emphasizing his humble and prudent attitude (“I have a lot of humility”) and his respect for the sovereignty of the peoples (“The line which is mine everywhere [is] that of respecting the sovereignty of peoples”). One can only imagine what the gist of his speech would have been without these valuable qualities.
In a speech of September 29 that lasted nearly an hour and a half, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, responded at length to what can only be characterized as a blatant attack by the French President, trampling on the proprieties and on the sovereignty of Lebanon, to the point that even the pro-NATO Le Monde characterized Macron’s intervention as an “incendiary speech”, a “cannon blast” by a “professor scolding a class of dunces, who cannot open their mouth in front of him”. But we should not rely on the mainstream media to know the content of the speech of the Secretary General of Hezbollah. Here is a list of the approximations, omissions and falsifications of Le Monde in its account of Nasrallah’s intervention, reviewed and corrected by the statements of the chief interested party.
“An agreement on the content, but the style is to be reviewed, according to the head of the Lebanese Hezbollah”. Thus begins the brief, free-access article in Le Monde devoted to this speech. Yet Nasrallah made it clear that he denounced both the style and content of the French attitude, and especially developed his criticism of the substance, which occupied almost all of his speech. If he remarked that “We know the French as well educated people, diplomats, who use a (tempered) language even if the content may be vehement, trying to wrap it with conciliatory words. I don’t understand what happened to them on Sunday night.”, he stated unequivocally that he was not only denouncing “the style”, but that “the procedures, the format and the content” of Paris’ approach must be “thoroughly reviewed”: “I call on (France) to (fully) reconsider things at the level of its conduct, actions, understanding, analysis, conclusions, and even management and language used.”
In essence, what did the French initiative plan? According to Le Monde,
Lebanese political parties, including Hezbollah, had pledged to Mr. Macron, who came to Beirut in early September, to form a cabinet of “competent” and “independent” ministers from the political swamp within two weeks, condition for the release of international aid essential to the recovery of the country in crisis.
Nasrallah confirms this point, adding a crucial question:
All you talked about was forming a mission government with competent, independent ministers. Very well. But these independent ministers, who should name them? Who was to name them? It was not mentioned in the (French) initiative. No one agreed on how to appoint these ministers.
The very appointment of the Prime Minister responsible for forming the government was not negotiated. In fact, Mustapha Adib was appointed by a Club made up arbitrarily of four political opponents of Hezbollah, the former Prime Ministers Fouad Siniora, Najib Miqati, Tammam Salam and Saad Hariri, leaders, members or affiliated to the pro-Western 14-March alliance. Nasrallah reports it in detail:
At this time, a Club was formed,the Club of 4 (former) Prime Ministers. It is not fair to speak absolutely of a “Former Prime Ministers’ Club”, because the former Prime Minister (Salim) el-Hoss is still alive, and was not a member. Prime Minister Hassan Diab is also a former Prime Minister today (and was not present in this Club), so that makes two former Prime Ministers (who were excluded from this committee). This Club started to meet, as they declared, on several occasions, [and] they came up with three names, (clearly) favoring Professor Mustapha Adib. All the clues showed that they had appointed Professor Mustapha Adib as Prime Minister.
That night, as everyone was in a hurry and we had a 15-day deadline (to form the government), we inquired about the identity of this man, his liabilities and the data concerning him (which was) reasonable and positive, and in order to make things easier, we have not placed any conditions (on his appointment as Prime Minister), we have not asked for an encounter with him, we have not made any prior agreement with him. Some people are now saying that it was a mistake from our side, but whether (this decision) was right or wrong is not the point. Either way, our endorsement clearly expresses our desire to make things easier. We wanted to facilitate (the success of this French initiative). Because in any government, the most important figure is that of the head of government! But we accepted this suggestion (of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) on the assumption that this government would be formed on the basis of the broadest representation, and the broadest support (of all political forces), so that it would be able to move forward and get things done in such difficult circumstances.
If Nasrallah stressed the notable absence of Hassan Diab and Salim el-Hoss, two former Prime Ministers of Lebanon still alive, in the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” who chose the new Head of government, it is because their presence would have allowed for a better representation of the balance of political forces in Lebanon. Indeed, these 2 independent figures did not belong to the March 14 alliance, and were closer to Hezbollah and its allies of the March 8 alliance, which is the country’s leading political force, holding the majority in the Parliament since the 2018 elections. In fact, it is the parliamentary minority of March 14, notoriously hostile to Hezbollah, that chose the Prime Minister, who must be Sunni according to the Constitution but can belong to any political party. But from a conciliatory perspective, and with the understanding that the government must be formed in a concerted and representative manner, Hezbollah did not object:
If we have to talk about who obstructed and who facilitated (the French initiative), I would remind you that we accepted the appointment of Mustapha Adib without prior agreement, without conditions or discussions. We have presumed good intentions (from everyone). But it was in the perspective of moving towards an agreement and facilitating (the joint formation of the government).
However, contrary to expectations, there was no consultation for the formation of the government thereafter, neither with the President of the Republic, nor with the political forces represented in Parliament, as Nasrallah points out:
After the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib, […] there was no discussion, no interview, no debate, no solicitation of each other’s opinions (in order to form the government). To the point that subsequently, the President of the Republic was forced to summon heads or representatives of parliamentary groups to discuss it with them. Because (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) considered that (any consultation) was useless. And I’ll explain why. Even with the President of the Republic, who in reality does not represent a (particular) political force, but is, according to the Constitution, a partner in the formation of the government, his role not being limited only to accepting or rejecting (such or such government). He had the right, from the start, to discuss with the Head of Government the distribution of portfolios, the names of ministers, the nature of the government, etc. But it hasn’t happened once. Not even once. It’s like it was just a matter of forming a government and submitting it to President Aoun for approval or rejection, with no (possible discussion or) alternative route.
If he signs (his approval for such a government), it will mean a de facto government which will not have been discussed with him at all, neither at the level of its nature, nor at the level of the distribution of portfolios, nor at the level of the names of ministers, which amounts to remove the main remaining prerogative devolved to the President of the Republic after the Taif agreement, namely his participation in the formation of the government. And France must be aware of its (serious) mistake —I am now starting my denunciation. France was covering a political operation which would have led to the removal of the main remaining prerogative of the President of the Lebanese Republic. And if President Aoun refused to sign, the country would be turned upside down, the media & political opponents were ready (to go wild), as was French pressure, accusing President Aoun of obstruction (and sabotage). Of course, I don’t know if there were any negotiations with the Progressive Party or the Lebanese Forces (which are part of the March 14 minority alliance), but I know that there have been no negotiations with the political components who are our friends & allies, and with whom we hold the majority in Parliament.
Has Hezbollah gone against “the Constitution and customary rules” by demanding a say in the formation of government and the appointment of Shiite ministers, as Le Monde claims? Or was it his opponents who decided to ignore both the Constitution and customary rules and use the alleged advantage conferred on them by the initiative of their French godfather? The Lebanese Constitution, mentioned without further details by Le Monde, stipulates that
The President of the Republic shall designate the Prime Minister in consultation with the President of the Chamber of Deputies based on binding parliamentary consultations, the content of which he shall formally disclose to the latter. [Art. 53]
The Prime Minister is the Head of Government […]. He shall conduct the parliamentary consultations for forming the government. He shall sign, with the President of the Republic, the Decree of its formation. [Art. 64]
The sectarian groups shall be represented in a just and equitable manner in the formation of the Cabinet. [Art. 95]
The constitutional requirement to involve both the President of the Republic and the Parliament in the appointment of the Prime Minister and the formation of the government, flouted by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, is manifest; and in a country where the President is elected by Parliament, it is eminently more democratic to let the Parliament, elected by direct universal suffrage (albeit on a confessional basis), form the government, than to leave it entirely to the prerogative of an individual appointed by 4 personalities belonging to the same faith and to the same political force, in addition to being a minority, even if it enjoys the favors of France. Moreover, in a restricted-access article, Le Monde half-heartedly acknowledges the preponderant influence of the pro-Western alliance of March 14 in the formation of the Adib government:
“We were being asked to hand over the country to the Club of former Prime Ministers,”Nasrallah added, referring to the alliance Saad Hariri forged with three of his predecessors to closely direct Mustapha Adib. But he did not explain the stubbornness of the Shiite duo in controlling the financial portfolio, contrary to the Constitution and customary rules.
Without specifying the fact that a single political group, the March 14 alliance, had appointed the Prime Minister, Le Monde presents the requirement of Hezbollah’s participation as contrary to customs and to the Constitution, while it is quite the opposite : it was a democratic and constitutional requirement, by virtue of which the Parliament, which directly represents the people, unlike the Prime Minister and the President who represent them indirectly, must participate in the formation of the government. Hezbollah is not claiming, as Macron absurdly claims, that “competence [is] linked to confession”, nor is he rejecting, as Le Monde maintains, “the idea of a collective of experts chosen on the basis of their skills”. Given the sectarian nature of the voting system in Lebanon, it is obvious that the democratic requirement must involve the representatives of each political force elected to Parliament in the choice of the holder of the ministerial portfolios which will be attributed to them, on both a political and religious basis. Far from a derogation to the “customary rule”, this is how ALL previous governments have been formed, without exception, since 2005: after an agreement of the political forces on the name of the Prime Minister, the nature of the government and the distribution of portfolios were negotiated between them, and each parliamentary group appointed its ministers, accepted without discussion by the Head of government. The only innovation in this scheme was that of Hassan Diab in 2019, when he allowed himself to negotiate the names of the proposed ministers until a personality accepted by both parties was proposed.
If Hezbollah is indeed the only party to have opposed the plan put forward by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, it is quite simply because it is the only party which has been consulted by Saad Hariri, acting as the representative of both Prime Minister Mustapha Adib and the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. But the law, use and common sense made it necessary for Hariri & Adib to meet with all the forces represented in Parliament, though they declined to. Contrary to what Le Monde claims, it was not simply a question of the Minister of Finance and Hezbollah, and far from remaining silent on this subject, Nasrallah justified at length the requirement to see each politico-confessional force appoint its own minister:
Certainly there were negotiations with us, that is true. Because naturally, for one reason or another, the force represented by Hezbollah and Amal could not be ignored [the Shiites are the main community in Lebanon, and the first political force, all their deputies being part of the Amal- Hezbollah alliance].
The first point of negotiation was that [Hariri demanded that] the government be formed of 14 ministers. The second point was the rotation of ministerial portfolios, implying that we abandon the Ministry of Finance. The third point is that all the ministers had to be appointed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” (who are Sunnis) for all faiths: Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Druze, they wanted to appoint all the ministers. Fourth, they alone were to decide on the distribution of ministerial portfolios among the various faiths. When we asked them how they were going to proceed, they did not answer, everything was left to their whim. In short, they were deciding everything, and we and the other forces in the country just had to take good note (of their unilateral decision). […]
Why do you want to impose new uses, suppress (the role of) parliamentary groups and the parliamentary majority, suppress the President of the Republic and suppress political forces, and monopolize the formation of the government in the interest of a single party, which represents only a part of the current parliamentary minority, although we respect it and respect its position? But this is a whole new way of doing things, which contradicts the traditions, the Constitution and the democracy that Mr. Macron demands of us! […]
If it had been agreed that political parties do not participate in their appointment, Saad Hariri is the leader of a party (and therefore should not have participated). Just as Najib Miqati heads a party, and Fouad Siniora is a member of a party. Why should one political color have the right to appoint all ministers, while all other forces do not have this right? […]
In this project, the most important thing was to see whether the Hezbollah-Amal duo accepted the plan or not. I am saying it frankly. That’s why they didn’t negotiate, discuss and argue with anyone else. They thought that if Hezbollah and Amal walked along, no one would be able to stop this project, because even if President Aoun wanted to exercise his constitutional prerogatives, he would find himself isolated, confronted and put under pressure.
The French initiative, which presented itself as a desire to overcome political and confessional divisions, therefore quickly turned out as a juggernaut aiming to erase all the components of Lebanese political life, except one, that of the pro-Western and pro-French March 14 led by Saad Hariri, who wanted to monopolize the process of forming the government and therefore monopolize the political decision. This was obviously unacceptable to the March 8 parliamentary majority, as Nasrallah explained:
What has been proposed during the last month is not a government to save Lebanon. What was proposed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” is that in the end, all the parliamentary groups of the country, all the Lebanese political forces, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Republic hand over the country to them, unconditionally, without discussion, without debate, and without asking any questions. What will be the nature of the government, who will be in it, how will the ministries be distributed, etc., none of these points was to be debated, and it was necessary to rely blindly on the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”and accept the government that they were preparing to form (unilaterally), otherwise the sanctions would fall, as would the French pressures which would make us bear the responsibility in the eyes of the Lebanese people and the international community, presenting us as saboteurs. This is the project that has been put forward for one month. […]
If we have rejected this form of government, it is not because we would or would not want to be in the government. The fundamental question we are asking ourselves is that of the interests of Lebanon, of the Lebanese people, the recovery of the country… Because we can go from bad to better, and from bad to worse. The question is, in which direction are we going? To whom were we about to hand over the ark of our salvation? Who would have been at the helm of the saving ship? These 4 Prime Ministers were Prime Ministers from 2005 until just a few months ago. Isn’t it true? They have been Heads of government for 15 years. They are not the only ones responsible for the current situation, of course. We all bear some responsibility. But it is they who bear the greatest burden of responsibility. For they were the Heads of government, and had ministers & officials in (all) (successive) governments. I pin responsibility on them, and I ask them to take responsibility and not to run away from (it). We must help each other, cooperate, work hand in hand. But to believe that we can save Lebanon by handing over the country to the political force that bears the greatest responsibility for the situation we have arrived at for 15 years is completely illogical and even absurd.
The French initiative was indeed planning to put old wine in new wineskins, closely “directed” by the old wineskins which would simply remain behind the scenes but continue to pull the strings: it is the complete opposite of the revival touted by the marketing of the French roadmap, and of Macron’s promises that “no one will give money as long as those who led this villainous system for decades are there and as long as the system will be held by the same people with the same rules”. It is precisely the status quo and the impunity of the “profiteers” that Paris wanted to maintain.
Faced with the irreconcilability of the two parties, Hariri refusing to negotiate, and Hezbollah understandably refusing to give in to this attempted hold-up which tried to instrumentalize the emotion aroused by the national disaster of the explosion of the port of Beirut, France then intervened, asking Hezbollah why it was obstructing government formation and putting pressure on it. Here is Hezbollah’s response, as reported by Nasrallah:
We replied: “O our dear ones, o our friends, did the French initiative provide for a government of 14 ministers?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for a Club made up of 4 former Prime Ministers to appoint all the ministers of the government for all faiths?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide that they would distribute the portfolios between faiths on their own?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for the rotation of portfolios, and that the Ministry of Finance would be removed from this faith in favor of another?” They said no, and said they just wanted a smaller government —14, 12, 10, 18 or 20 ministers, and it was up to us to come to an agreement on their appointment. Great. So how are we obstructing the French initiative? Because the debate is now between us and France. They have spoken publicly, to the media, so I do the same. What I am saying is true. The roadmap of the French initiative is accessible to the public, O Lebanese people, and does not mention any of this. […]
In the end, France accepted our view that the Ministry of Finance should remain with the Shiites —I will make clear later the reason for the insistence on this issue and the importance of this point—, but asked that he be appointed by the Head of Government, that is to say by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. But we replied that we are not simply looking for the minister to be Shiite and from Shiite parents. We are committed to this minister being Shia because of the decisions he will have to make, and on which we must have a say (it is an issue of political allegiance, and not merely of faith). The Head of Government is capable of finding a Shiite official who is 100% loyal and sincere to him. This is not what we are looking for. We want each denomination to appoint its ministers, even if the Head of Government can refuse names 10, 20 or 30 times, until one can be found that works for all. But this idea was categorically rejected by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”.
The negotiations were therefore only a vain masquerade, and Saad Hariri wanted, as in 2005 when he capitalized on the emotion aroused by the assassination of his father Rafik Hariri, to fully seize the power, by appointing so-called technocrats selected not so much for their competence, which must be determined collegially and not by co-option, but for their political allegiance. Scarlett Haddad sums it up in L’Orient le Jour, a French-speaking and pro-Western Lebanese daily:
Under the pretext of having chosen Mustapha Adib, the former Prime Ministers have arrogated themselves the right to dictate his attitude, when they should, like the others, have stayed aside. Moreover, in his three meetings with the two Shiite emissaries Ali Hassan Khalil and Hussein Khalil, Mustapha Adib repeated on several occasions that he was obliged to conform to the will of the four former Prime Ministers, since they had named him. In this regard, Amal and Hezbollah recall that they accepted his appointment (the former Prime Ministers had sent a list of three names, two of which were unacceptable for Amal and Hezbollah), but that does not mean that they accept to be totally marginalized in the formation of government. Ultimately, they could have agreed to be, if that was the case for all political parties. But they found out that they were excluded, even from the choice of the Shiite ministers, not to mention the Finance portfolio, while the former Prime Ministers themselves intervene in all the decisions of Mustapha Adib, and that set off their alarm bells. Moreover, this issue was raised during the meeting between Hezbollah’s head of external relations, Ammar Moussaoui, and the French ambassador, Bruno Foucher. But despite this metting, Adib had not changed his style. He did hold two meetings with the Shiite emissaries, but without clearly answering any of their questions. Amal and Hezbollah thought that a trap was set for them. They had the feeling of reliving the situation of 2005: under the shock of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the Future Movement and the PSP then hastened to conclude with them the famous quadripartite agreement to wrest the parliamentary majority and then turn against them by excluding them from power. Thus, the two parties had the feeling that their opponents were once again seeking to take advantage of an immense tragedy to initially exclude them from executive power, before turning against them. […] And now? The circles close to the Shiite formations believe that it is still quite possible to save the French initiative. But this requires respect for political and community balances.
None of these essential facts is reflected in Le Monde’s report, which suggests that all political parties agreed to pull back in the best interests of Lebanon, while Hezbollah would have rejected any compromise and got tough, caring about nothing but the conservation of its weapons:
Tuesday evening, Hassan Nasrallah raised the one once again, stressing the need for his party to be part of the government, through partisans or not, in order to “protect the back of the resistance”.
This falsification is perhaps the most blatant of all of Le Monde’s lies, and aims to describe Hezbollah as a party from abroad which has nothing to do with the well-being of the Lebanese and only wishes to preserve its military arsenal, supposedly guarantor of its political strength. In fact, Nasrallah precisely said the opposite. In 2005, he explained, Hezbollah had indeed decided to join the government “to protect the back of the Resistance”. But today, he continued, the situation is very different, Hezbollah having nothing to fear for itself, and it is only for Lebanon that it is worried:
I want to explain why, quite frankly, it is impossible for us to be absent from the government. Quite frankly, we fear for what’s left of Lebanon, economically, financially, and in every way. We are afraid for Lebanon and for the Lebanese people. I have already said that we are not afraid for Hezbollah (which would survive and maintain its power even if Lebanon collapsed, because Iran will always be there), but for the country, for the people, for the future of this country. If a government had been formed (without us), how would we know that it wasn’t going to sign a blank check to the IMF and give in to all its demands without discussion? I’m not accusing anyone but it’s a possibility. I know each other’s beliefs (and the March 14 submission to the West). As a parliamentary group, are we going to give our confidence to a government knowing, or very strongly presuming, that it will blindly sign the IMF’s roadmap, without discussion? Whatever the conditions of the IMF, Lebanon would comply. Should we not be afraid that a government, using the pretext of our financial situation or any other pretext, sells national assets? It is already proposed in some projects to sell State property (massive privatization). Should liquidation of Lebanon’s assets be carried out on the pretext of the need to obtain money to pay off the debt, remedy the paralysis, etc., etc., etc.? Shouldn’t we be afraid of such a government, when, and I solemnly assert this to you, during previous governments, two-thirds or more of the ministers bitterly defended an increase in VAT? If the intended government had been formed by Mustapha Adib, the first decision he would have made was to increase VAT on everything. The tax policy would have hit the people, while we promised the Lebanese people that we would not allow it and would not accept it. Can our people endure an increase in VAT? Because of a proposed tax of a few cents on Whatsapp calls, people took to the streets on October 17 (2019). Shouldn’t we fear a government with which we do not know what will happen to the savings of the people in the banks? No our dear ones, we fear for our country, for our people, for national assets, for the savings of the inhabitants. We fear the IMF conditions and we fear to go from a bad situation to a much worse situation.
Though Western media often obscure this reality, Hezbollah is not merely a formidable anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist and sovereignist armed force close to Iran (while its Lebanese adversaries are mere tools of the Washington-Paris-Riyadh Axis) and a Shiite Islamist party representing the largest demographic community in Lebanon; it is also a progressive social force in the service of the most deprived, opposed to the ultraliberal doxa defended by the West and its godchildren of March 14. It is not to protect its weapons that Hezbollah wants to participate in the government, it is above all to protect the sovereignty of Lebanon and the purchasing power of the most humble Lebanese, who would be abused by the March 14 oligarchy ruled by billionaires like Hariri and Miqati.
In conclusion, Nasrallah denounced Macron’s attempt to put Lebanon under trusteeship, and the real attack against Lebanon’s national dignity that his speech constituted, calling on him to renounce interference, pressure and threats:
We welcomed President Macron as a friend of Lebanon, who loves and wants to help Lebanon, get it out of its crises, bring together divergent points of view: this is the way (genuine) friendship, benevolence, mediation, fraternity and love (are expressed). But in no case can there be for anyone, be it the French President or anyone else, the power to impose himself as guardian, governor, ruler, judge & executioner of Lebanon. To my knowledge, the Lebanese have never taken such a decision. […]
I would have liked President Macron to say that it was (only) Hezbollah that thwarted the initiative, no problem, and I wish he had spared the rest of the political forces.[…] There is nothing more important than respect. There is nothing more important than the dignity of people. What was violated two days ago (during Macron’s intervention) was national dignity. […] Whoever stands up and accuses everyone without distinction —institutions, parties, political forces, etc.—, in truth this undermines the national dignity and it is unacceptable.
This (paternalist) conduct and this way of doing things will never succeed in Lebanon, whatever the identity of those who exercise them and of those who support them. Whether it is the United States, France, Europe, the international community, the Arab League, the planet or even the whole universe, the language of threats will never work with us. This will never work in Lebanon, and whoever you are, you are wasting your time (trying to intimidate us).
President Macron accused us of terrorizing people, but those who accuse us of intimidating are those who have exercised a policy of intimidation during the past month, against the Presidents (of the Republic, of the Council of Ministers and of the Parliament), parliamentary groups, and political parties & forces in order to impose such a government. The threats, the sanctions, the dangers (mentioned), the idea that we’d be heading for the worst (namely war against Hezbollah), etc. You saw the language (used by Macron). All of this is now public. But it won’t work.
Le Monde‘s approximations and falsifications aim both to denigrate Hezbollah, presented as an instrument of Iran indifferent to the fate of Lebanon and the Lebanese, while it is its best defender, and to perpetuate the myth of French influence in the Middle East by validating Macron’s approach, allegedly accepted even by his fiercest opponents despite some criticism about the style. These illusions may flatter Macron’s oversized ego, but encourage him to keep his doomed paternalistic and neo-colonialist posture. By perpetuating this ignorance, France is only moving further away from Lebanon and the Middle East in general, where its once dominant role is now largely eroded and will be nothing but a bad memory tomorrow.
***
Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on September 29, 2020.
We translate in full the central part of the speech devoted to the failure of the French initiative and to Macron’s press conference, key passages of which we have quoted above (emboldened in the transcript).
In introduction and conclusion, Nasrallah briefly touched on the role of the United States in the resurgence of ISIS in Lebanon and elsewhere, the situation in southern Lebanon and the unprecedented disappearance of occupying forces along the entire length of the border since several months, driven awat by fear of an inevitable Hezbollah response, Netanyahu’s recent lies about stockpiles of missiles stored in urban areas of Beirut and the Bahrain-Israel deal, doomed to fail as all the Arab-Israeli peace treaties because the peoples won’t ever accept them.
[…] Regarding the internal political situation, I will address the issue of the government, the formation of the new government, the French initiative, and the recent press conference of French President Macron. I want to bring this up first to explain to Lebanese public opinion what happened —of course, there are details that I will only cover briefly, and some truths that I will keep hidden for now, in order to leave the doors open, but I want to present a sufficient picture, I consider that it will be sufficient to understand what happened. And I also want to express our comments on President Macron’s press conference, and about where we are headed.
Regarding the government, after the explosion of the (Beirut) port on August 4, 2020, and the resignation of the government of Hassan Diab, as well as the visit of the French President to Lebanon, and the launch of the French initiative, there were two meetings at the Résidence des Pins (residence of the French Ambassador to Lebanon), in the presence of the French President and 8 parties, political forces or parliamentary groups, which became 9 during the second meeting. An initiative has been presented, the text of which is present and circulated in the media and on social networks, and anyone can refer to it, nothing being hidden about it. We have all said that we support the French initiative. The first step was the formation of a new government. I will get to that in detail in a moment. The first step in the first phase was to appoint the Prime Minister who would form a government. I will tell it as it happened, citing the names, because the Lebanese people have the right to know things clearly. Nothing is secret, and there are no secrets in Lebanon, but I will talk about the facts.
Who were we going to name as Prime Minister? We have agreed that the parliamentary groups will consult on this matter, no problem. We said we would have no problem with the Prime Minister being Saad Hariri, if he wanted to. If he wanted to nominate someone, we had to see who he was going to suggest, and discuss it among ourselves, and accept or not. These were the initial discussions. At this time, a Club was formed, which I will call the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, because I will often talk about it, the Club of 4 (former) Prime Ministers (Fouad Siniora, Najib Miqati, Tammam Salam and Saad Hariri). It is not fair to speak absolutely of a “Former Prime Ministers’ Club”, because the former Prime Minister (Salim) el-Hoss is still alive, and was not a member. This Club was therefore made up of the last 4 Prime Ministers. Prime Minister Hassan Diab is also a former Prime Minister today (and was not present in this Club), so that makes two former Prime Ministers (who were excluded from this committee). This Club started to meet, as they declared, on several occasions, which is not a problem for us, on the contrary, because we want the greatest understanding between the different forces, movements and political parties of Lebanon, and these people have parliamentary groups and represent political forces. So they came up with three names, (clearly) favoring Professor Mustapha Adib, at least that’s what we understood. All the clues showed that they had appointed Professor Mustapha Adib as Prime Minister.
That night, as everyone was in a hurry and we had a 15-day deadline (to form the government), we inquired about the identity of this man, his liabilities and the data concerning him (which was) reasonable and positive, and in order to make things easier, we have not placed any conditions (on his appointment as Prime Minister), we have not asked for an encounter with him, we have not made any prior agreement with him. Some people are now saying that it was a mistake from our side, but whether (this decision) was right or wrong is not the point. Either way, our endorsement clearly expresses our desire to make things easier. We wanted to facilitate (the success of this French initiative). Because in any government, the most important figure is that of the head of government! In any government, the most important figure is the Prime Minister! But we accepted this suggestion (of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) on the assumption that this government would be formed on the basis of the broadest representation, and the broadest support (of all political forces), so that it would be able to move forward and get things done in such difficult circumstances. We therefore accepted this suggestion, very well, everyone was reassured, and the French President came for his second visit, and met everyone after the appointment of Prime Minister Mustapha Adib, inviting us to continue to carry out the French roadmap, reforms, etc.
After the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib, the protocol meetings with parliamentary groups (making the appointment official) were held, and it all ended. The Prime Minister has been asked to do so. He’s a respectable and respectful person, I don’t mean anything bad about him, but (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) told him to wait, and that someone was going to negotiate. Naturally, the negotiations had to take place with the parliamentary groups, because they are the ones who issue the vote of confidence, and it is not enough that they have (accepted the) appointment of the Prime Minister. There are parliamentary groups that did not vote for the appointment, but could vote confidence (in the government). But they haven’t spoken to anyone, with no political force, at least from what I know. There was no discussion, no interview, no debate, no solicitation of each other’s opinions (in order to form the government). To the point that subsequently, the President of the Republic was forced to summon heads or representatives of parliamentary groups to discuss it with them. Because (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) considered that (any consultation) was useless. And I’ll explain why. Even with the President of the Republic, who in reality does not represent a (particular) political force, but is, according to the Constitution, a partner in the formation of the government, his role not being limited only to accepting or rejecting (such or such government). He had the right, from the start, to discuss with the Head of Government the distribution of portfolios, the names of ministers, the nature of the government, etc. But it hasn’t happened once. Not even once. It’s like it was just a matter of forming a government and submitting it to President Aoun for approval or rejection, with no (possible discussion or) alternative route.
If he signs (his approval for such a government), it will mean a de facto government which will not have been discussed with him at all, neither at the level of its nature, nor at the level of the distribution of portfolios, nor at the level of the names of ministers, which amounts to remove the main remaining prerogative devolved to the President of the Republic after the Taif agreement, namely his participation in the formation of the government. And France must be aware of its (serious) mistake —I am now starting my denunciation. France was covering a political operation which would have led to the removal of the main remaining prerogative of the President of the Lebanese Republic. And if President Aoun refused to sign, the country would be turned upside down, the media & political opponents were ready (to go wild), as was French pressure, accusing President Aoun of obstruction (and sabotage). Of course, I don’t know if there were any negotiations with the Progressive Party or the Lebanese Forces (which are part of the March 14 minority alliance, opposed to Hezbollah), but I know that there have been no negotiations with the political components who are our friends & allies, and with whom we hold the majority in Parliament.
Certainly there were negotiations with us, that is true. Because naturally, for one reason or another, the force represented by Hezbollah and Amal could not be ignored [the Shiites are the main community in Lebanon, and the first political force, all their deputies being part of the Amal- Hezbollah alliance]. We therefore discussed with the representative of Mustapha Adib. The identity of the representative of Mustapha Adib or of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” posed no problem for us. But it turned out that the representative we spoke to was Saad Hariri (who represented both Adib and the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”).
During the discussions, the points that we understood about the government during the first days, and about which there was dissension between us and Hariri, were as follows. Of course, the negotiations were cordial and respectful.
The first point of negotiation was that [Hariri demanded that] the government be formed of 14 ministers. The second point was the rotation of ministerial portfolios, implying that we abandon the Ministry of Finance. The third point is that all the ministers had to be appointed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” (who are Sunnis) for all faiths: Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Druze, they themselves wanted to appoint all the ministers. Fourth, they alone should decide on the distribution of ministerial portfolios among the various faiths. When we asked them how they were going to proceed, they did not answer, everything was left to their whim. In short, they were deciding everything, and we and the other forces in the country just had to take good note (of their unilateral decision): we had to take note that the government would have 14 ministers —of course that was the conclusion, but the discussion was calm and respectful—, we had to take note of the rotation of the portfolios, we had to take note of the distribution of the portfolios (between the different faiths) and we had to take note of the names of the ministers who would represent all the religious sects. That is all.
We have debated these points. Regarding the first point, we agreed that 30 ministers were too many, and even 24 ministers, but if we keep only 14 ministers, it is (so to speak) giving two ministries to each person. Even with a single ministry, it is already difficult to operate effectively and competently. This is one of the problems in our country: it is difficult to find competent ministers capable of leading their ministries, (and this problem would have been magnified). Why give two ministries to each minister? We could have agreed on 18 or 20 ministers, it was open to debate, but they insisted on 14 ministers, (refusing any concessions on this point) despite the fact that most of the political forces who were then consulted by the President of the Republic did not want 14 ministers, being in favor of the widest possible representation.
Likewise for the second point, we were opposed to portfolio rotation, and the issue of the Ministry of Finance is well known.
The third point is that of the appointment of ministers. The question is not only that of the Ministry of Finance. Even after establishing that such and such a ministry should be attributed to Christians, Sunnis, Shiites or Druze, they wanted to appoint the said ministers themselves, instead of the political forces or parliamentary groups that represent those faiths. Even leaving the parties aside, the parliamentary groups representing the confessions had to be involved, because they are the elected representatives of their communities: they are the elected representatives of the Lebanese people, and in particular of their faith. But (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) didn’t want to involve them in any way, just notify them (of their decision). Of course, this point was unacceptable to us, it was not negotiable. Not just for Shia ministers. That a single political force designates all ministers of all faiths is in our eyes a (great) danger for the country.
Let us take a step back and consider the Taif Accord, the constitutional prerogatives and traditions. Very good. From the Taif Agreement (1989) until 2005… It is not useful to refer to the way governments were formed before the Taif Agreement, because today there is the Taif Agreement. It is not useful to refer to the way in which the governments were formed from the Taif Agreement until 2005, because until 2005, we will be objected that this happened at the time of the Syrian tutelage and the Syrian administration. Very good. So let’s look at things from 2005 to this day: how were all the governments formed, in which you [March 14 Alliance] most often had the parliamentary majority, and were the main political force in the country, applying the Taif Agreement?
(Let’s look at things from) the first government formed after Syrian forces left the country, or during their departure, namely the government of Najib Miqati, to this day. There were always negotiations and agreement on the person of the Prime Minister, who then personally negotiated (with the political forces) to agree on the number of ministers and on the distribution of portfolios, then the ministers were appointed by deputies or parliamentary groups representing each faith, without even the Prime Minister negotiating the names proposed. The only deviation from this took place with the government of Hassan Diab, and we accepted it without problem, namely that the Prime Minister could reject a proposal from deputies or political parties and ask that another minister be suggested to him. We were open to this even before the government of Hassan Diab, and it is with him that we put it into practice. And we were and still are ready to do it this time around. In our view, this is a positive step which strengthens the prerogatives of the Head of Government. It doesn’t weaken him. This was the Prime Minister’s practice in force from 2005 to the present (for the formation of the government). When he came to an agreement with the parliamentary groups and political forces wishing to participate in the government, they would agree on the portfolios and their distribution, but each force appointed its own ministers, and the Prime Minister did not debate the names put forward to him. Today we say that the Prime Minister can debate and refuse the names that are suggested to him, and whoever is refused, we will put him aside and come up with other names. In truth, it is a reinforcement of the prerogatives of the Head of Government, different from all previous stages since the Taif Accord to this date. That is, anyone who wants to use sectarian language and claim that this weakens the status of the Prime Minister, in any case, it strengthens him more than ever! We agreed and considered it normal and logical.
But (this time, the way Ministers would be chosen) remained a point of dispute (between us and the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”).
Regarding the distribution of portfolios (between the different faiths), same thing.
Even with regard to the names put forward (for the post of minister), we were ready to negotiate several ideas that were put forward to us, such as the appointment of ministers who do not belong to any party, or who did not participate in previous governments, or that the Prime Minister can refuse 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 names of ministers who will be proposed to him. We said we didn’t have a problem with that. All of this made things easier and did not obstruct the process! But they remained inflexible in their desire to appoint all the ministers themselves.
They remained inflexible on these four points until the 15th day, without even having taken the trouble to discuss and debate them with the President of the Republic: we had to accept (without discussion) 14 ministers, the rotation of portfolios, the appointment by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” of all the ministers, and the distribution of portfolios among the different faiths by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. It was unacceptable as far as we are concerned, and we reached a dead end.
Of course, we can discuss this process by comparing it to the way things were done since 2005 to the present day, because they talk about traditions, but governments have never been formed according to these ways. And we can even discuss it from a constitutional point of view, by referring to what the Constitution says about the formation of the government and the role of representatives of the faiths. Because when the Taif Agreement made government the main body of power, the decision-making force, that was something new; and it was established that all faiths should be represented in this government through the representatives of these faiths in the Parliament. I will not dwell on the exegesis of article 95 of the Constitution (affirming the need for the end of confessionalism, but stipulating that in the meantime, “The communities will be fairly represented in the formation of the Government.”), but I only want to say that we can debate the constitutionality (of the procedures of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”), by saying that this interpretation is possible, without imposing myself the interpretation of this article.
Either way, without getting into a constitutional dispute, these procedures are not those that were in effect from 2005 to the present day. Why do you want to impose new uses, suppress (the role of) parliamentary groups and the parliamentary majority, suppress the President of the Republic and suppress political forces, and monopolize the formation of the government in the interest of a single party, which represents only a part of the current parliamentary minority, although we respect it and respect its position? But this is a whole new way of doing things, which contradicts the traditions, the Constitution and the democracy that Mr. Macron demands of us!
It was at this point that France began to call everyone and put pressure on everyone, in the last days of the 15-day deadline, speaking to the Presidents (of the Chamber of Deputies, of the Council of Ministers and of the Republic ) and to the party leaders —of course, the contacts with us were different—, 30-minute, 45-minute calls from President Macron, the guy was making an effort, that’s good, but in which direction was he making his efforts? I am not going to speak of the debates which took place with the others, which do not concern me, but of those which took place with us. “Why aren’t you in, why are you obstructing things,” we were asked. “We want you to help and make things easier,” we were told. All this was said in diplomatic language but with pressure, threatening us with terrible sanctions, etc.
We replied: “O our dear ones, O our friends, did the French initiative provide for a government of 14 ministers?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for a Club made up of 4 former Prime Ministers to appoint all the ministers of the government for all faiths?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide that they would distribute the portfolios between faiths on their own?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for the rotation of portfolios, and that the Ministry of Finance would be removed from this faith in favor of another?” They said no, and said they just wanted a smaller government —14, 12, 10, 18 or 20 ministers, and it was up to us to come to an agreement on their appointment. Great. So how are we obstructing the French initiative? Because the debate is now between us and France. They have spoken publicly, to the media, so I do the same. What I am saying is true. The roadmap of the French initiative is accessible to the public, O Lebanese people, and does not mention any of this: no 14 ministers, no rotation of portfolios, no method of appointing ministers, no distribution of portfolios
In the end, France accepted our view that the Ministry of Finance should remain with the Shiites —I will make clear later the reason for the insistence on this issue and the importance of this point—, but asked that he be appointed by the Head of Government, that is to say by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. But we replied that we are not simply looking for the minister to be Shiite and from Shiite parents (it is an issue of political allegiance, and not merely of faith). We are committed to this minister being Shia because of the decisions he will have to make, and on which we must have a say. The Head of Government is capable of finding a Shiite official who is 100% loyal and sincere to him. This is not what we are looking for. We want each denomination to appoint its ministers, even if the Head of Government can refuse names 10, 20 or 30 times, until one can be found that works for all. But this idea was categorically rejected by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”.
Finally, Saad Hariri declared that he exceptionally accepts that the Minister of Finance be Shiite, but that he must be appointed by the Prime Minister. But we had already rejected this idea 5 days before. He claimed he was drinking the poisoned chalice by accepting this, but there is no reason for you to swallow poison, O Saad Hariri, we wish you health, and God preserve it, and I hope that we will get along eventually, no problem. But what you are suggesting is not a solution, and cannot be the solution. Then the other 3 members of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”declared that they did not agree with what Saad Hariri had said. I don’t quite understand this story (a puerile attempt to fool us), but we’re not interested in its details anyway.
We reached a dead end: we did not agree on the form of government, on who would appoint ministers, on the rotation, or on the distribution of portfolios. Because of the dead end, the head of government resigned.
I want to make it clear that there was a desire among some to impose a de facto government. I won’t name them, but there was clearly the will to send everyone to hell by (unilaterally) forming a government, appointing ministers and submitting it to the President of the Republic for approval. If he signed, so much the better. If he didn’t sign, everything would be set up against him. But they felt that he would sign because of the difficult situation of Christians and the Free Patriotic Movement, his desire to see his mandate crowned with success, French pressure, etc. They thought he would have no choice, even if they were sorely mistaken about it, because they underestimate President Aoun.
Mustapha Adib, seeing that he would not achieve anything and wouldn’t gain broad support, and not wanting to go towards a confrontation, decided to resign, and it was a respectable choice. We wish he had waited a bit more, but whether he resigned on his own because he couldn’t stand the situation, or has been asked to step down, I don’t know, but it isn’t important anymore.
After the resignation of the Prime Minister —I am still narratiing the facts, I will soon come to our assessment— the media machine financed by the Americans (and their allies) unleashed against President Aoun, Hezbollah or the tandem Amal-Hezbollah, depending on the targets of each. We had been designated as responsible of the failure beforehand, even before the failure of Mustapha Adib. France got angry and announced a press conference of President Macron, and all Lebanese were waiting to see who they blamed. And we all heard his press conference, and the questions and answers from Lebanese (pro-Western) journalists that followed.
After summing up the facts, I would like to make the following comments and clarify for all the following points.
First, what has been proposed during the last month —after the first 15 days ended, 15 days have been added, which makes a month— is not a government to save Lebanon. What was proposed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” is that in the end, all the parliamentary groups of the country, all the Lebanese political forces, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Republic hand over the country to them, unconditionally, without discussion, without debate, and without asking any questions. What will be the nature of the government, who will be in it, how will the ministries be distributed, etc., none of these points was to be debated, and it was necessary to rely blindly on the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”and accept the government that they were preparing to form (unilaterally), otherwise the sanctions would fall, as would the French pressures which would make us bear the responsibility in the eyes of the Lebanese people and the international community, presenting us as saboteurs. This is the project that has been put forward for one month.
Of course, this was all founded on a wrong assumption. In this project, the most important thing was to see whether the Hezbollah-Amal duo accepted the plan or not. I am saying it frankly. That’s why they didn’t negotiate, discuss and argue with anyone else. They thought that if Hezbollah and Amal walked along, no one would be able to stop this project, because even if President Aoun wanted to exercise his constitutional prerogatives, he would find himself isolated, confronted and put under pressure. (I’m telling you) so that you understand our position. What has been proposed for a month now is not a rescue government, but a government appointed by a “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, made up of 14 ministers, a sort of Board of Directors, specialist civil servants whose political decision is entirely vested in a single group, which is part of the parliamentary minority in Lebanon and represents only one political color (that of March 14). They represent a large part of Sunnis, but they do not (even) represent all Sunnis. There are many elected Sunni MPs who are not part of this alliance (and are close to Hezbollah).
Such was the plan put forward, and we all had to walk along. But it was all based on a misreading, namely that the current situation was difficult, that people were afraid, were helpless, that the pressures were exerted (from all sides), that the (American) sanctions were coming, already having struck two (former) Hezbollah ministers, Ali Khalil and Yusuf Finyanus, with threats of (additional) sanctions against a list made up of 94 personalities, etc., etc., etc., in addition to French pressure… If they could use such (threatening) language with us, while they are very careful when addressing us, telling us to fear the worst if the project does not come to fruition, what have they told the other (less powerful) forces, what have they threatened them with, what kind of pressure did they put on them? So much for the first point.
In this regard, I want to say that this (paternalist) conduct and this way of doing things will never succeed in Lebanon, whatever the identity of those who exercise them and of those who support them. Whether it is the United States, France, Europe, the international community, the Arab League, the planet or even the whole universe, the language of threats will never work with us. This will never work in Lebanon, and whoever you are, you are wasting your time (trying to intimidate us).
President Macron accused us of terrorizing people, but those who accuse us of intimidating are those who have exercised a policy of intimidation during the past month, against the Presidents (of the Republic, of the Council of Ministers and of the Parliament), parliamentary groups, and political parties & forces in order to impose such a government. The threats, the sanctions, the dangers (mentioned), the idea that we’d be heading for the worst (namely war against Hezbollah), etc. You saw the language (used by Macron). All of this is now public. But it won’t work.
Second, if we have rejected this form of government, it is not because we would or would not want to be in the government. The fundamental question we are asking ourselves is that of the interests of Lebanon, of the Lebanese people, the recovery of the country… Because we can go from bad to better, and from bad to worse. The question is, in which direction are we going? To whom were we about to hand over the ark of our salvation? Who would have been at the helm of the saving ship? These 4 Prime Ministers were Prime Ministers from 2005 until just a few months ago. Isn’t it true? They have been heads of government for 15 years. They are not the only ones responsible for the current situation, of course. We all have some responsibility. But it is they who bear the greatest burden of responsibility. For they were the Heads of Government, and had ministers & officials in (all) (successive) governments. I blame responsibility on them, and I ask them to take responsibility and not to run away from (it). We must help each other, cooperate, work hand in hand. But to believe that we can save Lebanon by handing over the country to the political force that bears the greatest responsibility for the situation we have arrived at for 15 years is completely illogical and even absurd.
As far as Hezbollah is concerned, you know that before 2005, we didn’t want to participate in governments, (but then we changed our mind). Why? I talked about it a lot during the 2018 elections during the electoral rallies, and I explained why we had to be present in governments (after 2005). It’s not because we’re after honors, ministries, dignities or money. Glory to God who has provided us with His blessings, so much so that we have no need of this State’s wages, budget, or wealth. I had spoken of a clear reason, to which I will add a second reason today. The reason I mentioned was the need to protect the rear of the Resistance. I’ve explained it at length, and no need to repeat myself. Some of our friends say that Hezbollah does not need to participate in governments to protect itself. This is a respectable point of view, but we do not share it. Why? We have to be in government. Whether it is a partisan government or not, it is open to debate. But we (had explained that) must be present in the government to protect the rear of the Resistance, so that the experience of the government of May 5, 2008 is not repeated [the government of Fouad Siniora and Walid Joumblatt wanted to dismantle the underground communications network of Hezbollah, central element of its military force, and to push the army to fight the Resistance; this seditious plan was neutralized by force of arms, the only time where Hezbollah used its weapons on the domestic scene]. Who was this government made up of? From the very people who want to form the new government today. It is exactly the same as the government of May 5, 2008. The government of May 5, 2008 had taken a dangerous decision which was going to lead to a clash between the Lebanese Army and the Resistance, which is an American, Israeli and Saudi project. We were able to avoid it. Quite frankly, we have no fear of the military institution, the leadership of the military, or its officers and soldiers. Because it is a national and patriotic institution. But we have the right (and the duty) to be wary of political authorities and political decision-making. And we decided to be present in the government to protect the rear of the Resistance. This is the first point (which I mentioned in 2018).
And as for the second point that I will announce now, during all the past debates, Hezbollah was accused of being an armed Resistance, of having fought in Syria, Iraq, and whatnot, in Palestine, and of neglecting the economic, financial and social situation, etc. And a whole host of accusations and equations have been deployed (against us), like our weapons in exchange for (ending) corruption, (saving) the economy in exchange for Resistance, etc. I will not discuss this point, but I want to build on it, in order to explain why, quite frankly, it is impossible for us to be absent from the government. Quite frankly, we fear for what’s left of Lebanon, economically, financially, and in every way. We are afraid for Lebanon and for the Lebanese people. I have already said that we are not afraid for Hezbollah (which would survive and maintain its power even if Lebanon collapsed, because Iran will always be there), but for the country, for the people, for the future of this country. If a government had been formed (without us), how would we know that it wasn’t going to sign a blank check to the IMF and give in to all its demands without discussion? I’m not accusing anyone but it’s a possibility. I know each other’s beliefs (and the March 14 submission to the West). As a parliamentary group, are we going to give our confidence to a government knowing, or very strongly presuming, that it will blindly sign the IMF’s roadmap, without discussion? Whatever the conditions of the IMF, Lebanon would comply. Should we not be afraid that a government, using the pretext of our financial situation or any other pretext, sells national assets? It is already proposed in some projects to sell State property (massive privatization). Should liquidation of Lebanon’s assets be carried out on the pretext of the need to obtain money to pay off the debt, remedy the paralysis, etc., etc., etc.? Shouldn’t we be afraid of such a government, when, and I solemnly assert this to you, during previous governments, two-thirds or more of the ministers bitterly defended an increase in VAT? If the intended government had been formed by Mustapha Adib, the first decision he would have made was to increase VAT on everything. The tax policy would have hit the people, while we promised the Lebanese people that we would not allow it and would not accept it. Can our people endure an increase in VAT? Because of a proposed tax of a few cents on Whatsapp calls, people took to the streets on October 17 (2019). Shouldn’t we fear a government with which we do not know what will happen to the savings of the people in the banks? No our dear ones, we fear for our country, for our people, for national assets, for the savings of the inhabitants. We fear the IMF conditions and we fear to go from a bad situation to a much worse situation.
I am not claiming that we have quick fixes. We have put forward alternative solutions, such as the petroleum products of Iran (which can be acquired in Lebanese currency or against goods) which would save billions of dollars to the State Treasury, turning to the East, without renouncing the West if possible, namely towards Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, etc. France is afraid of these alternatives, and especially the United States. There are alternatives (to the West). We are not talking about replacement but about cooperation (with both East and West, to our advantage). But as far as we are concerned, we will never turn our backs and close our eyes to blindly hand over the country to any government that will run the economy and the finances of the country as it pleases. This is no longer an option. It is not just a question of participating in power or not.
Second, when you blamed all the political forces for the failure, Mr. Macron… I am not going to defend Hezbollah. On the contrary, I would have liked President Macron to say that it was Hezbollah that thwarted the initiative, no problem, and I wish he had spared the rest of the political forces. In reality, there are political forces in Lebanon that no one has spoken to, that have not been solicited, with whom no one has negotiated, and who do not even know what happened! If we ourselves, who were involved in the negotiations, did not know the names of the ministers, nor (the distribution of) portfolios, it means that other forces knew absolutely nothing (of what was going on). So how can you blame them like you do? You accused all the Presidents of the (Lebanese) institutions. All right, (let’s say that) the Speaker of the Parliament (Nabih Berri) is part of the (Amal-Hezbollah) tandem. But the President of the Republic, what is the mistake he made, what are the failings he is accused of? Why should he be held responsible? Because Macron put the responsibility on (absolutely) everyone: the Presidents (of the Parliament, of the Council of Ministers and of the Republic), the institutions and all the political forces. He even included the President of the Republic! What are the errors or inadequacies he is accused of? The issue didn’t even reach him! Nobody came to bring him a proposal for the distribution of portfolios and names of ministers!
Third, when we are blamed and accused of leading the country to the worst, I say it is quite the opposite! What we have done is prevent the country from going to the worst of the worst. We are still in a bad situation, but we hope that the (French) initiative will reconsider its approach and that the Lebanese will cooperate so that we can go from bad to good (and not from bad to worse).
Next point, what are the promises we made that we would not have kept? A roadmap has been put on the table. Our brother Hajj Mohammad Raad, God preserve him, leader of the parliamentary bloc of the Loyalty to Resistance, and true representative of Hezbollah at the (negotiating) table, frankly said that we agreed with 90% of the content of this roadmap. Macron asked him if he was sure, and he said yes, although he did not determine what 10% we disagreed with. But even assuming that we would have accepted 100% of this road map, it stipulates in no way the method that was implemented, nor this mode of government formation (by a single political color, minority and hostile to Hezbollah, to the detriment of all the others). O President Macron, what have we promised and how have we broken our word? How can you accuse us of breaking our commitments and being unworthy of respect? How can you accuse us of perjury? At first you talked about a government of national unity, and then you backtracked and gave up on the idea. We understood and didn’t object. Some have spoken of a translation error, others of American or Saudi pressure, whatever. All you talked about was forming a mission government with competent, independent ministers. Very well. But these independent ministers, who should name them? Who was to name them? It was not mentioned in the (French) initiative. No one agreed on how to appoint these ministers. If it had been agreed that political parties do not participate in their nomination, Saad Hariri is the leader of a party (and therefore should not have participated). Just as Najib Miqati heads a party, and Fouad Siniora is a member of a party. Why should one political color have the right to appoint all ministers, while all other forces do not have this right?
Mr. President, O Lebanese people, we have never made a commitment to accept any government at all, whatever be its formation and whatever be its composition. We have never made a commitment to hand the country over to any government at all, regardless of the way it’ll be formed and regardless of its composition. No one has agreed on how the government will be formed and how the ministers should be appointed. This was neither mentioned in the project nor in the (French) initiative. On the contrary, the initiative was instrumentalized to impose this project on the Lebanese political parties and forces. O French President, we are well-known, both to our friends and to our enemies, for keeping our promises and our commitments, and our (high) credibility with both friends and enemies is well established. Our way of doing things is well-known, and when we make promises it is well-known that we are willing to sacrifice anything to keep those promises. We go so far as to anger our friends and allies for keeping our promises. I don’t need to give examples, this is well-known (in Lebanon).
Among the points that I would like to mention is that no one has the right to use promises of financial aid to simply suppress the main political forces of the country, and wipe out the result of the elections (which gave the parliamentary majority to Hezbollah and its allies). President Macron tells Amal and Hezbollah, the Shiites, that they must choose between democracy and the worst. We have chosen democracy. What you are asking us is contrary to democracy. If democracy is not elections (and respect for their outcome), then what is democracy? The 2018 elections elected a parliamentary majority. And what you are asking, O President, is that the parliamentary majority withdraw and hand over the country and its own neck to the parliamentary minority, to a part of the parliamentary minority! We have chosen (to respect the result of) legislative and municipal elections, to respect the preeminence of the Parliament (main political body according to the Constitution), and to cooperate. We didn’t choose the worst.
We did not choose war. We didn’t attack anyone. It was the Zionists who attacked our country, forcing war on us and occupying our territory, seizing our choices and our resources. And it is they who threaten our country. We did not go to Syria to fight civilians. We went to Syria, with the agreement of the Syrian government, to fight the groups that you yourself designate as terrorists and takfiris [Nasrallah did not mention the well-known fact that France has armed, financed and supported these terrorist groups ]. And France is part of the international alliance (which claims to) fight them. And you yourselves are present in Syria (for this same reason), illegally, without the agreement of the Syrian government. We did not go to fight civilians in Syria, but to defend our country, Lebanon, as well as Syria and the region against the most dangerous project in the history of the region after the Zionist project, namely the terrorist and takfiri project.
We are not part of the corrupt class. We have never stole government money. Everyone knows where our money comes from, clearly (it comes from Iran). We have neither money nor financial oligarchies to defend, nor private (lucrative) projects to defend. We do not allow anyone to address us in this way or describe us in this way.
If we have to talk about who obstructed and who facilitated (the French initiative), I would remind you that we accepted the appointment of Mustapha Adib without prior agreement, without conditions or discussions. We have presumed good intentions (from everyone). But it was in the perspective of moving towards an agreement and facilitating (the joint formation of the government). As for giving up (everything) or surrendering the country blindly, that is quite another matter.
We are not playing the game of terrorism and intimidation against anyone in Lebanon. Macron has unfortunately thrown this accusation, aimed at questioning the result of the elections (which would have been obtained by the threat of weapons), but you only have to question your embassy and your intelligence services in Lebanon, who will tell you how many media, journalists, politicians, newspapers and social networks, in our small country, insult us day and night, vilify us day and night, denigrate us day and night, slander us deceitfully and unfairly day and night. And they live peacefully, not fearing for their lives. If they were afraid (of us), they wouldn’t open their mouths. While there are Arab countries that you protect and of which you are the friend and ally, and where nobody dares to publish even a Tweet to express a position against the normalization (of relations with Israel), or a criticism against such and such king, such prince or such regime. No, we don’t intimidate anyone. If anyone is afraid, that’s their problem, but we don’t intimidate anyone. And you just have to come and ask the locals.
The last point on the matter is that I hope that the French leaders will not (blindly) listen to certain Lebanese (sides), and that if they themselves hold this wrong view, they will amend it. We must not blame everything on Iran, which would have hampered the French initiative by asking for intransigence on the appointment of ministers, and asking the Amal-Hezbollah tandem not to let go of the Ministry of Finance. All of these accusations against Iran are meaningless and unfounded. Iran is not like that. Iran is not like you (France or the United States, countries who interfere, threaten, demand, impose, etc.). Iran does not interfere in Lebanese affairs. The decision in Lebanon is in our hands, it is we who determine what we want to do, what we accept or refuse. We in Hezbollah, in the Hezbollah-Amal tandem and with our allies, decide everything that concerns us in Lebanon. Iran does not interfere or impose. You know that for 20 years, and even for more than 20 years, because I speak of the period when I was the Hezbollah Secretary General, during which the link with Iran is made directly with me, since 1992, all those who were talking (about Lebanon) with Iran, Iran invited them to speak directly to us, because our decision is in our hands.
Hezbollah is accused of delaying matters pending the outcome of negotiations between Iran and the United States, while there are no negotiations between Iran and the United States. At least during this election period, it’s official, Iran has made it clear that there will be no dialogue (with the Trump administration). Some claim that Iran is pressuring France (in order to get a favorable vote) in the Security Council (regarding the proposed US embargo). But this is completely absurd. If this ignorance and wrong thinking persist, nothing will be achieved in Lebanon, for wrong assumptions will always lead to wrong results.
Mr. Macron, if you want to identify those outside Lebanon who thwarted your initiative, look towards the United States which threatened sanctions and imposed sanctions, and look towards the King of Saudi Arabia and his speech at the UN (where he violently attacked Iran and Hezbollah).
As for the form (of your intervention), when you come to say that all the political forces, all the Presidents, all the constitutional institutions, etc., have committed a betrayal, by what right (do you say such a thing)? What are you basing yourself on? Who said they committed treason? First, we don’t accept that you accuse us (of anything) and say that we have committed treason. As far as we are concerned, we categorically reject it and condemn it (firmly). This condescending behavior with us and with all the Lebanese political forces is unacceptable. We do not accept this language or this process. We do not allow anyone to doubt our dignity and honor, or the fact that we keep our promises and respect others. We do not accept anyone accusing us of corruption. And if the French friends have corruption files on Hezbollah ministers, deputies or officials, indicating that we have taken State money, I accept that you hand them over to the Lebanese justice, and we’ll hand over anyone who is affected by such a corruption case. It is a very serious challenge, which I have put forward a hundred times and which I reaffirm. But just throwing gratuitous accusations like that, denouncing the entire political class and all the institutions as corrupt, is unacceptable.
When President Macron visited Lebanon, we welcomed the French initiative. But we have never accepted that he is the attorney general, investigator or judge, we have never accepted that he is the guardian, the ruler or the governor of Lebanon. No way. We welcomed President Macron as a friend of Lebanon, who loves and wants to help Lebanon, get it out of its crises, bring together divergent points of view: this is the way (genuine)friendship, benevolence, mediation, fraternity and love (are expressed). But in no case can there be for anyone, be it the French President or anyone else, the power to impose himself as guardian, governor, ruler or judge & executioner of Lebanon. To my knowledge, the Lebanese have never taken such a decision. This is why we hope that the conduct, style and substance will be completely revised.
To conclude on this point, we have welcomed the French initiative, and today, His Excellency the Lebanese President has extended (its implementation deadline). We always welcome the French initiative in a benevolent manner, and are ready for dialogue, cooperation, openness, discussion and debate with the French and with all the friends of Lebanon and all the political forces in Lebanon. But the procedures deployed during the past month, the arrogance that has been exercised, the trampling of truths and realities that has taken place must not be repeated, otherwise we will not achieve any results. We are ready (for dialogue) and want this initiative to succeed, we support its continuation, and we rely on it as others do, but I call for (a full) reconsideration of things at the level of its conduct, actions, understanding, analysis, conclusions, and even management and language used. Because there is nothing more important than respect. There is nothing more important than the dignity of people. What was violated two days ago (during Macron’s intervention) was national dignity. There are people who are angry with certain members of political factions, it is their right to be angry, but there is more important: whoever stands up and accuses everyone without distinction —institutions, parties, political forces, etc.—, in truth this undermines the national dignity and it is unacceptable. We know the French as well educated people, diplomats, who use a (tempered) language even if the content may be vehement, trying to wrap it with conciliatory words. I don’t understand what happened to them on Sunday night.
Regardless, for the sake of our country, we remain open (to dialogue). Currently, at this new stage, it is natural that after what has happened, the parliamentary groups must return to dialogue, consultation, meetings, and the French say that their initiative is still on the table, very well, now we have to see what are its new ideas, its new bases. I am not going to come up with ideas or solutions today, or state our terms and red lines, because it requires dialogue with our friends and allies, but we must not despair, we must cooperate. We are always committed to the cooperation of all, to mutual understanding of all, and to remain positive, to move from a bad situation to a good situation, and not from bad to worse. […]
يقول نابليون بونابرت إن مهمة السياسي الناجح هي أن يعرف كيف يبيع الأمل للشعب. وعبر التاريخ كانت السياسة شيئاً مختلفاً عن العقيدة، لكنها عندما تنبثق من عقيدة أو من الواقعية ومدارس المصلحة تشبه بعضها بصفتها فن صناعة الأمل، فيتفوّق منها مَن يكون أشدّ إقناعاً بصدقية قدرته على تحقيق وعوده، ويشكل هذا السعي للإقناع محور التنافس السياسي في الانتخابات، والحروب الإعلاميّة والنفسيّة، وتشكل الصدقية عنصراً حاسماً فيه، لكنها ليست العنصر الوحيد، وإلا بقي الرابح رابحاً والخاسر خاسراً. وفي مرات كثيرة ينجح عديمو الصدقية بالفوز في مباريات صناعة الأمل ويخسرها أصحاب المصداقية، وتدور كل معارك السياسة على سعي لا يتوقف على صناعة الأمل لجمهور يشكل بيئة القوة لصاحب السياسة، وتدمير الأمل عند فئة مقابلة تسمّى الخصم أو العدو، وهذا هو ما يُعرف بكي الوعي.
–
في واشنطن تدور منافسة رئاسية حامية الوطيس، تبدو مغايرة عن كل سابقاتها من مشهد المناظرة التي دارت بين الرئيس دونالد ترامب ومنافسه الديمقراطي جو بايدن، وبالمقارنة بين ما قدّمه الفريقان، وما قدّمه أسلافهما، ليست القضية بتدنّي مستوى النقاش واللجوء الى البذاءة والشتائم، كما علقت وسائل الإعلام الأميركية، بل بفقدان القدرة على المشاركة في صناعة الأمل، فعندما نعود للأمس القريب وحملتي كل من باراك أوباما الديمقراطي ودونالد ترامب الجمهوري، نجد المشاريع الانتخابية التي طغت على مطالعات المرشحين في المناظرات، ومهدت لكسبهم الفوز في الانتخابات، فقد تركزت حملة أوباما على عنواني سحب القوات الأميركية من العراق ولاحقاً من أفغانستان، وتعديل النظام الضريبي بما يتيح تأميناً صحياً منصفاً بحق الفقراء وذوي الدخل المحدود، وكانت وعوده مصدر أمل للأميركيين الذين ضاقوا ذرعاً من حروب عبثية ورطتهم بها إدارة الرئيس جورج بوش، فيما يعاني نصف الأميركيين من فشل نظام التأمين الصحي الذي لا يحقق الأمان إلا للأغنياء وشرائح من الطبقات الوسطى. وفي حملة الرئيس ترامب، كانت صناعة الأمل بالانتقال من وعد بأميركا العظمى إلى أميركا العظيمة، وأميركا أولاً، والتخلي عن دور شرطي العالم، في ظل بنى تحتية متهالكة وتراجع في مستوى التعليم وتدهور الصناعة وتخلف الأرياف، بينما بدت الحملات الانتخابية لهذا الموسم الرئاسيّ خالية من أي مصدر لصناعة الأمل، فترامب الذي خان شعاراته الانتخابية وبايدن الذي لا يملك إلا إنجازات أوباما للتذكير بها، تحوّلا مهاترة شخصية، في إعلان موت السياسة، ما يعني فتح الباب لخيارات قاتمة.
–
في فلسطين المحتلة يتقابل كيان الاحتلال مع الشعب الفلسطيني في ظل لاتوزان غير محدود بالمقدرات ومستويات الدعم الخارجي السياسي والمعنوي والمادي، لصالح الكيان، لكن المعركة تظهر صعوداً فلسطينياً مقابل الهبوط الإسرائيلي، والعامل الحاسم هو أن الفلسطينيين باتوا مشبَعين بالأمل بأن الغد لهم، منذ انتصار المقاومة في لبنان وتالياً في غزة، وهو أمل ينمو كل يوم، بينما المستوطنون الذي عاشوا على نمو الأمل ببقائهم في فلسطين بعد انتصار جيش الاحتلال في حرب العام 67، تأرجحوا على حبال الصعود والهبوط منذ حرب تشرين عام 73، وصولاً لبدء العد التنازلي المتواصل للأمل منذ انتصار المقاومة عام 2000، وحيث كل يوم تزرع فيه المقاومة بقيادتها وحربها النفسية، مزيداً من الشكوك في نفوس المستوطنين، تنجح بزرع المزيد من الأمل في جمهورها، خصوصاً في فلسطين بأن الغد لهم، وقد صارت إصابة الكيان في روحه وتفوّقت المقاومة في روحها، ولم يعد ينفع في تغيير هذه المعادلة لا أكاذيب بنيامين نتنياهو عن أماكن الصواريخ، ولا تطبيع الخليج، وبات مفعول كل منهما لا يتعدّى الليلة التي يُطلَق فيها، ما يعني نهاية مهمة السياسة.
–
في لبنان، رغم المحاولات المتعددة والمختلفة المصادر، يتراجع الأمل بمكافحة الفساد وبناء دولة القانون، بعدما نجح التبشير بعهد الرئيس ميشال عون كمدخل للإصلاح والتغيير، وجاءت بعده انتفاضة 17 تشرين وأعادت إحياء أمل باتجاه آخر، وتحولت الفرصتان إلى الشكوى من العجز والضعف بمعزل عن المبررات، فأخليت الساحة لتنافس بين وعدين بالأمل، وعد بالكرامة مشفوع بالإثبات تمثله المقاومة، ووعد بالازدهار المفترض، شرط التخلي عن المقاومة، وليس خافياً أن ما يتعرّض له لبنان من تدمير اقتصادي وإفقار ودفع للإفلاس يتم تحت عنوان ترجيح كفة الوعد بالازدهار. وهو الوصف الذي أطلقه الدبلوماسي الأميركي السابق جيفيري فيلتمان على الخطة الأميركية لضرب المقاومة، واستجابت لها دعوة الحياد، كما ليس خافياً أن هذه المنافسة تدور على منصة المبادرة الفرنسية ايضاً، وهي التي تفسر فشل مهمة الرئيس المكلف مصطفى أديب، وهي أرضية السجال الدائر حولها، من كلام الرئيس الفرنسي إلى رد الأمين العام لحزب الله والرد على الرد من نادي رباعي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، ما يعني احتدام السياسة إلى حدّ الفوضى.
سارع نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين للردّ على كلام الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله، فقال إن السيد نصرالله خالف الحقائق مقدماً حججاً يعتقد أنها ترد له الاعتبار وتثبت صحة مقاربته.
–
قال النادي إن المبادرة الفرنسية بنيت على ضرورة تعليق كل ما يمتّ الى السياسة الداخلية التقليدية، ومسألة تنافس الكتل والأحزاب، لأشهر معدودة بحيث تتفق الكتل النيابية الرئيسية على حكومة إنقاذ مصغرة. و”النادي” أشد العارفين بأن كل هذا الكلام هو كلامه هو وليس من المبادرة الفرنسية بشيء، ومثلها لا مكان للمداورة ولا لمن تسند حقيبة المال في نص المبادرة ولا في الكلام الشفهي الذي قاله الرئيس الفرنسي في قصر الصنوبر.
–
قال «النادي» إنه لم يلعب دور الوصاية على الرئيس المكلف، ولم يكن له دور في تشكيل الحكومة. وهو يعلم أن الذي ذهب يفاوض الرئيس نبيه بري على طلب حقيبة المال هو الرئيس سعد الحريري، وأن الرئيس المكلف بعد مفاوضاته مع ممثلي الثنائي طلب الإستمهال لمراجعة رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، ويعلم «النادي» أن تسمية الرئيس المكلف انطلقت من عنده بتصريح للرئيس فؤاد السنيورة، قد تمّت على قاعدة ضمان تغطية ميثاقية التسمية طائفياً، وبدعة «النادي» هي ميثاقية لمرة واحدة يضمن من خلالها خلافاً للديمقراطية، التي تمنح الغالبية حق التسمية، ويريد اغتصاب الحكومة خارج هذه الميثاقية، المنصوص عليها بتمثيل الطوائف بصورة عادلة في الحكومة، والعدالة في طريقة التسمية قبل أي شيء آخر.
–
يستعيد «النادي» تأييد رئيس الجمهورية للمداورة في وجه كلام السيد نصرالله، لكن هذا التأييد لا يجعل المداورة ضمن المبادرة الفرنسية، لكنه حجة على «النادي» الذي لم يشفع عنده كلام رئيس الجمهورية المؤيد للمداورة ليتم التعامل معه وفقاً للأصول الدستورية، فيتّهم السيد نصرالله بافتعال مشكلة بين «النادي» ورئيس الجمهورية، فهل قام الرئيس المكلف بالتفاهم مع رئيس الجمهورية على حجم الحكومة وتوازناتها الطائفية والسياسية، وكيفية تسمية وزرائها؟ وهو ما طالب به رئيس الجمهورية علناً. مضيفاً انه لم يسمع من الرئيس المكلف شيئاً، خلال ثلاثة أسابيع، فهل هذا هو الدستور والحرص على صلاحيات رئيس الجمهورية؟
–
يقول «النادي» إن كلام السيد عن الشأن الاقتصادي ينسف المبادرة الفرنسة، فهل نصّت المبادرة على التوقيع من دون نقاش مع صندوق النقد الدولي، ويقول إن التحذير من تكرار سيناريو 5 ايار 2005 هو تهديد من دون فهل يقصد بذلك تأكيد الاتهام بالسعي للتكرار؟
Beirut-Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Tuesday a televised speech in which he tackled various internal and regional issues.
At the beginning of his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah offered condolences to Kuwait and its people over the demise of Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah. “The late Kuwaiti leader played a personal and major role in ending Lebanon’s civil war. The Lebanese people neither forget the role of the late Emir in ending the civil war, nor the Kuwaiti role during the July 2006 war, supporting Lebanon and reconstructing it” he said, noting that “Kuwait still maintains its honorable stance towards Al-Quds and Palestine, unlike the train of normalization.”
Meanwhile, His Eminence praised the coherent stance of Kuwait under its late Emir against pressures on Gulf nations to join normalization with the Zionist entity.
On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed the efforts and sacrifices of the Lebanese army and forces that had recently confronted the armed terrorist groups in Northern Lebanon. “The armed groups in north Lebanon were plotting major military action against the country.”
He further offered condolences to the Lebanese army and the families of the martyrs that have fallen in the battle. “We have previously warned against the attempts to revive Daesh [Arabic Acronym for the terrorist ‘ISIS’/’ISIL’ group] again in Iraq and Syria, and it is natural that preparations began in Lebanon to justify the American forces’ presence in the region,” His Eminence added, pointing out that “After the assassination of martyrs [Qasim] Soleimani and [Abu Mahdi] al-Muhandis, Washington started reviving Daesh.”
In parallel, the Resistance Leader declared Hezbollah appreciates the popular position in the north and the people’s rallying around the army and security forces.
According to His Eminence, “Washington is trying to justify its continuous presence in the region under the pretext of the international coalition to fight Daesh, which it seeks to revive in the region.”
On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that “The “Israeli” enemy’s army is still at the highest level of alert and is still hiding, and this is the longest period that the occupation army lives in this way without having its soldiers moving [from their places].”
Reiterating that Hezbollah still intends to retaliate to the martyrdom of one of its fighters in Syria, the Resistance Leader responded to “Israeli” PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s claims that Hezbollah is storing missiles near a gas station.
On this level, Sayyed Nasrallah announced that Hezbollah Media Relations is to invite local media outlets to the site at 22:00, to let the world discover his lies.
“We’re not obliged to invite journalists to any site mentioned by Netanyahu, but we are doing this now due to the sensitivity of the situation after the August 4 explosion,” he stressed, noting that c.”
According to His Eminence, “Our measure is to make the Lebanese people aware amid the battle of consciousness, and to let them know that we don’t put our missile between residential houses.”
On the political front, Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted that “The French initiative was published and we all agreed on it. We said we support it. The first step was to name a PM.”
“The work has started and the parliamentary blocs started to consult to agree on naming Hariri or whomever he names. Meanwhile, the club of the four former PMs was formed. We did not put any conditions when Mustafa Adib was nominated and did not make any prior agreement to show our intention to facilitate the process,” he recalled.
His Eminence went on to say, “There are those who said that the designated PM would hold negotiations, but the parliamentary blocs and the president of the republic have not been contacted.”
Moreover, Hezbollah Secretary General disclosed that “Adib did not consult with the President of the Republic, a prepared file was handed to him, and the most important authority for the President- i.e. to participate in forming the government- would have been dropped out.”
“The French must know where they erred, especially as to eliminating the President’s most important remaining power, which is participation in the formation of governments,” he added, noting that “The one who negotiated with us over the government wasn’t Adib, but PM Saad Hariri.”
Sayyed Nasrallah also mentioned that “The naming of ministers for all sects in Lebanon by a single person is dangerous for the country. The Ex-PMs club wanted to distribute portfolios and name the ministers alone.”
“Some wanted to eliminate the parliamentary blocs and the President’s powers and they sought to introduce new norms,” he stated, pointing out that “When we asked whether the French initiative included what was proposed by the club of ex-PMs, we were answered by ‘NO’.”
In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah confirmed that “We rejected what was presented to us because it forms a threat to the country and is not a subject of discussion. The French initiative neither mentions the number of ministers nor the rotation of portfolios.”
His Eminence underlined that “At one point there was an attempt to form a de-facto government. The way things were tackled with regard to the government is unacceptable in Lebanon, regardless of its sponsor or supporter.”
“We have always said that the reason for our presence in the government is to protect the back of the resistance,” he added, warning that “The coercion method does not work in Lebanon, regardless of its advocates and sponsors, be them the US, France or Europe.”
On the same level, Sayyed Nasrallah reminded that Hezbollah “must be in the government to protect the back of the resistance so that May 5, 2008 will not be repeated in Lebanon,” noting that “The second reason behind our participation in the government is fearing for what has remained from Lebanon economically, nationally and on all other levels.”
“What if a government accepts the conditions of the IMF without any discussions? Do we agree on a government that increases taxes on citizens? What if a new government decides to sell the state’s assets,” he asked, statin, “We fear for the state property and people’s money.”
Meanwhile, His Eminence addressed the French President Emanuel Macron by saying: “Did the French initiative say that the ex-PMs form the government and name ministers? Hajj Mohammad Raad told Macron that we agree to 90% of the French initiative, and here we ask, what is it that we agreed upon and did not respect? What you are asking from us contradicts with democracy. You are asking the parliamentary majority to bow and cede power to the parliamentary minority.”
To Macron, Sayyed Nasrallah sent a clear message: “Look for the party that wanted to control the country and eliminate the political forces under your cover. President Macron, who accused us of intimidation, is the one who practiced the intimidation policy against the heads of parties in order to pass the government.”
He also emphasized that Hezbollah “prevented the country from moving towards the worse, and we hope that the Lebanese will cooperate so that the country doesn’t move into the worst.”
Explaining that Hezbollah has not committed to hand over the country to any kind of government, he told the French President: “We know how we adhere to our promises, fulfill it and sacrifice in order to abide by it. Our enemies and friends know that we honor our pledges. We upset our friends to fulfill our promises.”
Once again, he repeated that Hezbollah “did not go to Syria to fight civilians. We went there at the invitation of the Syrian government to fight the groups that you named as terrorists.”
“It was not us who chose war, the Zionists rather occupied our land and attacked us,” he told Macron, stressing that “We do not accept that anyone speaks to us in this language. A settlement is different than surrender. We do not practice the game of terrorism and intimidation against anyone in Lebanon. We do not practice intimidation, but Arab countries that you protect and are friendly to you, doesn’t allow a tweet that criticizes the king to be written.”
In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah said: ‘Iran doesn’t interfere in Lebanon, and we in Hezbollah and Amal Movement decide what to do.”
He further sent the French President a clear advice: “If you want to search for those who thwarted your initiative, look for the Americans who imposed sanctions and complicated the situation.”
In a sounding message, His Eminence stated: “We do not accept the arrogant behavior and that you accuse us and other Lebanese with committing treason. We welcomed the role of President Macron and the French initiative to help Lebanon but not to be an Attorney General, inspector, judge, guardian or governor of Lebanon. There isn’t any mandate neither for the French president nor for others to be guardian or ruler of Lebanon.”
However, Sayyed Nasrallah kept the door open for discussion: “We still support the French initiative, but the language must be reconsidered because what was attacked the last two days ago is the national dignity,” he said, noting that “We are still open to the French initiative for the benefit of our country, and we insist on cooperation to pass from bad to good.”
On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed the stance of the Bahraini people despite oppression and risks, particularly the Bahraini scholars’ rejection of Al-Khalifa regime’s normalization with the “Israeli” enemy.
“The stance of the Bahraini people is honorable and [truly] represents the people of Bahrain. The authority in Bahrain doesn’t own its decision, it rather operates as a Saudi-affiliated state,” he said, pointing out that “The people of Bahrain, despite their wounds, and despite the presence of many of their leaders and symbols behind bars, have said their resounding word of truth in the era of silence, subservience and submission.”
He also warned of Sudan’s move towards normalization.
In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed the official and popular stances of Tunisia and Algeria against the normalizations, and urged the Sudanese people not to accept being part of the normalization under the pretext of lifting its name from the “terror list”.
“We’re not worried about all what is happening in the region as long as the Palestinian people keep adhering to their rights,” he assured.
لم يكن ممكناً أن يمرّ كلام الرئيس الفرنسي أمانويل ماكرون، بما فيه من رواية لوقائع مفاوضات تأليف الحكومة التي تولاها علناً الرئيس المكلّف مصطفى أديب، وقادها فعلياً نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين كحزب حاكم جديد، من دون أن تقدّم المقاومة وحزب الله رواية موازية من موقع الشريك الكامل في صناعة الوقائع، والشاهد عن كثب وقرب لهذه الوقائع، ومن طالته سهام الاتهام وفقاً لرواية ماكرون. كما لم يكن ممكناً كلام ماكرون ألا يلقى تعليقاً وتفنيداً وتحليلاً من جانب حزب الله، طالما أن المعلوم للقاصي والداني، أنه كما كانت الأزمة التي تعصف بلبنان في شق رئيسيّ منها ثمرة قرار أميركي بإسقاط لبنان أملاً بأن يسقط حزب الله، وفقاً لكلام حرفي قاله ماكرون، فإن المبادرة الفرنسية التي قادها ماكرون تتركّز بنسبة كبيرة منها على فتح الطريق لمقاربة مختلفة للعلاقة مع حزب الله، وبالتالي يحتل حزب الله موقعاً موازياً لموقع ماكرون في الوقوف على طرفي ثنائية تمسك بخيوط المشهد، ما يعني أن مسار المقاربة للعلاقة الفرنسية بحزب الله يشكل المحور الحاكم لمسار المبادرة الفرنسيّة. وبعد سماع كلام ماكرون، لا بد من أن يخرج صوت حزب الله، لتكتمل صورة الثنائية وتتركز عناصر المعادلة.
–
بالتوازي مع هذا الاعتبار السياسي يحضر بقوة اعتبار أخلاقي ومعنوي وقيمي، ربما تزيد قيمته عن قيمة الاعتبار السياسي، فالحزب الذي يمثل المقاومة بكل قيمها وروح التضحية التي تمثلها، لن يصمت وقد تركزت عليه سهام ماكرون بصفته واحداً من أحزاب السلطة، ومن المتربّحين من المال العام، والمتعيّشين على المصالح الطائفية، والذين يفضلون مصالحهم على حساب مصالح شعبهم، وصولاً للدفع بحزب الله الأبعد بين أقرانه عن السلطة ومغانمها ومكاسبها وفسادها، لتصدُّر واجهة المستهدفين بالتهم السوداء، خصوصاً عندما يكون الاتهام بهذه اللغة الرعناء، وهذا التعالي المفعم بروح المستعمر، وعقل الوصاية، وما بين السطور من أستذة تدعو المقاومة للاختيار بين ما أسماه ماكرون بالخيار الأسوأ، وبين الديمقراطية، لمقاومة نال حزبها الرئيسي ديمقراطياً أعلى نسبة تصويت بين الأحزاب اللبنانية.
–
إطلالة الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله التي جاءت في سياق ممارسة هذا الحق وهذا الواجب، تضمنت من حيث الشكل تحجيماً لكلام ماكرون، حيث توزع كلام السيد نصرالله على ملفات عدة، من تعزية الكويت برحيل أميرها، إلى تنامي خطر داعش منذ جريمة داعش الإرهابية في بلدة كفتون، وصولاً للتوقف بلغة التحدي أمام مزاعم رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو حول وجود مستودعات صواريخ في منطقة الجناح قرب منشآت الغاز، فكانت دعوة فورية لوسائل الإعلام للملاقاة في المكان، إسقاطاً لمشروع تشويش على الإطلالة أراده نتنياهو قبل دقائق من موعدها، ليأتي الردّ على طريق يوم ساعر، انظروا إليها إنها في البحر تحترق، ليصل بهدوء إلى الملف الحكومي وفي قلبه كلام ماكرون، وبدا أنه يتعمّد عدم منح كلام ماكرون مكانة الصدارة من خلال الدخول الى كلامه من سردية تفصيلية لمسار العملية الحكومية والتعامل مع المبادرة الفرنسية من جميع الأطراف ومن ضمنها حزب الله، وثنائي حزب الله وحركة أمل، كاشفاً بالتفاصيل كيف تحوّلت الحكومة من مشروع إنقاذ قائم على تشارك الجميع خارج قضايا الخلاف الى مشروع انقلاب واستفراد بالحكم من خراج الدستور والأعراف لصالح جهة ذات لون واحد سياسي وطائفي، بقوة التهديد بالعقوبات والعصا الفرنسية، وبتغطية فرنسيّة تحت شعار السعي لإنجاح المبادرة، بلغة التهديد بالعواقب الوخيمة، وصولاً لحكومة تستعيد مسار حكومة 5 أيار 2008، والتآمر على المقاومة، لتصير الحكومة حكومة مهمة حدّدها الملك سلمان بنزع سلاح حزب الله، وليست حكومة المهمة التي تحدّث عنها ماكرون ووافق عليها الجميع. وهذا ما لا يمكن التساهل مع تكراره مرة أخرى، فلن تقبل حكومة الانقلاب ولن تقبل حكومة توقِّع من دون نقاش على شروط مجحفة لصندوق النقد الدولي، أو حكومة تبيع اصول الدولة، وحكومة تفرض ضرائب مرهقة على اللبنانيين، وكل ذلك كان يجري بشراكة فرنسا وتحت عباءة تهديداتها، متسائلاً هنا من الذي لجأ للتهديد والترويع، فرنسا ماكرون أم حزب الله؟
–
بكل هدوء، انتقل السيد إلى مناقشة كلام الرئيس الفرنسي، طارحاً السؤال المفتاح، هل القضايا التي سقطت عندها الحكومة كانت من ضمن المبادرة الفرنسية، أم هي قضايا وعناوين ابتدعها نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين وحدهم، مورداً جواباً رسمياً فرنسياً يؤكد أن ما طرحه نادي الرباعي جاء من خارج المبادرة، ليسأل إذا كيف يكون الجميع مسؤولاً؟ والسؤال الأهم، ما هي عهود المقاومة التي تنكّرتْ لها، أليس ما قام به حزب الله وحلفاؤه ورئيس الجمهورية هو عين التسهيل المطلوب، وهو عين الوفاء بالوعود والعهود، وللمقاومة سجل حافل بمصداقية الوفاء بالوعود والعهود؟ أما الدعوة للاختيار بين ما أسماه ماكرون بالخيار الأسوأ والديمقراطية، فجوابها واضح بالتمسك بحقوق الغالبية النيابية بمنع انقلاب بعض الأقلية النيابية لوضع اليد على البلد في ظلال المبادرة الفرنسية عكس المسار الديمقراطي، والمقاومة عنوان خاطئ لكل توصيفات ماكرون حول الفساد والمصالح، وعنوان خاطئ حول السلاح وتوظيفه في السياسة، والمقاومة لم تشهر سلاحها إلا رداً لعدوان أو مواجهة لاحتلال، أو تصدياً لإرهاب.
–
تفوق السيد نصرالله على ماكرون بالقيمة المضافة لا بفائض القوة، بقوة الحق لا بحق القوة، بالوقائع والحقائق ودقة التدقيق لا بالمزاعم والتوهّمات والتلفيق. تفوّق السيد نصرالله بحفظ الكرامة من دون حرب، وخاض ماكرون حرباً فقد فيها كرامته، فرض السيد نصاً تفسيرياً لمبادرة خانها صاحبها، ووضع آلية لإنقاذها من تخاذل كان يصاحبها. ورسم السيد سياق الصداقة خارج نفاق المواربة خشية ترهيب أو طلباً لترغيب، وخسر ماكرون فرصة صداقة لأنه تحت ترهيب حليف وترغيب مغانم حليف آخر، لكن رغم كل ذلك مد السيد يده لكلمة سواء، وأغلق باب الهدم وفتح مجدداً باباً واسعاً لخيار البناء، فانتصر السيد بكلام في قمة المسؤولية من موقع خارج المسؤولية الرسمية على كلام بعيد عن المسؤولية من أعلى مواقع المسؤولية الرسمية، ورمى الكرة في ملعب ماكرون قائلاً، لمن قالوا إن كلمة ماكرون تعادل كش ملك لحزب الله، إن اللعبة مفتوحة ولم تنته، والرمية التالية لرئيس فرنسا فإن أحسن لاقيناه وإن أساء فليلاقينا.
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah on Tuesday firmly rejected accusations of betrayal by French President Emmanuel Macron, noting meanwhile that the Resistance party is still committed to the French initiative “but based on respect”.
In a televised speech via Al-Manar, Sayyed Nasrallah clarified fallacies made regarding the formation of the new government in Lebanon and Paris’ initiative regarding the current crisis.
He stressed, in this context, that Macron is welcome in Lebanon “as a friend and ally, not as a guardian of our country.”
His eminence also stressed that Hezbollah has been well known for his credibility and sincerity, calling on the French president to “ask the friend and the enemy” about this issue.
Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed, meanwhile, that excluding Hezbollah from taking part in the new government is “out of question”.
Elsewhere in his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah hit back at Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu who claimed that Hezbollah allegedly has a missile factory near a gas station south of the capital, Beirut.
The Hezbollah S.G. said the party’s Media Relation Office would hold a tour for media outlets’ reporters to head to the area Netayahu had spoken about in a bid to refute lies of the Israeli PM.
Sayyed Nasrallah, meanwhile, hailed the Lebanese Army for foiling attacks by terrorists in the country’s north, warning that the terrorists have been preparing for a major military action in Lebanon.
Emir of Kuwait Demise
Sayyed Nasrallah started his speech by offering condolences over the demise of Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.
His eminence praised Kuwait monarch for his role in stopping the civil war in Lebanon, noting that he also stood by Lebanon and contributed to reconstruction of Lebanese towns following the Israeli war on Lebanon in July 2006.
“Emir of Kuwait also adopted an honored stance on Palestine and Al-Quds,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, praising Sheikh Al-Sabah for not striking a deal with the Zionist entity echoing other Arab states.
North Lebanon Confrontations and ISIL Revive
Tackling the latest confrontations between the Lebanese Army and Takfiri terrorists in the country’s north, Sayyed Nasrallah described the Lebanese soldiers as heroes, hailing the Lebanese people for standing by the Lebanese Army.
His eminence warned that Lebanon is facing a threat of major military action by ISIL terrorist group.
“We appreciate the popular stance in the northern villages where people voiced support to the army and security forces.”
In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah said that since the assassination of Iranian Major-General Qassem Suleimani, head of the elite Quds Force and Deputy Commander of Iraq’s Hashd Shaabi paramilitary force, US has been working hard to revive ISI in the region.
He called for caution and awareness regarding this threat, urging the Lebanese people to rally behind the Lebanese Army and security forces.
Sayyed Nasrallah Hits back at Netanyahu
His eminence then hit back at Netanyahu claims that a facility south of Beirut allegedly contains Hezbollah missiles, calling on media outlets to tour the area.
“Lebanese media outlets are called upon to tour in the area at 22:00 today in a bid to refute Netanyahu’s lies.”
“We position our missiles neither in Beirut Port nor near a gas station, we know very well where can we preserve our rockets,” Sayyed Nasrallah stated, referring to similar claims by Israeli media shortly after the deadly explosion at Beirut Port on August 4.
Tackling the state of alert on the Lebanese-Palestinian border, Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated an earlier threat to retaliate to the martyrdom of Hezbollah fighter Ali Mohsen in Damascus earlier in July.
“Israeli occupation army has been on alert at the border with Lebanon for more than two months in the longest period of mobilization since 1948.”
Ex-PMs Setting Conditions on Gov’t Formation
Turning to the government issue, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that Hezbollah has been facilitating the formation of the new government following the resignation of caretaker PM Hassan Diab’s government earlier last month.
He said that four ex-PMs Saad Hariri, Fuad Siniora, Najib Mikati and Tammam Salam formed a club in which they were setting conditions on Hezbollah and his allies, noting that they were leading the negotiations in this regard instead of the PM-designate Mustapha Adib, who recused himself from his mission last Saturday.
His eminence mentioned some of the conditions set by the ex-PMs: number of ministers in the government will be limited to 14, portfolios will be rotated and the ministers will be named by them.
In addition to taking the role of the PM-designate, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the four ex-PMs were also going beyond the authority of President Michel Aoun who has the right to take part in the formation process.
In this regard, Sayyed Nasrallah said that Hezbollah repeatedly asked the ex-PMs if such conditions were stipulated by the French initiative, noting that the answer was no.
Excluding Hezbollah from the Gov’t ‘Out of Question’
Sayyed Nasrallah noted that Hezbollah did not agree on the process of naming the ministers, stressing that the Resistance party did not commit to follow a random government and to hand over the country to it.
In this issue his eminence said that Macron was asking the parliamentary majority in Lebanon to hand over the power to the minority, noting that this contradicts the principle of democracy.
Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed here that Hezbollah won’t accept to be excluded from the government, noting that this behavior aimed at defending the back of the resistance in the country and at preventing further collapse of Lebanon on the economic and financial levels.
Betrayal Accusations ‘Rejected’
Hezbollah S.G. hit back at Macron, rejecting his latest remarks when he accused the Lebanese parties of ‘betrayal and blamed Hezbollah and Amal movement of foiling the French initiative.
Sayyed Nasrallah then addressed Macron by saying: “We did not attack any one, we defended our land against the Israeli occupier. We went to Syria upon the request of the government there to fight those militants whom your state consider terrorists.”
“What are the promises which we did not keep? Our credibility and sincerity is well known to our enemies and our friends. Betrayal accusations are unacceptable and condemned.”
“If you want to know who foiled your initiative look for the US which imposed sanctions, and look for Saudi King Salman and his speech at the United Nations General Assembly,” Sayyed Nasrallah said addressing the French president.
In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that Hezbollah stance since the beginning of the French initiative was to welcome and to facilitate such efforts, but stressed that Macron’s rhetoric of superiority is not accepted.
“You are welcome as a friend and an ally, not as a guardian and prosecutor who defends the interest of certain Lebanese camp,” the Hezbollah S.G. said.
He concluded this part of his speech by maintaining that Hezbollah is still committed to the French initiative, voicing readiness to hold discussions in this regard “but on base of respect.”
Bahraini People and Deals with ‘Israel’
Sayyed Nasrallah then praised the Bahraini people who took to streets to protest against the Manama regime’s decision to hold so-called peace deal with the Zionist entity.
“We appreciate the moves of the Bahraini people who despite oppression by the regime took to streets and voiced opposition to any deal with the Israeli enemy.”
Hi eminence also said that Hezbollah relies on the stance of the people of the Arab countries and their popular will to oppose their regimes and refuse deals with the Israeli enemy.
عزيزٌ على فرنسا أن تَفشل مساعيها في لبنان المُدَّعى «إبنها البار» والمُدَّعي بأنها «أمه الحنون»!
لا تريد فرنسا وليس من مصلحتها أن تُفشل مبادرتها أو أن تنكسر على الساحة اللبنانية التي كانت دوماً في جيبتها تفعل فيها ما تشاء تَرفَعُ قوماً وتُخفِضُ آخرين…
ولكنها اليوم ضُرِبَت مِمَّن تحت جناحها أو ينتسبون إليها!
فإذا أَرَدْتَ يا ماكرون أن تُعوِّض خسائِرَك وتُثبت وجودك وتَحْضر في الساحة المتوسطية والإقليمية فعليك أن تكون أكثر جُرأةً في تحديد مَن أفشَل تشكيل الحكومة ولا تكتفي بالعموميات والاتهامات التي تتجنَّب فيها تحديد المسؤوليات وتُحاول أن تتذاكى لتحافظ بحسب رأيك على مواقعك مع الأميركيين والأوروبيين واللاعبين الإقليميين!
ننصحك يا ماكرون أن تستمع بعد ساعات للأمين العام لحزب الله فلديه الخبر اليقين والوعد الصادق والجرأة المطلوبة والموقف الواضح الذي لنْ تجدَه عند غيره يقيناً.
يا ماكرون بعد ساعات سوف يتكلم السيد حسن نصرالله، فنصيحتنا أن تتغافل قليلاً عن المُطَبِّلين والمُزَمِّرين والانتهازيين والمُستَغلِّين والمُتَسلِّقين والمترصِّدين وأن تأخذ كلامه الجادّ والموثوق والمحتَرم والصادق حيث تجد خيرَ بضاعة لا يَخيب مَن أَخَذَ بها ومنها.
كثر الحديث في الأسابيع الأخيرة، عن نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، وكأنّ هذا النادي، المولود الهجين الجديد، بمثابة مجلس «حكماء»، أراد لنفسه أن يكون الوصيّ المباشر، والحريص كلّ الحرص، على تعيين او اختيار رئيس حكومة للبلاد. هذا المجلس أياً كان عدده، يريد ان يؤسّس عرفاً، ونمطاً، وسلوكاً جديداً في لبنان، وما أكثر التسميات والأعراف السياسية التي تتناسل وتتناسخ في هذا البلد الموبوء بالأزمات والمشاكل، ليصبح لهذا المجلس في ما بعد الكلمة الأساس والفصل، في اختيار وانتقاء وتسمية المرشحين، لتشكيل أيّ حكومة جديدة، أو عندما تدعو الحاجة، استخدام حق النقض، أو الرفض، أو حجب الثقة عنهم، ومحاصرتهم، أو إفشال وإجهاض أيّ محاولة منهم فيما لو خرجوا عن طاعتهم وإرادتهم، وإملاءاتهم، وتوجيهاتهم.
مجلس مثير، عجيب غريب، لم تشهد دول العالم مثيلاً له، في فذلكته، وتركيبته، وأدائه، وغايته، والذي يضمّ عدداً من «الأخيار الفضلاء»، حيث شهد اللبنانيون في زمن حكوماتهم، «مدينة الفارابي الفاضلة»، التي يُحتذى بها، ويشهد لها القاصي والداني، والصديق والعدو، وكلّ مؤيد لها ومعارض.
ولعل فؤاد السنيورة أحد أركان هذا النادي، هو واحد من أبرز الشخصيات الفذة لنادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، الذي جسّد حقيقة لا لبس فيها ولا جدال، وهي قمة النزاهة، ونظافة الكفّ، والأداء السليم، والزهد في الحياة الدنيا، والإيمان العميق، والترفع عن الماديات والصفقات، والمال الحرام.
لكن السؤال الذي يراودني: ماذا لو أنّ نادي أو مجلس أو منتدى، رؤساء الحكومات السابقين _ سمّه ما شئت _ أطال الله بعمرهم جميعاً _ الذين تجمعهم روح الأخوة الصادقة، والنوايا السليمة الطيبة المشتركة تجاه بعضهم البعض، والمصلحة الوطنية الواحدة، والتنافس والتزاحم في ما بينهم لخدمة الشعب، والترفع عن مصالحهم الشخصية، واستعدادهم الدائم، للتضحية بمالهم وبأنفسهم في أيّ وقت، غير مكترثين بمنصب أو إغراء كرسي، تأكيداً وحرصاً وحفاظاً منهم على مصلحة الوطن والمواطن. أعود وأتساءل: ماذا لو اقتصر النادي على شخصية واحدة فقط، كفؤاد السنيورة مثلاً، أمل اللبنانيين باستمرار، ومُلهم المواطنين وحبيبهم، ومثلهم الأعلى، وأملهم الكبير! فهل هو الذي سيقرّر لوحده وفقا للعرف الجديد، تسمية رئيس حكومة عتيد، يتمتع بصفات مثالية، متميّزة يريدها للمرشح، تتطابق مع الفضائل الحميدة لفؤاد السنيورة، الذي سينقلنا مع من يختاره إلى عالم جديد، في رحاب جمهورية أفلاطون!
سؤال برسم المتبحّرين في التقاليد والأعراف السياسية اللبنانية، والبدع، والفذلكات العجيبة، والتشكيلات الهجينة، والابتكارات الحكومية المعقدة، التي لا تسمن ولا تغني من جوع.
ها هو اليوم، مصطفى أديب الذي اختاره وتبناه نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، يعتذر عن تأليف الحكومة، حيث لم يسمح له النادي العتيد أن يتحرك بإرادته الحرة المستقلة، وإنما ظلّ أسيراً في يد أقطاب النادي، يشيرون، ويوجّهون، ويعترضون، ويحجبون، فكان المكلف بتشكيل الحكومة، وسط ناد قلبه مع مصطفى أديب، وعيون أعضائه ولعابهم يسيل على الحكومة.
فماذا بعد مصطفى أديب؟! وما الذي ينتظره لبنان من أقطاب النادي في اختيارهم لمرشح جديد لا يريدون له مطلقاً أن يخرج من جلبابهم، لتكون لهم الكلمة الفصل، أياً كانت نتائجها، وإنْ تعارضت مع مصلحة الوطن واستقراره، طالما انّ هذا النادي بدوره لن يخرج عن إرادة وتوجهات وإملاءات قوى خارجية، تفعل فعلها على الساحة اللبنانية، بطرق وأساليب عديدة، عبر أطراف وهيئات وشخصيات عديدة، وأصدقاء وحلفاء تستخدمهم مطية عندما تدعو الحاجة.
فبعد اعتذار المكلف، هل سيستفيد أقطاب النادي من تجربة مصطفى أديب وفشل التشكيل، أم سيستمرّون في نهجم وأدائهم السابق، ويمعنون في التعطيل؟! وهل التعطيل الذي كان النادي أحد أبرز أسبابه، يهدف من ورائه جرّ الخارج إلى فرض المزيد من الضغوط والعقوبات، على طرف لبناني رئيس وتحميله مسؤولية فشل تأليف الحكومة، وحمله على التنازل، والرضوخ لإرادة ومطالب النادي، وما يخطط له ويرسمه وينسقه مع حلفاء الداخل والخارج؟! وهل الوطن اللبناني، بعد فشل التأليف، سيسلم من الهزات التي تحيط به من كلّ جانب وتهدّد أمنه، واستقراره، وسيادته، ووحدة شعبه، والتي لم يعد باستطاعته أن يستوعب الحدّ الأدنى من درجات قوتها، بعد ان تهاوت في لبنان كلّ مقوّمات حياته الاقتصادية والمالية والنقدية والاجتماعية، وفوق كلّ ذلك، المعيشية وانعدام ثقة المواطن بالطبقة السياسية الفاسدة، ويأسه من غده ومستقبله؟!
أيها «الغيارى» على لبنان، لا تدعوه ينهار ويسقط، ويتحلل أمام عيونكم وسياساتكم الكيدية، لأنّ عنادكم ورهانكم واعتمادكم على الخارج، لن يوفر لكم ما تريدون ويريده معكم، بل سيزيد من تفاقم الأزمة الخطيرة، وارتداداتها المدمّرة التي ستطال الجميع ولن تستثني أحداً.
أعلن الرئيس المكلف لتشكيل الحكومة الدكتور مصطفى أديب اعتذاره عن عدم مواصلة العمل على تأليف حكومة جديدة.. وجاء في حيثيات اعتذاره، أنه «مع وصول المجهود الى مراحله الأخيرة تبيّن لي أنّ التوافق لم يعد قائماً»، مشيراً إلى أنه «سبق وأعلنتُ للكتل أنني لست في صدد الولوج في أيّ شأن سياسي وأبلغت الكتل أنني لست في صدد طرح أسماء تشكل استفزازاً لها».
وما أن انتهى أديب من تلاوة بيان اعتذاره، حتى شهدنا هجوماً منسّقاً ومحضّراً مسبقاً على فريق الأكثرية، وخصوصاً تحالف حزب الله أمل، شنّته قيادات فريق ١٤ آذار ومجموعات الانجيؤز، مصحوباً بالضغط على معيشة المواطنين، واتخذ الهجوم المنسّق عدة مستويات…
اولاً، اتهام التحالف الأكثري، لا سيما حزب الله وأمل، بالمسؤولية عن تعطيل تشكيل الحكومة وإفشال المبادرة الفرنسية وإضاعة ما وُصف بأنه الفرصة الأخيرة للإنقاذ وإخراج لبنان واللبنانيين من الأزمة الخانقة.
ثانياً، التلاعب بسعر العملة عبر القيام بدفع الأدوات المضاربة في السوق المالية إلى رفع سعر صرف الدولار والقول إنّ هذا الارتفاع الذي سيؤثر سلباً على القدرة الشرائية للمواطنين ويلهب الأسعار، إنّما هو نتيجة تصلّب أمل حزب الله في رفض تسهيل مهمة الرئيس أديب في تشكيل الحكومة مستقلة، ودفعه إلى الإعتذار.
ثالثاً، مسارعة مجموعات الأنجيؤز للنزول إلى الشارع ورفع شعارات تحمّل مسؤولية ارتفاع سعر الدولار وتدهور الوضع المعيشي لفريق الأكثرية بهدف تحريض المواطنين على العودة إلى الساحات وإحياء المطالبة بتشكيل حكومة مستقلة تتولى تنفيذ الانقلاب الأميركي.
لكن أيّ مدقق في ما تقدّم من اعتذار أديب إلى الحملة المنسّقة ضدّ فريق الأكثرية، يلحظ مدى الزيف وعدم الصدقية في توجيه الاتهامات، وأنها تستهدف التعمية على حقائق ما حصل فعلياً، ومن يقف وراء تعطيل تشكيل الحكومة… وبالتالي التهرّب من المسؤولية عن الأزمات التي يعاني منها اللبنانيون…
1
ـ إنّ الرئيس المكلف أديب، على عكس ما أوحى في بيان اعتذاره، لم يبذل أيّ جهد حقيقي لتشكيل حكومة توافقية، بل انه لم يتشاور مع الكتل النيابية وظلّ طوال الوقت على التشاور والانصات فقط لتوجيهات نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، وإصراره على فرض تشكيلة حكومية «مستقلة» ينفرد هو في تسمية وزرائها، وعندما التقى أخيراً، بعد أن أحرج، بممثلي تحالف أمل وحزب الله، بقي على موقفه من دون أن يتزحزح قيد أنملة رافضاً الموافقة على أن يسمّي التحالف وزراءه من ذوي الاختصاص ومن غير الحزبيّين، وتمسك أديب بموقفه، وهو أمر لم يكن من ضمن أيّ اتفاق، كما زعم في بيان اعتذاره، حيث لم تتخلّ كتلتا أمل وحزب الله عن تسمية وزرائهما من الاختصاصيين غير الحزبيّين، في حين أنّ الرئيس أديب نفسه ليس مستقلاً منزلاً من السماء، وكان أول من سمّاه هو نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، واتفق معهم فقط على تشكيلة حكومته، التي لم يعلنها ولم يسلم مسودة عنها لرئيس الجمهزرية العماد ميشال عون، لعدم حصول أديب على موافقة تحالف أمل حزب الله، واستطراداً لإدراكه أنّ رئيس الجمهورية سيكون له أيضاً رأي معاكس باعتباره شريكاً في عملية التأليف، والذي ظهر في انتقاده أديب والطلب منه التواصل والتشاور مع الكتل، وعندما لم يستجب أديب لذلك، تولى الرئيس عون مهمة الوقوف بنفسه على رأي الكتل بشأن طبيعة وشكل الحكومة…
2
ـ إنّ فريق 14 آذار ركز في حملته على دعم أديب في تشكيل حكومة مستقلين لا يسمّيها أحد غيره، وطبعاً من ورائه نادي الرؤساء، الذين كانوا يتولّون الإشراف على عملية تشكيل حكومة أديب بالاتفاق مع واشنطن والرياض… بحيث تكون حكومة مستقلين ويكون هواها أميركياً.
3
ـ إنّ اعتذار أديب يأتي من ضمن خطة منسقة مع نادي الرؤساء لشنّ حملة منظمة لخلق مناخ عام محلي لزيادة منسوب الضغط على حزب الله وحركة أمل ورئيس الجمهورية، معززاً بالمزيد من العقوبات الأميركية ومفاقمة الأزمة المعيشية للمواطنين في محاولة لإعادة تحرك الشارع… للضغط على التحالف الوطني لدفعه إلى الموافقة على تشكيل حكومة اختصاصيين «مستقلين» لا يشارك في تسمية وزرائها.. لأنّ ذلك هو الشرط الأميركي الذي وضع منذ البداية… إما الموافقة على حكومة من هذا النوع، تنفذ الشروط الأميركية، أو عليكم أن تواجهوا المزيد من الحصار والعقوبات والتجويع…
انطلاقاً من ذلك، فإنّ الفريق الأميركي السعودي لا يريد تسهيل تشكيل حكومة وفاق تؤدّي الى إحياء المساكنة التي كانت سابقاً مع الفريق الوطني، وإنما يريد تنفيذ انقلاب سياسي على المعادلة القائمة من خلال محاولة فرض حكومة موالية بالكامل للفريق الأميركي السعودي تحت اسم حكومة اختصاصيين «مستقلين»… وهو الأمر الذي صرفت من أجله واشنطن الأموال الطائلة، وتحديداً على منظمات الأنجيؤز ووسائل الإعلام، حيث اعترف مساعد وزير الخارجية الأميركي ديفيد هيل في شهادة له أمام الكونغرس قبل أيام، بأنّ الإدارات الأميركية المتعاقبة صرفت في لبنان منذ عام 2005 وحتى الآن عشرة مليارات دولار على القوى المسلحة ومنظمات المجتمع المدني…
أمام هذه الخلاصة، التي تأكدت مجدّداً من خلال اعتذار أديب والحملة الممنهجة التي بدأها الفريق الأميركي السعودي، بعد الاعتذار مباشرة…
ما هو الردّ المطلوب من قبل التحالف الوطني؟
في هذا السياق يمكن القول…
1
ـ إنّ الخطوة الأولى الأساسية الواجبة إنّما هي اقتناع كلّ أطراف التحالف الوطني بأنّ الفريق الأميركي يريد إقصاءهم عن السلطة، وإضعافهم وتفرقة صفوفهم وصولاً إلى استمالة بعضهم، اذا تمكّن، لإبعادهم عن حزب الله المقاوم… وبالتالي عزل المقاومة والعمل على نزع سلاحها باعتبار ذلك هو السبيل لتحقيق أمن كيان العدو الصهيوني، وفرض الهيمنة الأميركية الكاملة على لبنان، وتحويله إلى محمية أميركية صهيونية وجعله قاعدة لإعادة التآمر ضدّ الدولة الوطنية السورية المقاومة…
2
ـ إنّ هذا الاقتناع يستدعي الاتفاق على بلورة رؤية موحدة لمواجهة خطة الانقلاب التي يعمل، الفريق الأميركي السعودي، على تنفيذها، رؤية تضع في الأولوية كيفية مواجهة التحديات الراهنة التي يتمّ الاتفاق عليها، وتحييد كلّ ما عداها من قضايا ومسائل خلافية ليست أولوية ولا هي أولويات راهنة.
3
ـ إنّ الرؤية الموحدة للمواجهة تتطلب أن يحسم التحالف الوطني أمره بأن لا مخرج من الأزمة وإحباط خطة الإنقلاب الأميركية من دون تشكيل حكومة منسجة ومتماسكة وفق رؤية انقاذية اقتصادية ومالية تقوم على إعادة نظر جذرية بالسياسات الريعية المسبّبة للأزمة، ومغادرة سياسة إبقاء لبنان بعلاقة اقتصادية أحادية مع دول الغرب، التي تستخدم هذه العلاقة لابتزاز لبنان وفرض شروطها على لبنان… وبالتالي حسم القرار بتنويع خيارات لبنان الاقتصادية عبر أخذ قرار قبول عروض المشاريع والمساعدات الصينية والإيرانية والعراقية والروسية لمساعدة لبنان من دون شروط، وبالتالي تكريس توازن جديد في علاقات لبنان الاقتصادية مع الخارج انطلاقاً من أن لبنان يحتلّ موقعاً جغرافياً مميزاً كصلة وصلة وصل بين الشرق والغرب وهو ما لا يمكن أن يقوم به إلاّ إذا ترجم ذلك بالانفتاح اقتصادياً على الشرق، كما هو منفتح على الغرب… وإذا كانت الفعاليات الاقتصادية حذرة أو خائفة من تضرّر مصالحها من الإقدام على مثل هذا الخيار، فيجب أن تدرك أنها ستكون أول المستفيدين من ذلك وأنّ الغرب سوف يعمد إلى المسارعة لوقف حصاره وتقديم المساعدات للبنان للحفاظ على نفوذ فيه، انطلاقاً من أهمية لبنان في المنطقة والصراع العربي الصهيوني…
إنّ مثل هذا الردّ هو السبيل لوضع حدّ لتفاقم الأزمة الاقتصادية والمالية، والعمل على إعادة انعاش الاقتصاد من خلال البدء عمليا بمشاريع إقامة معامل الكهرباء والنفايات وسكك الحديد والسدود وغيرها من المشاريع التي عرضت الصين القيام بها، وفق نظام BOT، في حين أنّ لبنان يستطيع أيضاً وقف النزف الحاصل في احتياطه، من الدولارات في مصرف لبنان، من خلال قبول العروض العراقية والإيرانية للحصول على احتياجاته من النفط ومشتقاته مقابل الدفع بالليرة والمقايضة بالمنتجات الزراعية والصناعية..وهذا سوف يؤدّي إلى إنعاش قطاعات الإنتاج وتوسّعها وتوّفير فرص العمل للعاطلين، وبالتالي الحدّ من البطالة، وكذلك تنشيط حركة البناء وعمل المهن الحرة على اختلافها، مما ينعكس بتنشيط مجمل الحركة الاقتصادية…
فهل يحسم التحالف الوطني، الذي يمتلك الأكثرية النيابية، خياراته في هذا الاتجاه، الذي كان أمين حزب الله سماحة السيد حسن نصرالله قد دعا إليه، وأكد أنه حاضر لتوظيف كلّ جهوده لإنجاحه، من خلال توظيف علاقاته مع الصين وإيران والعراق وروسيا…
أما في حال عدم سلوك هذا الخيار، فالأرجح أن تستمرّ حكومة تصريف الأعمال إلى أن تنضج التسوية، وهو أمر غير منظور قبل انتهاء انتخابات الرئاسة الأميركية وإعلان نتائجها، والتي قد تأخذ وقتا غير معلوم، خصوصاً إذا لم يضمن الرئيس دونالد ترامب الفوز وامتناعه عن تسليم السلطة للرئيس الفائز، تحت عنوان، التشكيك بنزاهة الانتخابات… وهو ما مهّد له مسبقاً من خلال التشكيك بالتصويت عبر البريد…
في ظل خطاب سياسي متشنّج طائفياً ومتموضع على خطوط التماس الإقليمية والدولية، يدخل لبنان مرحلة الانتظار من دون حكومة، وتبقى المبادرة الفرنسية على الطاولة محاولة البحث عن اوكسجين تدرك أن حجبه عنها كان من صمامات واشنطن، وأن إعادة ضخّه تتم من هناك، لأن نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين الذي تناغم مع العقوبات الأميركية ورمى المبادرة الفرنسية بحجر المداورة، لن يتراجع من دون إشارة أميركية معاكسة لا تبدو في الأفق، في ظل استقطاب أميركي أوروبي متصاعد حول الموقف من العقوبات الأممية على إيران، والتهديد الأميركي المعلن لكل من لا يلتزم بالعقوبات، بالتعرّض للعقوبات، مقابل قلق أوروبي عام وفرنسي خاص من تعميم الفوضى بغياب أرضية سياسية صلبة للتعامل مع تحديات المتوسط، في ظل لامبالاة أميركية بالمخاطر التي تهدّد مصالح أوروبا وأمنها، بنتيجة الفراغ الاستراتيجي، الناتج عن اللاحرب واللاسلم، ومواصلة التصعيد السياسي.
–
لا شيء يقول إن هناك آفاقاً قريبة لتغير الصورة، والكثير من المراقبين في المنطقة وأوروبا يدعون للتأقلم مع مواصلة الفراغ رغم مخاطره المتسارعة، لأن لا شيء سيتغيّر قبل الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية، ويتركز البحث في باريس وبيروت، وسواهما من العواصم على كيفية إدارة تخفض الخسائر في مرحلة الانتظار لشهرين على الأقل، حيث يتحدّث الكثيرون عن أرجحية تفاهم أميركي إيراني يوفر مناخاً جديداً في المنطقة، يشكل مظلة تسويات متعددة الاتجاهات، أهمها فرص انتعاش جديدة للمبادرة الفرنسيّة بنسخة متجدّدة، ويعتقد هؤلاء أنه مهما كانت نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية، فإن الفائز أمامه خيار حتميّ هو الذهاب للتفاهم مع إيران، لأن التصعيد التفاوضيّ لا أفق أمامه في تغيير موقف إيران ولا إضعاف مصادر قوتها، ولأن التوظيف الانتخابيّ للخطاب التصعيدي سيكون قد انتهى، لكن هذا التحليل الافتراضي رغم سيطرته على التقديرات المتداولة لا يأخذ بالاعتبار عاملين كبيرين، يمثلهما مستجدان لم يحضرا إلى المشهد عبثاً، هما من جهة التطور النوعي في العلاقات الصينية الأميركية الذي بلغ وزير الخارجية الأميركية بوصفه بالتحول الاستراتيجي الخطير، ومن جهة مقابلة التطبيع الخليجي «الإسرائيلي» الذي وصفته كل مستويات القيادة في إيران، بالتحول الاستراتيجي الخطير.
–
بعض التحليلات الواردة من واشنطن، والمعزّزة بتقارير ومعلومات موثوقة تقول إن الاستحقاق الرئاسي الأميركي المقبل، لن يمر بيُسر وسلاسة، وإن الانقسام الاجتماعي والعرقي الذي يشق صفوف المجتمع الأميركي، يخيم بظلاله على الاستحقاق الرئاسي، المحاط بمزاج عنصري أبيض يقف خلف الرئيس دونالد ترامب، وبالمقابل فقدان الحزب الديمقراطي دعم الطبقة الوسطى البيضاء، وربما تحوّله إلى حزب للأميركيين السود، في ظل ميليشيات بيضاء مسلحة تهدّد بالحرب الأهلية وتمرّد ولايات في حال فشل ترامب، يقابلها تسلح ميليشيات من السود يدعمها الديمقراطيون تهدّد بالمثل في حال فوزه، وفي ظل بطالة تتحوّل الى جائحة تطال أربعين مليون أميركي يتحولون إلى وقود لهذه الميليشيات، وصعوبة إنجاز انتخابات مجمع عليها في ظل التعقيدات التي يفرضها وباء كورونا، بحيث يتوقع أن تفوق الطعون قدرة أي محاكم محلية وصولاً للمحكمة الدستورية العليا، التي تواجه تحديات نقص في قوامها ومحاولات من ترامب للسيطرة عليها، لكن مع فرضية تتقدم عنوانها الفراغ الرئاسي، أي أن تنتهي الانتخابات ويعلن كل فريق مرشحه فائزاً، ومرور موعد نهاية الولاية الأولى لترامب من دون أن تكون النتيجة الحاسمة القابلة لتحقيق الإجماع قد ظهرت، في ظل تمهيد إعلامي لاستدراج المؤسسة العسكرية إلى الساحة السياسية لملء الفراغ المفترض.
–
من وحي هذه المقدّمات هناك من يدعو للتأقلم مع هذا الفراغ المتوقع لفترة تتجاوز موعد الاستحقاق الرئاسي، ولعدم التيقن بأن الوضع الدولي لا يزال قادراً على تشكيل مظلة للحروب او لمنعها، وللتسويات أو إعاقتها، ومضمون الفرضية يستدعي عدم هدر الوقت بانتظار لا سقف له، سيتدهور وضع بلدان كثيرة خلاله نحو المزيد من الأزمات المالية والسياسية والأمنية، ولبنان في طليعتها.
خلافاً لما كانت عليه توقعات المروّجين لفرنسا الأم الحنون وفاعل الخير، عن لجوء الرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون لإعلان سحب مبادرته عن الطاولة، جدّد ماكرون شباب مبادرته، مؤكداً ما قاله الذين يؤمنون بأن لا مشاعر في سياسات الدول بل مصالح، وأن ما دفع الرئيس الفرنسي نحو بيروت ليس الحب ولا الشعر ولا فيروز، بل المصالح، ولذلك لن يتراجع عن قرار التمركز على شاطئ المتوسط المليء بالغاز لأنه تحقق من اعتذار مصطفى أديب، ولن يترك تداعيات مخاطر انهيار اقتصادي في لبنان، تنتج ما يصيب الأمن الأوروبي وهو يرى بأم العين قوارب النازحين ونشاط الجماعات الإرهابية، بصورة متصاعدة، ولن يتخلى عن مقاربة أوروبية تتقدمها باريس نحو اعتماد الاحتواء مع محور المقاومة، من إيران إلى حزب الله، بدلاً من المواجهة التي تسلكها واشنطن، ليس حباً بالمقاومة ولا تشاركاً معها بأهدافها، بل لتقدير مختلف لمخاطر منهجي الاحتواء والمواجهة عن التقدير الأميركي الذي تتشارك فيه «إسرائيل» والسعودية». وهو يرى كيف تستثمر تركيا على الفراغ الناشئ بفعل سياسة المواجهة، وكيف تدفع فرنسا مزيداً من التراجع بفعل اتساع مساحات الفراغ ودنوها من لبنان، بالتوازي مع دنو الخطر التركي.
–
المبادرة الفرنسيّة لا تزال على الطاولة، ولن تسحب، وستبقى، كما قال ماكرون، وخريطة الطريق الجديدة، تقوم على تأجيل المواعيد، من اجتماع الدول الداعمة إلى المؤتمر الدولي، بانتظار حكومة جديدة، تنفذ المهمة التي كانت مرصودة لحكومة مصطفى أديب، ومواصلة المساعي ترافقها مواقف توضح مكانة فرنسا السياسية، من خريطة محلية وإقليمية ودولية، فرنسا تحمّل الرئيس الحريري وشركاءه في نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين مسؤولية الفشل بالتلاعب بالتوازنات الطائفية، وتحمل حزب الله والثنائي الذي يضمّه مع حركة أمل مسؤولية التشدد بالشروط بعد تراجع نسبي للحريري، وفرنسا لا تلاقي إيران والسعودية وتركيا في مقارباتها، وتجد في العقوبات الأميركيّة تشويشاً على مبادرتها، ورغم الانطباعات التي ولّدتها بعض التعابير السلبية بحق حزب الله، يمكن لمن يعلم بأن الكلام الفرنسي يُقال في بيئة سياسية غربية وعربية تدعو فرنسا للانخراط في المواجهة مع حزب الله، أن يعتبر أن الرسالة التي حملها كلام ماكرون يتضمنها كلامه في الشق الذي رفض فيه المواجهة مع حزب الله، وليس في الشق الذي تضمّن الانتقادات.
–
مرر ماكرون خلال كلامه تعديلاً على التصور الذي انطلقت المبادرة على اساسه، فكان واضحاً بين سطور أقواله، أن الهوية الطائفية السياسية للجهة التي سينبثق منها اسم الرئيس المكلف ستفرض بالتوازي هوية موازية طائفياً وسياسياً لتسمية الوزراء، بحيث يستدعي التمسك بحكومة بعيدة عن الأحزاب، ضامنة لموافقتها، سحب مهمة التسمية للرئيس المكلف من يد رؤساء الحكومات السابقين والرئيس السابق سعد الحريري، لصالح تشاور على اسم مقبول من الجميع، يوازيه تفاهم مشابه على أسماء الوزراء بالتشاور، بحيث يكون التكليف والتأليف أقرب للتزامن منعاً للمطبات، والفخاخ، وذلك كله مشروط بتغطية إقليمية ودولية أعلن ماكرون عن السعي لتوفيرها، وفي حال الفشل، هذه المرة لن تسحب فرنسا مبادرتها عن الطاولة بل ستعدّل وجهتها من الحكومة إلى الحوار الوطني نحو تعديل النظام السياسي، وهو ما يستدعي وقتاً في منطقة سريعة التقلب وكثيرة الأزمات، ومن دون أن يقول ماكرون ذلك، كانت مواقيته الجديدة على عقارب ساعة الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية، وما ستقوله حول وضوح الصورة أو غموضها أكثر.
شكل موقف الملك السعودي سلمان بن عبد العزيز، في كلمته أمام الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة، لناحية توجيه الاتهام الى حزب الله بالإرهاب، واشتراط عودة الاستقرار للبنان بنزع سلاح المقاومة، شكل مؤشراً واضحاً لا لبس فيه على تماهي موقف المملكة مع الهدف الأميركي المُراد تحقيقه في لبنان في هذه المرحلة، كون الموقف السعودي إنًما هو يُجسّد ويُترجم السياسة الأميركية في لبنان وعموم الوطن العربي والشرق الأوسط.. ذلك أنّ السياسة السعودية إنما هي مرتبطة تماماً بالسياسة الأميركية، وليست مستقلة عنها…
والهدف الأميركي هو إخراج حزب الله وحلفائه من السلطة وتغيير المعادلة النيابية، في سياق خطة مدروسة، كان قد شرحها بالتفصيل السفير الأميركي السابق في لبنان جيفري فيلتمان في شهادته الشهيرة أمام الكونغرس الأميركي في شهر تشرين الثاني 2019.
ولتحقيق هذا الهدف، أقدمت واشنطن على تشديد الحصار المالي على لبنان وتفجير الاستقرار فيه وربط تسهيل الحلول للأزمة ورفع الحصار عن لبنان بإقصاء حزب الله وحلفائه عن السلطة التنفيذية، عبر فرض تشكيل حكومة من الاختصاصيين، يكون ولاؤهم للسياسة الأميركية، لضمان تنفيذ خطة إنجاز انقلاب سياسي في لبنان على غرار انقلاب 2005 للسيطرة على السلطة وتحقيق الأهداف الأميركية التي تنسجم أيضاً مع الأهداف الصهيونية… وهي:
فرض الهيمنة الأميركية على لبنان وإخضاعه بالكامل لتوجهات الولايات المتحدة، وإنهاء وجود المقاومة ونزع سلاحها، وتأمين أمن الكيان الصهيوني، وفرض اتفاق لترسيم الحدود البحرية والبرية بين لبنان وفلسطين المحتلة يحقق لكيان العدو أطماعه في ثروات لبنان النفطية والغازية والمائية، وصولاً إلى فرض خطة القرن لتصفية القضية الفلسطينية، والتي لا يمكن أن تفرض طالما هناك مقاومة تملك القدرات والإمكانيات الردعية وتشكل جزءاً من محور مقاوم يعيق تعويم مشروع الهيمنة الأميركي…
لذلك فإنّ طرح موضوع المداورة في حقيبة وزارة المالية، ومن ثم إعلان رئيس الحكومة السابق سعد الحريري اقتراح أن يسمّي الرئيس المكلف مصطفى أديب وزير شيعياً مستقلاً، إنما يضمر محاولة تمرير الخطة الانقلابية الأميركية السعودية الأشمل، والتي تقتضي قلب المعادلة في لبنان عبر تغيير قواعد اللعبة السياسية وفرض آليات جديدة لتشكيل الحكومة، يتولى نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقون التحكم فيها من خلال إظهاره في صورة، أولاً، من يسمّي الرئيس المكلف، وثانياً، من يشكل معه الحكومة من دون أيّ مشاركة من الكتل النيابية ورئيس الجمهورية، وأنّ المطلوب ألا يعترض أحد على ذلك، والقبول بالتشكيلة الحكومية والطريقة المبتكرة في تأليفها، وإلا تكونوا، (أيّ الكتل النيابية التي تمثل الأكثرية)، تعرقلون المبادرة الفرنسية، وتقفون عقبة في طريق إنقاذ البلاد من الكارثة الاقتصادية والمالية إلخ…
والرهان في محاولة تمرير هذه الخطة من قبل نادي الرؤساء، إنما على…
أولاً، إحداث شرخ في العلاقة بين التيار الوطني الحر وحزب الله وصولاً الى تفكيكه.. من خلال محاولات فريق المستقبل والقوات اللبنانية، التصويب بشكل مستمر على هذا التحالف بتحميله مسؤولية الأزمة من جهة، وتغذية التناقضات والخلافات والعمل على تأليب قواعد الطرفين ضدّ بعضهما البعض من خلال إثارة الشائعات عبر وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي.
ثانياً، إطلاق مناورات مستمرة مفخخة لوضع تحالف حزب الله ـ أمل في وضع حرج… فإذا قبل يكون قد وقع في فخ الموافقة على ولادة حكومة انقلابية يسمّيها، من ألِفها إلى يائها، الرئيس المكلف مصطفى أديب ومن ورائه نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، أما إذا رفض التحالف فإنه يجري اتهامه بالعرقلة ويُحمّل المسؤولية عن تعطيل تشكيل الحكومة.
ثالثاً، ممارسة الضغط الاستثنائي على التيار الوطني عبر…
1
ـ استغلال المبادرة الفرنسية التي تلقى قبولاً وترحيباً عاماً، لا سيما في الوسط المسيحي، انطلاقاً من الارتباط الثقافي والعلاقات المصلحية الاقتصادية مع الغرب.
2
ـ الضغط الأميركي بسلاح العقوبات، والذي رفع الأميركي من منسوب التهديد به لقيادات في التيار الوطني وفي المقدمة الوزير جبران باسيل، إذا ما وقف ضدّ تشكيل حكومة يختارها أديب.. وكانت العقوبات على الوزيرين السابقين، علي حسن خليل ويوسف فنيانوس، في سياق هذه الخطة الأميركية لإرهاب حلفاء حزب الله ودفعهم إلى الرضوخ للمطلب الأميركي القاضي بفرض تشكيل حكومة تكنوقراط أميركية الهوى. تكون الأداة لتمرير جملة الأهداف المُراد تحقيقها في لبنان…
3
ـ ممارسة الضغوط من قبل بكركي على الرئيس ميشال عون، لمنعه من الاعتراض على تشكيل حكومة، منزلة عليه بالبراشوت، وبالتالي دفعه الى التخلي عن ممارسة صلاحياته الدستورية التي تضمن له الحق بالمشاركة في تأليف الحكومة مع الرئيس المكلف.
انطلاقاً مما تقدّم، باتت الصورة واضحة، مهما جرى تمويهها، وهي الضغط بكلّ الوسائل لفكّ عرى التحالف بين التيار الوطني الحر وحزب الله، وفرض تشكيل حكومة اللون الأميركي.. واقتراح الرئيس الحريري بأن يسمّي أديب وزيراً مستقلاً للمالية من الطائفة الشيعية، لا يخرج عن هذا السياق، وهو مناورة حيكت في مطبخ نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، لتعلن باسم الحريري لضمان خطة الرجعة في حال فشلت محاولة تمريرها، والرئيس فؤاد السنيورة يتقن حياكة مثل هذه المناورات المفخخة، التي جرى تصويرها على أنها تنازل كبير في حين هي بالجوهر تريد دسّ السمّ في العسل، لتمرير حكومة يختار كلّ وزرائها نادي الرؤساء.. وفي الحالتين هي خروج على دستور الطائف الذي يحدّد بوضوح كيفية تشكيل الحكومة على أسس التمثيل البرلماني والطائفي والميثاقي.. كما يحدّد دور رئيس الجمهورية في المشاركة في عملية تأليف الحكومة مع الرئيس المكلف…
من هنا فإنّ المهمة الملحة الملقاة على عاتق تحالف حزب الله والتيار الوطني الحر إنما هي…
1
ـ التنبّه لخطورة المخطط الذي يستهدف النيل من تحالفهما، وإقصائهما عن السلطة وإضعاف تمثيلهما الشعبي والوطني.. وإعلان التمسك، أكثر من أيّ وقت مضى، بهذا التحالف، (وهو ما أكد عليه بالأمس الوزير باسيل)، والعمل على تحصينه والتصدي بخطة موحدة بالتنسيق مع كلّ القوى الوطنية، لمنع الانقلاب على قواعد دستور الطائف التي تضمن مشاركة الكتل النيابية وفق أحجامها التمثيلية، وعلى أسس التمثيل الطائفي والحفاظ على الميثاقية.. ريثما يتمّ تطبيق البنود الإصلاحية في اتفاق الطائف، لإلغاء الطائفية السياسية المنصوص عليها في المادتين 95 و22 من الدستور.
2
ـ الامتناع عن إطلاق أيّ تصريحات علنية حول مسائل الخلاف، والتركيز على أهمية القضايا المشتركة التي قام عليها التحالف، لا سيما في هذه المرحلة التي يستهدف فيها هذا التحالف بسهام أميركية مسمومة، وبسهام خصوم الداخل، الذين يراهنون على تفكيك التحالف لتحقيق ما يطمحون إليه من العودة إلى فرض هيمنتهم على السلطة، وإضعاف شعبية وتمثيل التيار الوطني الحر في الشارع المسيحي باعتبار ذلك مقدمة أيضاً لمحاصرة حزب الله المقاوم.. وهو ما يشكل أيضاً هدفاً مركزياً لرئيس حزب القوات سمير جعجع، الذي باتت تتمحور معظم مواقفه حول كيفية تحقيق هذا الهدف الذي يعتبره هو الأساس في نجاح أو فشل الخطة الأميركية الانقلابية للإمساك بناصية القرار السياسي في لبنان وقلب المعادلة النيابية…
رئيس الحكومة السابق سعد الحريري يسعى لإرضاء الفرنسيين والأميركيين مخترعاً اقتراحاً بتوزير شيعي لوزارة المالية إنما لمرة واحدة فقط، وبشكل يسحب منها ميثاقيتها التي يصرّ عليها حلف حزب الله – حركة أمل.
اما حلفاؤه الثلاثة في نادي رؤساء الحكومة السابقين وهم فؤاد السنيورة وتمام سلام ونجيب ميقاتي، فاعتبروا في تصريح لهم أن موقف الحريري خاص به ولا يعنيهم، وذلك في موقف يقترب من رفضهم له.
هل هناك مرجع يفصل بين الفريقين المذكورين؟ نعم إنها السعودية التي تمسك بالقرار السياسي السني في لبنان منذ تسلم الراحل رفيق الحريري لرئاسات الحكومات المتعاقبة بين 1990 و2005 وورثته المتجسدين في ابنه سعد والسنيورة وتمام سلام والميقاتي ونجله الأكبر بهاء المتوثب لأداء دور لبناني.
ماذا يقول السعوديون؟
انتصر الملك سلمان للخط الأميركي الذي يريد تدمير إيران لأنها تكاد تحتل العالم؟ وتعمم الإرهاب في كل مكان، ما أتاح للملك السعودي تركيز استهداف كبير لإيران التي تريد نشر «شيعيّتها» في اليمن والعراق وسورية ولبنان والخليج وتدعم إرهابييها. وهنا ركز سلمان على حزب الله موجهاً هجوماً حاداً دعا فيه العالم بأسره الى تجريد حزب الله من سلاحه وضربه لأنه إرهابي، مضيفاً أن لا قائمة للبنان إلا بعد إلغاء الحزب الإرهابي، كما وصفه.
هذا الموقف الحاد يضع القوى اللبنانية الموالية للسعودية، خصوصاً الفريق السني في دائرة المحاسبة السعودية. فالقريب من هذا الموقف يتمتع بالرعاية السعودية السياسية والمالية والدينية، فيما يجد الرافض لها نفسه معزولاً.
لذلك يبدو نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين أقرب القوى السنية الى التصعيد السعودي ومعه أشرف ريفي والمشنوق ودار الإفتاء. وداعش والنصرة وهيئة تحرير الشام. فهؤلاء ذاهبون الى التماهي الكامل مع التصعيد السعودي.
لجهة سعد الحريري فلا شك في أنه نادم على إطلاقه مشروع حل لوزارة المالية أي تعيين شيعيّ مستقلّ يختاره الرئيس المكلف أديب ولمرة واحدة.
كيف يمكن لسعد أن يلتحق بالموقف التصعيدي السعوديّ من دون سحب اقتراحه الأخير من التداول؟
لا بدّ للشيخ سعد أن يطلق أكثر من تصريح إعلامي مخادع حول استقلالية الوزير الشيعي في وزارة المالية وابتعاده الكامل عن حركة أمل وحزب الله، بذلك قد يرضي السياسة السعودية نسبياً ويضيف بأنه لمرة واحدة ما يدفع الثنائي الشيعي الى رفض اقتراحه. ويتعمّد التأكيد على دوره الأساسي في تشكيل الحكومة المرتقبة. وهذا يؤذي مكانة رئاسة الجمهورية دستورياً وطائفياً.
هذا ما حدث بالفعل بصدور بيان من الرئيس ميشال عون أكد فيه أن رئاسة الجمهورية شريك كامل في إنتاج الحكومات ولا يمكن تجاوزها أو تجاهلها.
فيكون سعد باقتراحه الأخير دافعاً ومؤسساً لرفض شيعي من جهة ورئاسي وماروني من جهة ثانية، فتعود العلاقات بين القوى السياسية إلى حالة من الاحتراب الشديد تنعكس على الشارع على شكل مواجهات غير قابلة للتأجج لأن فريق حزب الله – امل لا يريدها ويعمل على إجهاضها.
فيتبين أن القوى اللبنانية الموالية للسعودية تتصارع لكسب ود الملك سلمان وابنه محمد بشكل لا تعير فيه أي انتباه لمدى حراجة الوضع اللبناني وخطورته.
لذلك، فإن الساحة اللبنانية يتحكم فيها حالياً مشروع أميركي سعودي يدفع في اتجاه السيطرة على حكومة لبنانية مرتقبة لا تضمّ القوى الرافضة للتطبيع مع العدو الإسرائيلي. بما يفسّر أسباب هذا الاستهداف السعودي المركز على دور حزب الله في قتال «اسرائيل» والإرهاب.
هل يمكن للمراقب أن يفترض انبثاق موقف سني رافض لهذا التصعيد السعودي؟
إن القوى الشعبية السنية، خصوصاً ذات البعد التاريخي ترفض أي تقارب مع «اسرائيل» وتشجع على محاربته، لكن الكلام هنا يتركز على فريق الحريرية السياسية ومتفرّعاتها، ويستثني أيضاً فريقاً كبيراً من النواب السنة المستقلين الذين يرفضون هذا الانهيار الوطني والقومي في صفوف رؤساء الحكومات السابقين والحريرية السياسية بكامل تنوّعاتها.
يتبين بالنتيجة ان لبنان ذاهب الى أشكال مختلفة من تصعيد سياسي واقتصادي واجتماعي يرعاه المحور الأميركي السعودي الذي يضع لبنان بين اقتراحين: اما الانهيار الاقتصادي الكامل او حكومة موالية لهذا المحور تعمل على تجريد حزب الله من سلاحه وإلغاء دوره اللبناني في وجه «إسرائيل» المحتلة، وخارجي في وجه الإرهاب المهدّد للمنطقة عموماً ولبنان خصوصاً.
لكن ما يدعو الى التنبه الشديد هو احتمال انعكاس الخلافات بين القوى السنية الى معارك بين أنصارها، او مشاريع حروب مع مذاهب وطوائف أخرى، لن تؤدي إلا الى انتاج مهزوم واحد هو الاستقرار اللبناني، وبالتالي الكيان السياسي وفقاً لمشروع كيسنجر الذي كان يعتبر لبنان فائضاً تاريخياً لا لزوم له.
يتعامل الكثير من المتعاطين في الشأن العام من اللبنانيين، سياسيين وكتاباً، بخفة وسذاجة مع الاهتمام الدولي بلبنان ومن ضمنه المبادرة الفرنسية. فبينما يتخيّل البعض أنه يأتي مساندة لفريق سياسي مؤيد لسياسات الغرب والخليج، أو مساندة لفريق طائفي بحكم العلاقات التاريخيّة والاجتماعية والثقافية، يظن البعض الآخر أنه يقترب من الواقع بالحديث عن ربط المبادرة الفرنسية حصراً بالمصالح الاقتصادية والجيوسياسية، حيث يفتح الغياب باب قدوم المنافسين الاقتصاديين كحال الصين، او الجيواستراتيجيين كتركيا؛ وعلى وجود تأثير متفاوت لكل من هذه العناصر، فإن التدقيق سيوصلنا الى ان هناك سبباً حاسماً يغيب عن كل هؤلاء.
–
عندما يقول الرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون إنه ناقش مبادرته مع الرئيس الأميركي وحصل على موافقته ودعمه. وعندما تتعثر المبادرة عند نقطة تشكيل الحكومة بفعل ما وصفه الفرنسيون بالتعطيل الأميركي، فالقضية تتمحور حول المقاومة. وعندما تتحرك المبادرات نحو الحلحلة يقول الفرنسيون إن ذلك لأنهم نجحوا بتنشيط الدعم الأميركي لمبادرتهم، وبين هذه السطور كلها معنى أن الاميركي ارتضى بالمبادرة الفرنسية لأن فرنسا وحدها بحكم موقفها من ايران ورفضها تصنيف حزب الله على لوائح الإرهاب تستطيع التكلم مع حزب الله وطمأنته الى ان تشكيل حكومة تعزل القضايا الخلافية لن يتم تحت عنوان استهدافه. وعندما يصف الفرنسيون العقوبات الأميركية على حلفاء للمقاومة بأنها تصويب على مبادرتهم، لأنهم يدركون معنى الربط بالضغط لنيل تنازلات من المقاومة وتزامنها مع العقوبات لتثبيت رمزية نيل التنازلات بقوة العقوبات، وإفهام حزب الله ذلك، بحيث يصير تمسك المقاومة برفض التنازل أكبر من حيثية وزارية وبُعدها الميثاقي، ليصير اختزالاً لموازين القوى بشمولية المعنى، فمن يتنازل عن حقيبة وزارية ميثاقية تحت الضغط يمكن انتزاع تنازلات أخرى منه تحت ضغط أشدّ.
–
التراجع الأميركي الذي عبر عنه موقف الرئيس الحريري بتشجيع فرنسي حاز على نسبة كافية من التغطية الأميركية، يعيد الموقف الاميركي الى معادلة رسمها ماكرون حول القلق من أن يؤدي انسداد الافق أمام التسويات إلى أخذ لبنان نحو انحلال الدولة، وخصوصاً نظامها المالي المحتضر، ومؤسساتها الأمنية والعسكرية التي تنوء تحت أثقال أحمالها الكبيرة بمقدرات مالية ورواتب مهددة بالاضمحلال، وانحلال الدولة بالعيون الأميركية والفرنسية سيجعل جبهة جنوب لبنان عرضة للاشتعال وربما الخروج عن السيطرة. وهذا القلق بالتأكيد ليس قلقاً فرنسياً فقط، بل هو قلق أميركي قبل أن يكون قلقاً فرنسياً، وثمة من يقول إن اللوبي اليهودي في فرنسا يدعم مبادرة ماكرون من هذا الباب، وإن تهديد ماكرون بسحب مبادرته حرك هذا اللوبي نحو واشنطن لتأمين عودة التغطية الأميركية.
–
المبادرة الفرنسية ومندرجاتها ليست مجرد تسوية سياسية لحكومة يرضى بها الجميع، بل هي مدخل لتعويم مالي نسبي للدولة يمنع الانهيار، ويمنع بالتالي انحلال الدولة، ومخاطر انتقال التوتر الى الجبهة الجنوبية. وهذا هو جوهر المبادرة، والباقي حاجات لنجاحها. ولهذا معنى وحيد، وهو أن الغرب الذي قادت مؤسساته المالية منذ نهاية التسعينيات مساعي تأمين التمويل اللازم للدولة اللبنانية عبر الاستدانة ومراكمة المزيد من الديون، وهو يدرك حجم المخاطر المترتبة لجهة تراجع القدرة على سداد هذه الديون، قد فعل ذلك بحساب سياسي وليس بحساب اقتصادي. والحساب السياسي بنظر البعض هو توريط لبنان بديون تفوق قدرته على السداد لابتزازه بطلب تنازلات تطال مصادر قوته التي تمثلها المقاومة. وبنظر بعض آخر هو حساب سياسي يهدف للحفاظ على الاستقرار السياسي في لبنان خشية انفلات الوضع من تحت السيطرة خصوصاً على الحدود الجنوبية، لكنه في الحالين حساب سياسي يشبه الحساب السياسي الذي سيحكم مشاريع التمويل التي يُحكى عنها في ظل حكومة جديدة، والسعي للحصول على تجاوب المقاومة مع تشكيلها، والعمل على تعطيل محاولات توظيف سياق ولادة الحكومة لفرض تنازلات على المقاومة، بقوة العقوبات، وهو ما تحقق بفتح نافذة إعادة قطار المبادرة الفرنسية الى السكة وفقاً لمواقف الرئيس الحريري الأخيرة، بعد نجاح محاولة الحريري وزملائه في نادي رؤساء الحكومات بتهديد القطار والسكة معاً، وفي الذهاب والإياب والتعطيل والعودة عنه، عنوان واحد هو المقاومة.
–
الغرب والخليج، في ضائقة مالية، ولو عاد الأمر لحسابات المصالح المحاسبية، فليس لديهم بنس يدفعونه للبنان، ومن دون قرار سياسي أميركي كبير لن تصل الى لبنان أموال تنتشله من الهاوية. وهذا القرار لا تنتجه إلا مخاوف كبرى بحجم القلق الأميركي على «اسرائيل». وهو قلق لا مكان له الا بمقاومة قوية عسكرياً، متمرسة سياسياً لحد الثبات بوجه التهويل والتهديد، بحيث لا يمكن فرض التنازلات عليها لا بالعقوبات ولا بالتلويح بالإفلاس، والطريق الوحيد لضمان هدوئها على الحدود هو رفع سيف العقوبات عن رقاب حلفائها ورفع سيف الإفلاس عن رقبة الدولة ونظامها المصرفي.
مشكلة أمر الذين لا يقرأون، وإن قرأوا لا يعرفون، وأن عرفوا لا يعترفون.
في مناخ الكثير من رواد وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي وبعض المشتغلين بالشأن العام، حديث انفعالي عن ثقافتين لبنانيتين وبيئتين مختلفتين، بما يعني الفوارق بين بيئة المقاومة والبيئة المناهضة لها، والأفكار والقيم التي ترتبط بها كل منهما، كالتناقض بين دعوات الحياد ودعوات الالتزام بفلسطين، والتناقض بين دعوات التوجّه شرقاً وتجذّر لبنان في العلاقات مع الغرب، وصولاً للقول إن الحل الوحيد هو بالطلاق الودّي، تحت شعار لي ديني ولكم دينكم، سواء بصيغة تقسيم كامل لدول مختلفة أو تقسيم جزئي بصيغة فدرالية، او بما يرسمه البعض من صور خيالية لدعوات اللامركزية لمحاكاة هذا النوع من الطلاق، وليس بحثاً عن وظائف تنموية للامركزية.
–
لا يهتم هؤلاء في النقاش لما ورد في الدستور حول رفض كل أشكال التقسيم والتجزئة فهم يتحدثون عن خروج كامل من فكرة الوطن الواحد، لكن لكونهم من غير المنطلقين من خلفيات تخريبية بل من غضب انفعالي يضيق معه صدرهم بتقبل الاختلاف، وعدم قدرتهم على الانتباه او الاقتناع بأن بمستطاع اللبنانيين إيجاد مشتركات كافية لجعل البعض من خلافاتهم مصادر قوة لهم، وتحسين قدرتهم على إدارة بعضها الآخر.
–
لذلك وجبت مناقشة فرضيات التقسيم بلغة الإمكانية الواقعية التي لا ينتبه لها اصحاب هذه المواقف الانفعالية. والسؤال الأول هو حول فرضية قيام دولتين أو اكثر بدلاً من لبنان كدولة واحدة. وهنا بعيداً عن كون هذا الكلام موضوع سخرية عالمياً، والبعد العالمي أساسي بمفهوم قيام الدول ونشوئها، فالعالم يتجه نحو أطر توسّع مدى الاتحادات وليس نحو تصغير الكيانات السياسية وتكثير عددها، ومثال الاتحاد الاوروبي أمامنا، ولبنان كله يعادل واحدة من مدن العالم الكبرى وليس بحجم ولاية من ولايات الدول المتوسطة الحجم؛ فيكف بالدول الكبيرة المساحة والكثيرة السكان، والأهم بعد هذا أن لبنان غير قابل موضوعياً للتقسيم. فالطوائف لا تعيش منعزلة جغرافياً، ورغم الحرب وما رافقها من تهجير بقي التداخل السكاني والجغرافي يجعل رسم خرائط دول بين اللبنانيين استحالة لا تتحقق بمليون قتيل، هذا عن حقيقة يجب أن يدركها هؤلاء الدعاة للتقسيم وهي أن قيمة مناوئي المقاومة بعيون الخارج الغربي والعربي وتشجيعهم على مواقفهم والإعلان عن الاستعداد لدعمهم او دعم لبنان من خلالهم نابع من كونهم مع المقاومة في دولة واحدة، يمكن لهم أن يمتلكوا من خلالها تأثيراً على خيارات المقاومة بقوه الشراكة، وبحال سقوطها لا تبقى لهم أي أهمية توجب الالتفات اليهم.
–
أما فرضية الفدرالية فتنسفها حقيقة أنها لن تحقق لأصحابها مرادهم، ففي الدولة الفدرالية سياسة خارجية موحدة وسياسة دفاعية موحّدة، ومثلها في اللامركزية، ومواضيع الخلاف اللبنانية هي هنا وليست في شكل إدارة الشأن الخاص بالمناطق، وستبقى قضايا الخلاف عنواناً للجمع الذي يريد هؤلاء لأجل التخلص منه الذهاب للفدرالية. وكذلك في الفدرالية ستبقى ليرة واحدة تجمع اللبنانيين، ومن يعتقد أنه بسبب المقاومة تشن حرب مالية لإضعاف لبنان مالياً، وبالتالي تصاب عملته بالأذى فلن يتخلص من تبعات هذه الشراكة عبر الفدرالية.
–
قضية العيش في ظل دولة موحّدة لتنوّع في الجذور الدينية او العرقية، او لتنوّع في الأفكار، ليس معضلة لبنان وحده، ففي القرن الحادي والعشرين تعيش أوروبا هاجس التوازنات الديمغرافية الناتجة عن موجات الهجرة، وما يرافقها من أزمات سياسية واقتصادية واجتماعية وأمنية وتجد أن قدرها هو بالتفكير بعقلانية بكيفية ضمان وحدة مجتمعاتها بصيغها الجديدة، ومثلها تعيش أميركا رغم كل ما تشير إليه الأرقام من تقدمها الصناعي والسياسي، في ظل هاجس استيقاظ العنصرية كعامل انقسام عمودي يهدد وحدتها.
عندما انطلقت الجموع الغاضبة في 17 تشرين الى الشوارع لم تكن للشعب قيادة يؤمن بمرجعيتها، ويثق بأهليتها، ولم تتح لأحد من المشاركين المنفردين الذين شكلوا الطوفان الشعبي الكبير يومها، أن يشترك لا في صوغ الشعارات ولا في تحديد السقوف السياسية، بل وضعت مجموعة مكوّنة من مصدرين اثنين يدها على التحرك ونالت فرصتها لاكتساب ثقة الجمهور الواسع، عبر ما يسمّى بالتصويت بالأقدام، اي المشاركة اللاحقة والمستدامة بتلبية دعوات التظاهر، وكان شعار «كلن يعني كلن» هو عنوان المعركة التي قررت هذه القيادة خوض شرعيتها على أساسها، اما المصدران لتكوين القيادة فقد تشكلا من المجموعات المنظمة القادرة على تنظيم حشود مؤيديها او ادارة الحشود الوافدة من جهة، والقنوات التلفزيونية التي منحت بثها المباشر للتحرك وصار مراسلوها ومذيعوها رموزاً للتحرك يشتركون عبر أثير قنواتهم في صناعة القيادات وتظهيرها، وفي رسم الخطوات وتحديد وجهتها، وفي الترويج للشعارات ومحاولة تعميمها، ويمكن القول في الحصيلة بعد أقل من عام على التحرك، إن التصويت الشعبي جاء في غير صالح هذه القيادة، وأنهى مهمتها رغم إصرار مجموعاتها على احتكار تسمية فضفاضة الثوب على أصحابها، «الثوار»، وفي ظل جفاف موارد المشاركة الواسعة في التحركات، رغم بقاء الأسباب وتفاقم الأزمات.
–
في الغالب لعب المال دوراً محورياً في عملية تظهير القيادة وشعاراتها، فبلا المال تتوقف القنوات التلفزيونية عن البث في ظل شح موارد الإعلان، وهي الحامل الأقوى للقيادة، ولولا المال تصاب الجماعات المنظمة بالشلل، والمال ليس مجانياً ومصادره ليست وافرة، ولا مبهمة، فهي في الغالب أيضاً من دول مقتدرة لها سياسات ومشاريع، وهي بالتحديد ثلاث دول إقليمية خليجية هي قطر والإمارات والسعودية تتوزّع تمويل ثلاث قنوات تلفزيونية كبرى رعت الحراك وتولت توحيد الشعارات رغم تباينات دولها، ما يجعل القيادة عند مرجعية أعلى هي المصدر الدولي للقرار والتمويل الذي تتوزّعه ثلاثة مصادر واشنطن وباريس والاتحاد الأوروبي، ولن نحتاج لكثير عناء لنكتشف أن واشنطن كانت من يتولى القيادة، وليس من خارج السياق الكلام الذي صدر عن الأميركيين والفرنسيين بعد انفجار مرفأ بيروت عن التوجّه نحو منظمات المجتمع المدني لتوزيع المساعدات بدلاً من مؤسسات الدولة تلافياً للفساد، الذي تصاعدت فضائحه بسرعة مع تدفق المال والمساعدات على هذه المنظمات، كما ليس خافياً إصرار معاون وزير الخارجية الأميركية ديفيد شينكر في زيارته الأخيرة إلى بيروت على تظهير مكانة هذه الجماعات في سياسة واشنطن، رغم الكلام القاسي الذي سمعوه منه داخل اللقاءات.
–
الشعار «كان يعني كلن» لم يكن عبثياً، فقد كانت له وظيفتان، الأولى نفي أي شبهة تورط للجماعات المنظمة بالتحالف مع أي من مكوّنات السلطة رداً على تشكيك شعبي واتهامات علنية بتلاقي الجماعات الواقفة وراء قيادة التحرك مع سياسات خارجية تستهدف نصف السلطة بخلفية موقفها من المقاومة، وتدعم بالمقابل نصفها الآخر، فيحقق الشعار كلن يعني كلن النفي المطلوب لهذا الاتهام والتشكيك. أما الوظيفة الثانية فهي شيطنة الفريق الواحد الموجود خارج منظومة الحكم والسلطة، الذي يمثله حزب الله ويرمز للمقاومة، وضمه للاستهداف تمهيداً لجعله العنوان الأول المستهدف تالياً، كما حدث لاحقاً بالفعل، بحيث بقي شعار «كلن يعني كلن» بداية أسير العجز عن توجيه الاتهام للمقاومة كشريك في الفساد فكان الاتهام ناعماً باتهامها بأنها لم تحارب الفساد، وصولاً إلى الاتهام الشديد الخشونة والحصري نحوها في تظاهرة 6-6 تحت شعار تطبيق القرار 1559.
–
بعد كل هذا سيحقّ لنا أن نستعير الشعار «كان يعني كلن» مرة في ضوء انضمام منظمات المجتمع المدني إلى نظام الفساد والطائفيّة بصورة رسمية مكرّسة، ليصير مدى الشعار أوسع فيطال تحت مظلته هذه المنظمات، ومرة ثانية في ضوء الأزمة الراهنة التي تنوء البلاد تحت ثقلها، وانسداد الباب أمام الحلول ولو المؤقتة، والتقاء كل القوى السياسية المكوّنة للسلطة ومؤسساتها للتبشير بأن الحل بدولة مدنية وبأن النظام الطائفي قد سقط، وليس من باب الصدفة أن تلتقي معها منظمات المجتمع المدني في التبشير ذاته، لنقول أيضاً «كلن يعني كلن» ليس بمضمون ما نسمع منهم من دعوات، بل كلن يعني كلن غير مؤهلين لقيادة البلد نحو الدولة المدنيّة، ذلك أن الطرح يأتي باباً للتلاعب بالمضمون والشكل، وهروباً من مواجهة أزمة جدية يعرفون أن ربط حلها بقيام دولة مدنية على أيديهم أقرب لحلم ليلة صيف.
–
لا تستقيم الدعوة للدولة المدنية مع الدفاع عن مصالح طائفية، وهذا يشمل الجميع مهما اختلفت مشروعية التبريرات المستوحاة من قلب النظام الطائفي، الذي لا يزال يشكل أرض الصراع وتشكل وصفة الدولة المدنية دعوة تعجيزية متبادلة بين أركانه وليست مشروعاً جدياً ينطوي على التسليم بالخروج من النظام الطائفي. فحصرية حقيبة المال التي يطلبها الثنائي مطلب طائفي، بغض النظر عن مندرجاته كعرف أو كمطلب مشروع للتوازن الطائفي في نظام الطوائف، وتاريخ تولي وزراء الثنائي لحقيبة المال لا يقدّم سجلاً مغايراً لمسار السياسات المالية التي أودت بلبنان الى الأزمة الخانقة بشكلها الراهن تجعل المطلب عنواناً إصلاحياً، ودعوة رئيس الجمهورية والتيار الوطني الحر لإلغاء طائفية الحقائب السيادية لا تجعلهما أكثر مدنية، في ظل احتجاز مراسيم الفائزين في مباريات مجلس الخدمة المدنيّة تحت ذرائع حقوق الطوائف، ولو خالفت نص الدستور بإلغاء طائفية الوظيفة بما دون الفئة الأولى، ومداورة الوزارات بين الطوائف المنطلقة من أن لا نصّ على تخصيص وزارة بطائفة، تدحض صدقيتها إدارة الظهر لنص دستوري واضح على رفض تخصيص وظيفة من وظائف الفئة الأولى بطائفة، والتمسك بهذا التخصيص خلافاً للنص مقابل المطالبة بنص لقبول تبرير تخصيص وزارة حيث لا نصّ يمنعه بمثل أن لا نص يدعو إليه. اما نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين الذي تحمل رموزه مسؤولية رئاسة الحكومة لإدارة البلد نحو الهاوية خلال ثلاثة عقود، فلا مصداقية لدعوته لتحرير الحكومة من الحصص بعدما وضع يده عليها كحصة كاملة من خلال احتكار تسمية رئيسها من دون امتلاك الأغلبية النابية، والطعن بالمصداقية مكرّر عندما يكون مبرر نيله «حق» التسمية قد جاء بقوة ميثاقية طائفية يرفض معاملة الغير بمثلها، ولذلك يصير شرعياً ومشروعاً القول «كلن يعني كلن» لا يشكلون قيادة صالحة لأخذنا نحو الدولة المدنية.
–
كلن يعني كلن، تطال أيضاً هنا منظمات المجتمع المدني والكثير من النخب التي تتحدث بلغة لاطائفية لإدانة من تتهمهم بالطائفيين، ثم تدافع بلغة طائفية عندما يتصل الأمر بجماعتها الطائفية، فكيف تكون جمعية أو يكون مثقف من الطراز المدني، ويصرّحون بالتمجيد لمرجعية طائفية، خصوصاً في اطلاق مواقف تنضح بالشحن والتحريض الطائفيين، وكيف يكون لاطائفياً ومدنياً من يصف طائفة بالسوء ويتحدث عن أمجاد طائفة أخرى بالمقابل، وبماذا يختلف هذا العقل عن العقل الميليشياوي الذي هتف لطائفته او يحمل شعارَ اعرف عدوك لتوصيف طوائف اخرى؟
–
لكن، وهنا نقول لكن، لنفتح قوسين على معادلتين، الأولى أن لبنان بقواه السياسية ونخبه يحتاج للكثير كي ينضج للانتقال نحو الدولة المدنية عاجز بالقوة ذاتها عن المضي في ظل النظام الطائفي الى غير الهاوية، لذلك فالمطلوب هو عدم التذاكي بطرح تعجيزي للدولة المدنية والذهاب لتطبيق الدستور الذي تفوّق على التذاكي الطائفي في رسم المخارج الواقعية والتدريجية، خصوصاً المادتين 22 و95، بإقرار قانون انتخاب خارج القيد الطائفي وتشكيل مجلس للشيوخ، والإسراع بتشكيل الهيئة الوطنية لإلغاء الطائفية
عندما تتخطى منظمات نخبويّة تهتم لشؤون بعينها وتتخصص بتقديم الخدمات ورفع الصوت بشأنها، حدود مهمتها واختصاصها وتتقدم لتصير مشروعاً سياسياً متكاملاً، يصير السؤال مشروعاً عن السبب، خصوصاً ان ذلك يحصل تحت شعار شيطنة السياسة وأهلها والتقدم كبديل مموّه عنها، ويصير الحاصل الأول لذلك هو تغييب القضايا المحورية في حياة الشعوب وصراعاتها عن الواجهة، وغالباً تحميل هذه القضايا واهلها مسؤولية الأزمات تحت شعار «تركونا نعيش»؛ فيصير الاحتلال والعدوان وانتهاك السيادة الوطنية أموراً ثانوية، وتصير المقاومة عبثاً يخرّب طريقة العيش.
نظرياً منظمات المجتمع المدني هي مؤسسات لا تبغي الربح يريد أصحابها بعيداً عن التورط في السياسة الاهتمام بقضايا مثل السجون والمخدرات والبيئة والفساد والحريات الإعلامية، تقف على مسافة واحدة من السياسيين بقياس القضية التي تشكل عنوان تحركها، ولكنها عملياً وفي زمن التحوّلات التي أصابت السياسات الغربية وتسببت بفشل مشاريعها صارت صيداً ثميناً وضالة منشودة لتحقيق هذه السياسات، فأغدقت عليها أموالاً غير خاضعة لرقابة الدول والمجتمعات، وأنيطت بها مهام تتخطى أحجامها وأدوارها، خصوصاً ان الغرب لا يمانع ان تتولى الإدارة السياسية في بلاد المستعمرات والمحميات نخب تقول إنها لا تتدخل في السياسة وتهتم لشؤون العيش، وترى في تدفق مساعدات الغرب سبباً للحياة ولو كان ذلك باسترهان البلد وثرواته.
خلال عقود مضت صعدت هذه المنظمات الى الواجهة في الكثير من بلدان العالم وليس الحال في البلاد العربية أولى التجارب. ولنتذكر ان ما سمي بالربيع العربي كان نتاج ادارة غربية بواسطة هذه المنظمات، التي قال الأميركيون إن تسميتها تغيرت وصارت تسمّى بالفاعلين غير الحكوميين، لكنهم قالوا في هذا السياق إن ثلاثة اطراف تتصدر قائمة هؤلاء الفاعلين غير الحكوميين، المقاومة وتنظيم القاعدة ومشتقاته، والفضائيات العربية الليبرالية وفي مقدمتها كانت قناة الجزيرة يومها، وإن المشروع الأميركي يستهدف تنشيط بعضها لإلغاء بعضها الآخر. والمطلوب إلغاؤه طبعاً هو المقاومة. أما المنظمات التي نعرفها فهي كومبارس الصف الخلفي في هذه العملية، لذلك في الربيع العربي ظهرت القاعدة وريثاً شرعياً لما بدأه ناشطو المنظمات المدنية، وواكبته قناة الجزيرة ومن بعدها قناة العربية، وليبيا وسورية مثال حيّ.
الفساد المالي مرادف دائم لحال هذه المنظمات التي جرّبها الغرب في مرحلة داخل كل من فلسطين والعراق لإفساد نخب الشعبين. فصارت ظاهرة ومصدر اتهام شعبي للمنضوين في صفوفها، ومن ثم تمّ اختبارها في تونس والجزائر والسودان واليمن، تحت شعارات سقوط القضايا الكبرى و«بدنا نعيش»، وفي لبنان لهذه المنظمات سيرة من السرقات والفساد وروائحه الكريهة مع المساعدات الخاصة بالنازحين السوريين، وفي سورية درّة تاج هذه المنظمات «الخوذ البيضاء» ذات التاريخ الملازم للتلاعب بقضية السلاح الكيميائي كما فضحتها التقارير الدبلوماسية والمخابراتية الروسية وبعض الصحف الغربية الوازنة. والمتتبع للجوائز العالمية في مجالات مختلفة سيكتشف «المعلم» الذي يصنع نجومية الرموز التي يعدها للأدوار المقبلة.
منظمات المجتمع المدني فضيحة متنقلة ما عدا قلة قليلة منها تواكب قضايا شعوبها بصدق، لكن صوتها في العالم لا يسمع كحال المنظمات الحقوقية في البحرين.
In response to the statement of the former premier, MP Saad Hariri, about the cabinet formation, the Shia duo (Hezbollah and Amal Movement) sources told Al-Manar that the duo wonders how Hariri allows himself to set conditions for nominating the finance minister, wondering how he alleges that the French initiative includes this issue.
The sources added that the Shia duo do not want for Hariri to be poisoned, adding that that they have rescued him several times from his allies’ poison.
Hariri had stated that he decided to help the PM-designate Mustafa Adib by approving nominating a Shiite minister to hold the finance portfolio, considering that he has accepted again to ingest the poison.
The former prime ministers Fouad Siniora, Tammam Salam and Najib Miqati later issued a statement in which they pointed out that they are not committed to Hariri initiative pertaining the cabinet formation
Meanwhile, Al-Manar sources said that the cabinet formation process did not witness any progress, adding that President Michel Aoun has the right to propose whatever is suitable in this regard.
The Lebanese political system classifies the finance, interior, foreign affairs, and defense portfolios as sovereign and distributes them over the major sects. However, Taif Agreement grants the finance ministry to the Shia sect in order to have the third signature on most of the ministerial decrees.
The PM-designate Mustafa Adib and a group of former prime ministers reject granting the finance ministry to the Shia sect, while Hezbollah and Amal movement insist on the right to take the portfolio in line with the Constitution.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 