Who Stole the Dreams of the Lebanese People? Hezbollah Executive Chief : “We’ve Been Defending People’s Demands All Along”

Who Stole the Dreams of the Lebanese People?

Who Stole the Dreams of the Lebanese People?

Video here Translated

Hezbollah Executive Chief Tells BBC “We’ve Been Defending People’s Demands All Along”

Hezbollah Executive Chief Tells BBC “We’ve Been Defending People’s Demands All Along”

By Staff

Chief of Hezbollah Executive Council His Eminence Sayyed Hashem Safieddine said that the Lebanese resistance movement has been supporting the people’s demands all along, stressing that the demands of the protesters in Lebanon are rightful.

In an interview with the BBC, Sayyed Safieddine added that Hezbollah will transfer all the demands to any future government.

The Hezbollah senior official, however, warned of the economic track that is pushing the country to the abyss.

“In order for the honest cries of most of the people who are suffering in different Lebanese areas to be purposeful, it should be filtered from all the leaderships, sides and embassies that “rode the wave” for political goals.”

Sayyed Safieddine stressed further that “Hezbollah had a reform raft that was way bigger than what was agreed on in the Cabinet,” noting that Hezbollah’s political track provides that the taxes shouldn’t be paid by the poor people.

He also emphasized that the talks on forming the new government have seriously began, adding that communications are still in the first stage.

“We are still approaching the pains, rhetoric, emotions of the squares, and we carry such demands. We also don’t consider there is a link between what is happening in Lebanon and the protests in Iraq,” Sayyed Safieddine concluded.

 

 

Massive chaos as largest strike in years hits France for 2nd Day

Source

Friday, 06 December 2019

Hundreds of thousands of strikers paralyzed the transport system on the first day of industrial action which prompted closure of schools across the nation.

According to union leaders, more than 1.5 million people turned out across the country, with police using tear gas to disperse them.

Just in Paris alone, tens of thousands of people took to the streets, while more than 6,000 police officers were deployed with a decree to forbid the protesters from gathering on the Champs-Élysées or at police stations.

Police in riot gear used tear gas and truncheons to disperse protesters near the Place de la Republique. The judiciary 57 people were detained on Thursday.

Strikers on Friday were set to continue a similar pattern across the country, with widespread rail cancellations and disruption to flights expected across the nation.

French riot police clash with protesters during a demonstration in Paris, on December 5, 2019 as part of a national general strike. (Photo by AFP)

In Paris, most of the metro system shut down and hundreds of flights were expected to be cancelled.

Union leaders warned that the strike could last at least until Monday if the government did not take the right action.

“The strike is not going to stop tonight,” said Philippe Martinez, secretary general of the CGT union, on Thursday.

Paris’s bus and metro operator have said their walkout will last until Monday at the very least.

President Macron is already faced with a major challenge to his rule from “Yellow Vest” protesters, who have been holding weekly demonstrations for more than a year.

Trade union leaders are now calling on Macron to abandon his campaign promise to overhaul the retirement system.

The president has said he wants to simplify the country’s complex retirement system, which comprises more than 40 different plans, many with different retirement ages and benefits.

The new system will introduce a “points system” for retirement, which will have a significant impact on the public sector.

Until now, the sector had enjoyed special retirement systems to compensate for difficult working conditions.

Related Videos

French general strike starts: 3 weeks for victory like 1995, or more Austerity Era failure?

Members of the Yellow Vest movement are being evacuated by the gendarmerie after trying to occupy the Pont de L'Etoile A52 highway tollbooth in Aubagne, southern France, on November 17, 2019, to celebrate the first anniversary of the movement. (Photo by AFP)

Members of the Yellow Vest movement are being evacuated by the gendarmerie after trying to occupy the Pont de L’Etoile A52 highway tollbooth in Aubagne, southern France, on November 17, 2019, to celebrate the first anniversary of the movement. (Photo by AFP)

Wed Dec 4, 2019 10:16AM

By Ramin Mazaheri

Image result for ramin mazaheri

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of the books ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’ and the upcoming ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’.

 

Over the decade I have lived in France I have never seen a social protest movement win their economic objective.

Wait… that’s not true: in 2015 Francois Hollande gave in to the demands of protesting police even before their protest ended. That was pretty pathetic.

And then we also have the exception of exceptions, the ever-constant Yellow Vests. They have won a small portion of their economic demands – a tiny amount of direct financial relief, no austerity budget in 2020 and preventing the government from privatizing the airports of Paris (at least temporarily).

They won by doing something which was unprecedented in France: protesting, instead of vacationing, over Christmas. They surprised everyone, including me, with their self-sacrifice, which ultimately grew to incredibly admirable proportions due to their steadfastness amid constant repression.

However, Yellow Vests are now being forced into the back seat.

Unions are leading an unlimited, general strike starting on December 5 to try and stop President Emmanuel Macron’s radically right-wing pension “reforms”.

Will their general strike work?

France’s ‘independent’ unions: if it’s good for members, who cares if its bad for the nation?

It’s so amazing how very quickly a general strike can win that it’s amazing that anyone thinks another tactic in the labor playbook is even required?

But as France’s #1 union leader, the CGT’s Philippe Martinez, told me years ago: “I don’t have a button marked ‘general strike’ which I can press.” LOL, unfortunate but true.

Again, I have never seen a social protest movement in France win their economic objective… unless we are talking about a few union members whom the government bought off with targeted concessions.

The French illustrate why “independent” labor unions might be good for a member but bad for the nation, and also why the world’s most truly progressive models don’t have labor unions which are independent from their government structure.

Since 2010 France has seen enormous, broad protest movements against wave after wave of austerity measures, but they have never succeeded in stopping them. The reason is the same old imperial logic – divide and conquer. Time after time I have watched French strikes fail because the government can quite easily give targeted concessions to just a few sectors of the workforce, and even to just a few unions within one sector of the workforce. This always has had the intended result: to reduce strike participation and provoke anger, resentment and selfishness among those who are still striking so that the movement is inevitably abandoned. France, already the land of the evil eye, has only grown more embittered and suspicious over their many failed labor movements during the Great Recession.

The Yellow Vests have totally rejected union involvement until now, and for the reason I have explained: France’s unions are self-interested, whereas the Vesters obviously promote self-sacrifice for the national good. Just like France’s political groups and NGOs, the unions are fundamentally allied with a corrupt establishment which is geared towards the pro-neo-imperialist 1% and their money-grubbing immorality.

In 1995 right-wing reforms (pushing – you guessed it – right-wing pension rollbacks) lasted three weeks and the government backed down. There were minor goods shortages, and people lost some wages, but national unity against a government’s totally unjustified, 1%-enriching policies was easily victorious.

Almost two-thirds of the nation does not trust President Emmanuel Macron to lead any sort of pension reform, so there is unity again. The reality is that Macron has a support base of just 25% which approves of whatever he does. Clearly, his remaining supporters on the pension issue are daredevils who merely want to see what the world’s very first universal, one-size-fits-all pension program will actually look like.

Such a program is totally unjust because bending rail tracks in the cold, hoisting garbage cans and – I’d say – teaching 30 kids for 8 hours a day is not something which a 64-year old person can do without serious consequences for their health and future. In a West, which makes an idol of youth and dismisses the elderly, this idea – that old people deserve a future, too – is rarer than an igloo in Ecuador.

If recent history is any guide: If Macron gives just a few crumbs to a few unions they will push past the strikers and be “scabs” to the rest of the nation with zero scruples.

This strike is perhaps a final test of union power in France: Unions have become more fragmented since 1995 – and thus less powerful – and if they fail to win here the Yellow Vests will be proven right to have excluded and denounced them.

Macron: Won’t rest until every Frenchman is an American in Paris

No nation has a universal pension system and the French government themselves truly don’t know what they are doing. No worker knows how much their new “points” will be worth upon retirement, including Macron himself. It is clear that Macron only wants to smash the current system and replace it with something more Americanized. I write that because this has been his modus operandi ever since taking office.

Macron’s policies don’t need public approval because he is not trying to get re-elected – he is trying to merely win by default in 2022, when Marine Le Pen will again serve as the scare tactic. Even if he loses he is guaranteeing himself a lifetime of lucrative speech-making in Western nations by destroying the bad example which has always been the French “mixed-economy” model.

Macron is not like Hollande in that he did not backtrack – he warned France of what he was going to do. This gives him a mere fig leaf of democratic justification (in the classic Western-model style): he claims to have won a democratic mandate for his far-right economic plans, but every adult in France knows what I just wrote – his base of support in the 2017 vote was just one-quarter of voters, because everyone else voted to block the far-right (culturally, not economically) Marine Le Pen and also to sweep out the two hated mainstream parties.

In 1995, the largest French social movement since 1968, what tipped the scale was public transport workers: they bought movement to a halt for three weeks, and they are threatening to do the same this month.

What did not tip the scales in favor of worker-class justice is France’s media.

France’s “private” media, whose editorial lines are decided by a handful of billionaires, keeps pushing this willfully stupid point about Macron’s false “mandate” which insults the intelligence of their readers and viewers. Similarly, every report about the pension reforms begins with raising the issue of the “special regimes” – which are mainly for public service manual laborers who work in conditions which no sexagenarian should endure – in an obvious ploy to create support for the far-right reform via provoking jealousy, anger and exasperation, which cannot possibly be the foundation for the proper “reform” of anything.

Not much should be expected from France’s public media, either: even though their salaries are derived from taxpayer dollars only Iranian and Russian media have been covering the Yellow Vests from the street for the past five months.

Another group which also did not tip the scales is what, “Remember ’68, man?!”, French Boomers falsely believe will do so this time around – students.

It is only via cutting off profits to the 1% that France’s leaders – in their aristocratic/bourgeois Western democracy – will ever be forced to back down. It is workers and determined adults who can and must play the deciding factor in politics. I have no idea why the youth-worshipping West thinks baby-faced students are a safer bet than tough rail workers?

Another battle which will be decided is the “blowhard” French model of influencing government – simple, often alcohol-fueled protests.

For the past decade the French have gone to a protest, taken a selfie (without smiling), gone home early and – as I’ve stated – lose. They are simply shocked to find, no matter how often it has occurred, that a government which keeps resorting to executive orders does not at all listen to public opinion when formulating public policy. The French love for self-expression may be self-satisfying, but it is a regular political failure.

Returning to the tactic of a general strike will hopefully show France that the only solution is economically hurting the 1% whom the Western liberal model seeks to protect from any possible economic losses.

Of course these failed bets – on “independent” unions, on the “independent” private media, on emotional and unsteady youth, on protests which lack the basic knowledge of the class struggle and the majority’s embrace of neo-imperialism in  the French culture – all help explain why nearly no socio-economic movements have won since 1995.

What is different this time around?

Nobody can really tell, because it all depends on the willingness of workers to sacrifice their pay checks to win something they won’t touch for decades in the future. Every society has immediate needs to satisfy, but does France have a culture which encourages thinking about the far, unknowable future?

Everybody is making the comparison with 1995, but there is no doubt that the economic and democratic condition of the average citizen is far, far worse since then.

Anti-austerity feeling has routinely been sky-high during the Eurozone’s Lost Decade, and the French keep losing their purchasing power, government services, working conditions and the social rights it has taken a century to wrest from most decidedly un-Islamic high finance. Maybe this will tip the scales?

Is France willing to walk to work for just 3 weeks, like in 1995? If not, they should be prepared to work two extra years in their old age, and for a monthly stipend which is far less than what the elderly get now.

Footnote: Two weeks after the 1995 “victory” the far-right nature of the aristocratic/bourgeois Western model asserted itself – parliament voted to allow the social security reform via executive order. In such a model the 1% is guaranteed to win and is always the primary beneficiary of government policies and tax dollars. If the French weren’t confronted by this reality before, the Yellow Vests have changed that.

Or maybe they haven’t changed that? If the strike fails, the way the Western aristocratic model inevitably betrays the lower and middle classes – and the apathy, alienation and selfishness it necessary provokes among the mass of the citizenry- will be the primary reason for failure, although this reason is never cited in the West.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)

 

القرار الوطني المستقل ….بقلم د. بثينة شعبان

بقلم د. بثينة شعبان

في خضم الأحداث في الوطن العربي سواء أكانت أحداثاً انتخابية في تونس والجزائر مثلاً أم حراكاً كما هو الحال في السودان ولبنان والعراق تتردد عبارة «القرار الوطني المستقل» ورفض التدخلات الأجنبية على لسان جميع الأطراف.

والحقيقة أن معظم المعارك التي خاضتها بلدان عربية مختلفة وغير عربية أيضاً كإيران وفنزويلا وبوليفيا وتشيلي هي حول القرار الوطني المستقل لأن ما نشهده من شراسة الدول الاستعمارية السابقة والتي مازالت استعمارية ولكن بطرق مختلفة كعادتها ضمن سياستها القديمة «فرّق تسد» منذ قرون هو محاولة وضع اليد بالقوة الغاشمة حيناً وبأساليب أخرى على ثروات الشعوب وإثارة الفتن الطائفية والسياسية بين أبناء هذه المجتمعات. وفي الوقت الذي أُدرك به أن القارئ تعب من تشخيص مثل هذه الحالات ويرغب باقتراح حلول تمكنه من العيش الآمن والعمل الكريم والهادئ في بلاده فإني أقول إن التشخيص لأحوال بلداننا لم يكتمل أبداً لأننا لسنا الوحيدين الذين نكتب تاريخنا ولسنا الوحيدين الذين نغذي عقول أطفالنا وأبنائنا بالقناعات والقيم التي نرغب أن يحملوها. وليس لدى أي بلد من البلدان المستهدفة اليوم رواية واحدة عن أي حدث مرّ به أو كارثة أصابته أو خطوات متعثرة قام بها، ذلك لأن أحداً من الذين عاشوا تاريخاً حقيقياً لم يساهم في كتابته ولم يرغب حتى بسرد مذكراته خوفاً من الإساءة لشخص أو عائلة أو مدينة أو قضية، وبهذا بقي الجميع أشخاصاً وبقي التاريخ شخصانياً أيضاً وبقيت رواية هذا التاريخ مختَلفَاً عليها ومتأرجحة جداً، ورغم كل الطمع في ثروات الوطن العربي وموقعه الجغرافي فلا شك أن المستوى الذي انحدر إليه الأمن والخدمات والعيش في هذه البلدان لم يكن فقط بسبب وجود مخططات استعمارية ولكنه كان أيضاً بسبب عدم مواجهة تلك المخططات بالحذاقة نفسها وآليات العمل ذاتها التي يستخدمها أعداؤنا وخصومنا. اليوم كل بلد عربي يحتفل بذكرى استقلال من أواسط القرن الماضي، ولكن لا توجد هناك قراءة دقيقة لما تمّ فعله بعد هذا الاستقلال ولا للثغرات التي تمكّن العدو أن ينفذ من خلالها، كما لا توجد قراءة واحدة أو متّفق عليها لأي حدث تاريخي مرّت به هذه البلدان ما يجعل أي تقييم لأي عنصر من عناصر الحياة مجرد وجهة نظر، ويختفي الفرق بين من يعلمون ومن لا يعلمون مع أن السؤال الإلهي واضح وصريح في القرآن الكريم «هل يستوي الذين يعلمون والذين لا يعلمون» وأيضاً كما قال سبحانه «إنما يخشى اللـه من عباده العلماءُ». ومع ذلك نجد الآلاف من الطاقات المهاجرة وتلك التي لم تهاجر، غالباً لا تجد لنفسها منفذاً لتعمل في المجال الذي تبدع فيه وأحياناً تجاوباً مع حجج إدارية واهية لا علاقة لها بالعلم والإنجاز والتميّز، ففي الوقت الذي وضع الإنسان القانون كي يضبط إيقاع حياته وعمله وكي يتمكن من التفريق بين الغثّ والسمين وبين العطاء من جهة والسلب والانتهازية من جهة أخرى؛ فإن البعض في بلداننا قد حولوا بعض القوانين إلى أصفاد تمنع العجلة من الدوران وتضع الغث مكان السمين تجاوباً مع قوانين وأعراف ومخططات لم تدّع يوماً أنها توصل أي مجتمع إلى الازدهار والتميّز.

المشكلة أننا نحسن تقليد الغرب في كلّ ما يضيع وقتنا ويقضي على المفيد من تاريخنا وزراعتنا وصناعتنا وغذائنا؛ فنجري وراء كل ما أنتجه الغرب حتى وإن كان يتعارض مع طبيعة عيشنا ونقاط قوتنا والجغرافية التي ننتمي إليها، أي إننا بعد الاستقلال لم نضع الأسس لمراحل جديدة تشخّص بالضبط ما أراده المستعمر من بلداننا وتردّ عليه بالعمل لا بالقول، وتضع الرؤى والإستراتيجيات التي تضمن نقلة نوعية تؤسس لثقافة مجتمعية وطنية بعيدة كلّ البعد عن وجهات النظر المندسّة التي خلفها لنا العدو وزرعها ويعمل على سقايتها باستمرار في حاراتنا وقرانا ومدننا وبين ظهرانينا حيثما كنا، وإلا كيف يقتل الأخ أخاه بحجة الإصلاح وكيف تنقلب الفتن إلى فتن طائفية لا مستفيد منها إلا المستعمر ذاته بعد أن غيّر أساليب وطرائق استعماره من استقدام الجيوش إلى غرس المبادئ والأفكار في أذهان الأجيال بما يخدم خططه ودون أن يكلّف نفسه عبء تحشيد الطاقات أو استقدام القوى العسكرية؟ ذلك لأننا لم نؤمن بمبدأ الحوار ومعالجة الاختلاف مهما عمق وعظم من خلال الحوار وليس من خلال إقصاء الآخر أو تهميشه أو توجيه التهم إليه، وذلك أيضاً ودائماً نتيجة تغليب المنفعة الشخصية على المصلحة الوطنية العليا، وذلك أيضاً نتيجة الاستعانة بأقلّ الطاقات كفاءةً لاعتبارات شخصية أيضاً وإقصاء القادرين على خدمة الأوطان بطريقة فذة، إذا كان الجميع مؤمنين أن مصلحة الوطن فوق كل اعتبار فلن تقود خلافاتهم مهما عظمت إلا إلى مصلحة الوطن في جميع المجالات،

حين بدأت الحرب على سورية قلت إن المستهدف الأول في هذا البلد هو قراره الوطني، وحين اتخذت الجامعة العربية عقوبات ضد سورية أصبح واضحاً أن الذين اتخذوا هذا القرار لا يملكون قرارهم المستقل حتى في بلدانهم، واليوم وبعد تسع سنوات رأينا كرة الثلج تتدحرج حتى على البلدان التي موّلت الحرب على سورية، وسلبوها حتى مظهر القرار المستقل والكرامة الوطنية، ولا أعلم لماذا لم يمتد إعجاب هؤلاء بالغرب إلى آليات عمله وحواراته الدائمة ومؤسساته والاتفاق دوماً على الأرضية المشتركة مهما بلغت الخلافات الأولية بينهم، أو لا نراهم يجتمعون عبر المحيط ليناقشوا وضع لبنان ووضع العراق والحراك في هذين البلدين؟ كما يجتمعون دائماً للتآمر على سورية، في حين لا يتمتع العرب بمثل هذه المرونة والاجتماع لمناقشة كلّ صغيرة وكبيرة حتى يتوصلوا إلى الطريق الأسلم في إدارة البلاد.

ولا شك أيضاً أن المستهدف اليوم في أكثر من بلد عربي هو القرار المستقل ونبذ التدخلات الأجنبية؛ فهل فعلاً توصل القائمون على إدارة البلاد إلى هذه المرحلة من الوعي أم إنهم يقولون ما يرضي الناخبين والجماهير دون العمل الحقيقي على إرساء ركائزه وأسسه؟ إنه لمخاض عسير ذلك الذي يخوضه أكثر من بلد عربي، وإن الوعي والصبر والعمل الحقيقي والصادق والوطني أسلحة لابدّ منها في هذه المعركة المصيرية.

وأنا أرى الإخوة في لبنان والعراق في الساحات يزعمون أن الحل هو استقالة الحكومات! أتساءل هل فكروا ما الخطوة التالية وكيف يمكن لاستقالة ما تبقى من أمل في حفظ النظام أو ردع الفوضى أن تكون مساعداً على خلق وضع أفضل وخدمات تلبي طموحات الجماهير؟ قد لا يخطر لهم ببال أن الهدف الأساس من تأجيج المشاعر بهذه الطريقة هو استهداف أركان الأمل بقرار وطني مستقل، وقد لا يخطر لهم ببال أن هناك من يدرس خطواتهم وتحركاتهم ويوجهها بما يخدم أهدافه بعيداً عن مصالحهم ومصالح أوطانهم وشعوبهم، لا اختلاف أبداً في الحاجة إلى الإصلاح والارتقاء في الأداء في جميع بلداننا العربية، ولكن كيف ومتى يمكن أن نصل إلى هذا دون أن تُختَطَف المشاعر البريئة ويتم تسخيرها لزيادة معاناة هذه الجماهير وحرمانها من التوصل إلى قرار وطني مستقل أو المحافظة على بعض الذي تمتلكه منه، لأننا وكما نرى فإن أول المستهدفين هم من حاولوا تثبيت خطواتٍ خجولة نحو قرار وطني مستقل.

Assad to Paris Match: France Should Return to International Law

 

Syrian President Bashar Assad interview Paris Match
Syrian President Dr. Bashar al Assad explained that France needs to return to International Law, in Paris Match interview.

Syrian President Bashar al Assad received Régis Le Sommier in Damascus, for one of those rare interviews given to western journalists whose countries engage in war crimes against Syria. Le Sommier, co-editor of the Paris Match weekly, immediately reminded Dr. Assad of their meeting in November 2014. He did, however, show some decency by not mentioning his book, Assad, based on the earlier interview, and about which Paris Match once remarked, How can a journalist face up to a tyrant? Exclude him from his scope of investigation? Or approach him, try to grasp his mechanics? The question arises regularly at the whim of the dictators who parade at the head of certain states. 

It is fascinating to view the derivative outcomes of these “rare” interviews. Le Sommier created a book, published in 2018. In May 2013, Marcelo Cantelmi used his ‘rare interview’ to launch a scathing attack on Syria and its President al Assad, before releasing dribbles of the interview, over a few days. In January 2015, Foreign Affairs managing editor, Jonathan Tepperman, used his rare interview to also launch a series of anti-Syria propaganda reports — including his complaints that the presidential palace was not bullet-ridden, and rat-infested — via his report on the interview and his being interviewed about the interview…weeks before the actual interview was published.

Le Sommier was discreet enough not to mention Paris Match‘s sweet report on Belgian Michel, armed terrorist in Syria, who returned home to a more simple life as a baker’s assistant. It is possible that Belgian Michel would be a household deity in the western world, had it not been for those annoying terrorist attacks in Paris, mere weeks after that interview.

weapons-crimes-against-syria
Shortly before the attacks in France, Paris Match ran a lovely report on Belgian Michel’s life after returning from ”fighting’ in the SAR

On 27 November, Paris Match published its “exclusive” interview, except the fine print noted it was only exclusive “excerpts.” The bottom of the excerpted interview contains a clear warning, Toute reproduction interdite.

These excerpts shockingly missed significant points made by President Assad: France needs to turn to the standards of International Law; Erdogan is immorally threatening blackmail against Europe; terrorists against the Syrian state are subject to Syrian law.

It is a breach of International Law for one or more countries to arm an insurrection against another country. It is a breach of International Law to engage in military aggression against any country, except in self-defense. It is a breach of International Law for any country to deploy its military into another country, without that country’s explicit invitation.

Syrian President Bashar Assad interview Paris Match
President Assad tutors Le Sommier in International Law, 20 November 2019.

The bottom of the Paris Match excerpts contains a clear warning, Toute reproduction interdite. One might wonder if this prohibition is a Kafkaesque authorization for other media to engage in monkey dung flinging journalism, as one of the UK tabloids immediately did.

Daily Mail flung its dung in one of the most outrageous headlines since the NATO Spring was dumped into Syria: Jihadis face execution without trial in Syrian jails as Assad says foreign ISIS members will be hanged. Nowhere in the Paris Match interview does Dr. Assad say such a thing. He says, We have courts specialized in terrorism and they will be prosecuted.

Daily Mail continues to fling more dung, hitting peak colonialism in wailing about the Brit terrorist John Letts being stuck in an overcrowded jail — poor baby, let us wail for him and ignore the UK’s part in dumping their human garbage into Syria, shall we?

UK, US Holding Tabqa Dam Hostage in Syrian Negotiations?
English terrorist, John Letts, at Syria’s Tabqa Dam.

Continuing with its coprophilia journalism, Daily Mail reached back in, and flung even more, this time in the form of the Saydnaya overcrowded, “torture” jail, as Syria is that paradoxical Utopia where there are no actual criminals, but the prisons are overflowing, nonetheless.

image-saydnaya prison
The Saydnaya Prison building.

The following is the transcript of the Paris Match Le Sommier interview with Syria’s President Bashar al Assad:

Question 1:  Good morning.  I met you five years ago, specifically in November 2014.  At that time, your government controlled only a third of the country.  Today, your army has returned to the border regions with Turkey.  Do you feel that you have won the war?

President Assad:  Let’s be precise, it is not my war to win or lose.  The narrative pushed by the West is: the war of the President who wants to remain in office; while in fact, it is a national war – the Syrians’ war against terrorism.

You are correct in your statement that we have made significant progress in this war, since we last met, but that doesn’t mean that we have won.  We will win when terrorism is eliminated.  It is still present in certain areas in the north, and what is more dangerous is that support for this terrorism still continues from Turkey, and from Western countries – whether it’s the United States, Britain, or France.  That’s why it is too early to talk about victory.

Question 2:  Do you really think that France continues to support terrorism?

President Assad:  Definitely; in previous periods, they were supplying weapons.  This may have changed in the previous months, or last year, but let’s put things into perspective: when French forces come to Syria without an invitation from the legitimate government, this is occupation.  There’s no real difference between supporting terrorism and providing military forces to occupy a country.  It is the same context, but with different titles.

Intervention:  But the French came to support the Kurds who were fighting ISIS.  That was their mission.

President Assad:  But, can we send Syrian forces to fight terrorism in France, without the request of the French government?!  Globally, states are governed by international law, not by their intentions.  It is not enough to have the desire to fight terrorism; there are international rules for fighting terrorism, and of course, here, I am presuming that there are good intentions.  However, we do not believe that there are good intentions.  The Syrian government is fighting ISIS, why wasn’t it supported?  And why does the French government fight ISIS and yet support al-Nusra, when in fact they are both terrorist organisations?!

Question 3:  Perhaps you are referring to the period when Hollande was President of the Republic.  Actually, the French Foreign Minister, Fabius, himself said at a certain point that you do not deserve to remain alive.  What is the position now with Emmanuel Macron?  Have you felt a change in the French position?

President Assad:  In form yes, in substance no.  When there is occupation, it is one form of terrorism.; we need to acknowledge this fact.  We need to talk about change in substance not in form.  We are not interested in statements, but with action on the ground.

Question 4: How do you want change to happen on the ground?

President Assad:  Simply, by going back to international law.  We do not ask the French government for anything; we do not ask for political, economic, or security assistance.  We don’t need them, and we are capable of managing our own affairs in Syria.  But we want them to return to the international order, which doesn’t exist at the moment.

Today, there is international chaos.  We don’t want them to support the President, this is of no concern to me; it doesn’t concern us if they say he is good or bad, this is also a Syrian matter.  But what we do demand is that they stop supporting everything that could cause more bloodshed, killing, and suffering in Syria.

Question 5:  France faces a real problem related to the Jihadists in Syria.  Do you have Jihadists in your prisons?

President Assad:  Regardless of nationalities, this is a matter for the competent authorities who have the statistics.  But in any case, if there are Jihadists, they are subject to Syrian laws.

Intervention:  But you should know if there are French nationals in your prisons?

President Assad:  I don’t have any statistics.  For us, terrorists are terrorists, whether they were French or Syrian.

Question 6:  If you signed an agreement with the Kurdish “People’s Protection Units,” and the army entered that region and restored all this land, you’ll find that there are prisons, and in these prisons, there are 400 French Jihadists.  What are you going to do with them?

President Assad:  Every terrorist in the areas controlled by the Syrian state will be subject to Syrian law, and Syrian law is clear concerning terrorism.  We have courts specialized in terrorism and they will be prosecuted.

Intervention:  So, you don’t intend to repatriate them to Europe as Recep Tayyip Erdogan has done, for instance?

President Assad:  Erdogan is trying to blackmail Europe.  A self-respecting man doesn’t talk like this.  There are institutions and there are laws.  Extraditing terrorists or any convicted person to another state is subject to bilateral agreements between countries; but to release people from prison knowing that they are terrorists and sending them to other countries to kill civilians – this is an immoral act.

Question 7:  Going back to the ongoing conflict, eight years of war, the country devastated, whole cities destroyed, half the population are displaced or refugees, and hundreds of thousands of deaths.  Do you acknowledge that you wouldn’t have won this conflict or this war without Russian or Iranian support?

President Assad:  War is tough and not easy, and we are not a superpower.  We have been fighting against the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world.  Logically, there is no doubt that the support of our friends has reduced losses and helped us regain our territories.

If we are to ask, whether Syria would have, without this support, gone towards partition or full defeat?  This is a hypothetical question now, because sometimes it is difficult to predict the result of a tennis match involving two players, let alone a war with tens of players and hundreds of thousands of fighters!

Question 8: Have you thought, for a single moment during this war, of leaving, going into exile, for instance?

President Assad:  In fact I haven’t, for a simple reason: the option neither existed nor was it considered, it was only suggested by Western officials.  As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t concern me.  I would not consider this option unless it was suggested by the Syrian people, and when I say the Syrian people, I mean the majority.  I do not mean a terrorist minority, nor a minority hatched up by foreign intelligence services, nor a minority of those who demonstrated because they were paid to do so by Qatar.  This option was never suggested by the majority and that’s why I remained.

Question 9: But militarily, al-Nusra Front reached places only a few kilometers from your residence in 2013, to al-Abbasiyeen neighborhood, al-Abbasiyeen Square.

President Assad:  That’s true. Damascus remained almost besieged for years, sometimes completely, sometimes partially; shells were falling on us on a daily basis.  This in itself was a greater motive for me to remain and defend my country, not to flee.  I am doing my constitutional duty in defending the people against terrorism.

Question 10:  Now, let’s talk about reconstruction.  It is said that reconstruction will cost 300 or 400 billion Dollars.  Do you have a plan to get the people out of this conundrum, despite the embargo and the sanctions imposed on you which actually harm the people and increase their suffering?

President Assad:  This is absolutely true. Nevertheless, some of our industries have expanded, not the other way around. The pharmaceutical sector, for instance, has expanded.  As to rebuilding what has been destroyed, you can visit Aleppo, which had suffered large-scale destruction at the hands of terrorists, and year-on-year, you can see a difference and that the state is rebuilding the city together with its population.

Intervention:  But the Syrian Pound is in very bad shape, at an all-time low, and you need to find foreign investment.  Does China, for instance, and other countries want to invest?

President Assad:  Most recently, in the past six months, some companies have started to come to invest in Syria.  Of course, foreign investment remains slow in these circumstances, but there are ways to circumvent the sanctions, and we have started to engage with these companies, and they will come soon to invest.  But this doesn’t mean that the investment and reconstruction process is going to be quick, I am realistic about this.

Intervention: What are your estimates, how many years?

President Assad: This depends on how many years the embargo will continue, and the methods it will use.  It also depends on Syrians returning from other countries, which they are starting to do so gradually.  It’s difficult to give an answer to this question, but of course, it is a process that will be on-going for years.

Question 11: How many Syrians have returned to Syria?

President Assad:  Over a million Syrians in less than a year, and the process is accelerating, particularly after Damascus and the southern region and its environs were liberated.  Of course, the return of Syrians is also related to rebuilding the infrastructure and the availability of other services, like electricity, schools, and hospitals; regrettably, these three sectors have been the worst-affected by the embargo.  Furthermore, there is Western pressure for refugees not to return to Syria, for them, this is a humanitarian card which can be used to achieve political objectives.

Question 12:  A large number of immigrants left the country because they opposed you, and because they suffered from the atrocities of the army.  How can you invite them back?  How do you encourage them to come back?  Would they be covered by a general amnesty, for instance?

President Assad:  First, most of them are supporters of the state and not the opposite.  The evidence of this was the presidential elections which they took part in 2014 and voted for the President.  The largest number immigrated because of the war itself and its economic consequences, so there is no problem with their return; these people can return normally and without an amnesty.  Others are dissidents who have not committed any crimes and there is no warrant for them, the fact that they oppose me is not an issue, since we have dissidents within Syria and we are constantly engaging with them.

With regards to the amnesty, we have granted amnesties more than once, most recently a few months ago, because some people fear returning without an amnesty and believe that they will be arrested; although only those who carried weapons are arrested, and even those have been pardoned.

Syrian President Bashar Assad interview Paris Match
President Assad and reporter Le Sommier were in the same room, on the same planet, despite what some monkey dung flinging journals might infer.

Question 13: Last year, when al-Ghouta returned to government control, I went there and met some young rebels who carried weapons.  The Syrian officers were asking them to hand in their weapons and that they will not be harmed.  Their response was: you want us to give up our weapons because you want us to join the army, and we don’t want to.  They left to Idleb.  What’s your take on that?

President Assad:  In actual fact, some of those who went to Idleb left their families with us (government-controlled areas) and we are taking care of them; if they were afraid, they would not leave their families. This is the first point, the second, is that there are some militants who went to Idleb but later returned to our side. They asked and we allowed them to return. They received an amnesty, because the majority of them were told that the army will kill you. This happened of course when they were isolated from the state for seven years, but when the army went into al-Ghouta, normalcy was restored, and people now live a normal life. We must realise that some of them were fighting not because they were extremists, but they had no other choice: either to fight with the terrorists or to be killed. They are returning to us gradually after the felt reassured.

Question 14:  Today, there are numerous demonstrations in Iran, and the same in Lebanon and Iraq.  And all those demonstrators are asking for dignity and for wealth not to be concentrated in the hands of the few in their country.  Wasn’t that the case of the demonstrators who went out at the beginning of the Syrian crisis?

President Assad:  If we want to talk about the banners that were being pushed – like dignity, freedom, and others, they can be beautiful masks but what lies behind them is ugly.  Let me give you some examples:  Bush killed a million and a half Iraqis under the pretext of democracy; Sarkozy contributed to killing hundreds of thousands of Libyans under the pretext of freedom for the Libyan people; and today, France, Britain, and America are violating international law under the pretext of supporting the Kurds, who are a part of the Syrian population, not an independent group.  In Syria in 2011, these very same banners – dignity and freedom – were used to kill policemen and civilians, and sabotage public property.  Therefore, we should be more concerned with the facts on the ground and what’s actually happening than with headlines.

Intervention:  But in the beginning, there was a popular uprising, and real demands.  There was no existence of Al Qaeda.  Why did you use violence at the beginning?

President Assad:  Let’s talk numbers: the largest number of demonstrators in Syria was 170,000.  For arguments sake, let’s assume this number is inaccurate and so let’s multiply it several times over to reach a million demonstrators; the Syrian population is over 23 million, so these figures are not representative of anything.  So, in terms of size it is not a popular uprising.  Second, a popular uprising does not occur when people are paid by Qatar to demonstrate.  Third, I wouldn’t have been able to remain, with the government, in power for nine years in the face of a popular uprising.  No one can withstand a popular uprising, and an example here is the Shah of Iran – despite all attempts and Western support, they could not keep him in power.  So, calling it a popular uprising is wrong or at least unrealistic.

Question 15: At the beginning of the war in 2011, you released prisoners from Sednaya.  You are accused of doing that in order to inject Jihadist poison in the ranks of the opposition.  How do you respond?

President Assad:  Every few years, we grant an amnesty to prisoners in Syria.  This was a general policy before the war.  When an amnesty is issued, there are some categories which are excluded like espionage, drug trafficking and others.  However, in the law we did not have a category called extremists and so the amnesty includes everyone.

In 2011 specifically, there were convicts who were released because they had served their sentences and not because of an amnesty.  What do we gain if we release extremists or terrorists in order to kill officers of the Syrian Army and civilians?!  The Western narrative said that we did so in order to demonize the peaceful demonstrations; but in fact, they demonized themselves because in the early weeks, they posted videos – which can be found on the internet – where they killed policemen, attacked and slaughtered civilians.  This is actually what happened concerning the release of prisoners.

Question 16:  I talked a short while ago about Sednaya, but you have other prisons and detention centers.  A colleague of mine named Manon Loizeau who made documentaries about rape cases in your prisons.  What do you say to that?

President Assad:  There is a difference between policy being implemented and individual action.  Harassment or rape are not prevalent in Syrian society; but if there are such cases, they are punished by law.  These are individual cases.

We condemn any such policy anywhere in the world because it is immoral; it also undermines stability in Syria.  You cannot talk about stability and a peaceful relationship among the population if there was killing, torture, or any other kind of abuse.

Intervention: Those documentaries were filmed with Syrian witnesses, and these incidents happened to them. They were not talking about things happening in their society because they were ashamed of them. But they were witnesses who suffered from these practices?

President Assad:  No. You are talking about a story. A story is one thing and documented proof is another.  Everything that was presented was unsubstantiated, the photos were not verified.  Who are those witnesses?  They were hidden and not named.  In most of these cases, Qatar financed these reports, and adopting them would need a professional investigation.  If we were to put morality aside, logically, we do not have an interest in such acts.

This is against our interests, so why should we do it?!  What do we achieve through torture?! What is the result – revenge?!  If you go to the areas which were under the control of the opposition and then were retaken by the state, you will see the opposite.  We are not schizophrenic: tolerant in one place and torturing people in another.  These are mere political allegations.

Intervention:  Once again, I stress, i.e. there is an emphasis on this point, but these witnesses were not funded by Qatar.  They were witnesses who were met in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan.  And they suffered.  And the person who documented these testimonies is a very trusted journalist.

President Assad:  There is no such thing as trust in these cases.  There are mechanisms and there are verified facts, there is no room for stories.  Who verified the witnesses’ stories?  Who verified that those witnesses had actually suffered to start with?  I can discuss this story with you when I have the facts in front of me, but I can’t discuss rumors or stories.  When facts exist, those who commit any crime are prosecuted by Syrian law, this is the norm.

Question 17:  Donald Trump mentioned Syria when he extended thanks upon the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Did you give the Americans information, and did you know the whereabouts of al-Baghdadi?

President Assad:  I always laugh when this question is raised, because the more important question which should be asked is: was al-Baghdadi really killed or not? And did this “fantastic play” staged by the Americans take place in reality?

Intervention: But ISIS acknowledged that!

President Assad:  Yes, of course.  But ISIS was created by America; ISIS is part of the play and they taught al-Baghdadi how to act when he was in American prisons in Iraq.  That’s why I’m saying did this big play actually take place?  We don’t know.  It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t killed, but if he was, it wasn’t because he was a terrorist.  They were able to strike ISIS when it was taking oil from Syria to Iraq, but they didn’t; and when ISIS attacked the Syrian Army in Deir Ezzor, the Americans bombed the Syrian Army instead of ISIS.  So, no, we did not cooperate with the Americans over anything. You cannot cooperate in the fight against terrorism with those who are supporting terrorism.

President Assad:  It’s one of Trump’s cute jokes.  It’s a joke.

Question 18: In our meeting in 2013, you assured me that the Syrian Army never used chemical weapons in al-Ghouta.  But after that came the case of Khan Sheikhoun, and then Douma. Why is the evidence mounting up suggesting that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons?

President Assad:  To date, there isn’t a single shred of evidence; the use of these weapons would have caused the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people and this did not happen.

As to this build-up: firstly, it was because the Syrian Army was advancing in the fight against terrorism and they were looking for a pretext to strike at it, and that’s what happened.  This narrative was used in two situations: either because we had made a significant advance, and it was an attempt to threaten us in the hope we’d stop, or because we were preparing for a large operation, and so it was an attempt to threaten us before the start of the operation.

Second: we were advancing and making good progress, so why would we need chemical weapons?  That is the question.  More importantly, every place we enter, there are civilians whose lives return to normal.  How could they remain there while we were using chemical weapons?!  In fact, the lies in Western media and in Western politics have no limits on this subject.

Journalist : Thank you.

— Miri Wood

Related Videos

Related News

قاطع الطريق وداعمه ومساعده مجرمو حرب

ابراهيم الأمين

الثلاثاء 26 تشرين الثاني 2019

متلازمة السوشال ميديا صارت مرضاً يسيطر على غالبية الجمهور. لكنها أصابت مقتلاً حتى من فئات تعتبر نفسها في موقع متقدم عن الناس ثقافياً ومعرفياً. المشكلة، هنا، ليست في أن تقول كلاماً صحيحاً، وليست في أن تقول الحقيقة، ولا في أن تكذب أو تخفي وقائع قاسية. المشكلة هنا متوقفة فقط عند عنوان واحد اسمه: الانطباع!

يعني، لا يهمّ أي نوع من التدقيق في طبيعة المواجهات التي تحصل بين وقت وآخر في الشارع بين جمهور المتنازعين سياسياً. ولا ينفع التدقيق في إقناع هذا أو ذاك بتعديل موقفه. المهم، هنا، هو الانطباع الذي سيزرع في عقول الناس وقلوبهم. لذلك، يسيطر الانطباع على العقل. وحتى من يريد وضع خطة عمل لفريق أو جهة، أو من يريد القيام بعمل له حساباته الواقعية، لا يقف الا عند الانطباع. الجملة السحرية التي تسيطر على ألسنة الجميع هي: ماذا سيقول الناس عنا؟ والناس، هنا، ليسوا سوى لاعبين افتراضيين على منصّات التواصل الاجتماعي الذين باتوا قادرين على إطلاق الأحكام على الجميع ومنع محاكمتهم في الوقت نفسه.

ولأن الانطباع هو المسيطر، تجد نفسك في موقع غير الراغب في الشرح والتدقيق. بل في موقع اللامبالي إزاء ردود فعل مهما كبرت أو تحولت الى وقائع، لأن النقاش يصبح من دون فعالية إذا كان من يقف على الضفة الاخرى غير مهتم إلا بالانطباع. وهذا مصدر نجاح كبير لمن يقود ما يسمى في عالمنا اليوم «الحرب الناعمة». هذه الحرب التي لا تستهدف خلق وعي معرفي عند الاصدقاء أو الخصوم، بل هدفها الوحيد هو تطويق هؤلاء بفكرة الانطباع: أنت جميل، هو قبيح، أنت واضح، هو متذبذب، أنت طائفي هو علماني، أنت آدمي هو حرامي… وهكذا الى نهاية السلسلة من لعبة زرع الجزئيات التي تنتهي عادة على شكل صورة لشيء وحيد هو: الانطباع!

والانطباع سرعان ما يصبح أسير قوانين اللعبة الافتراضية، أي أسير أدوات العمل على مواقع التواصل. والمهم، هنا، كيفية تحويل الانطباع الى «ترند»، أي رفع قيمته من لحظة انفعال عاطفي الى لحظة نمط تعامل. أي إن الـ«ترند» هو المرحلة التالية في تحويل الانطباع الى حقيقة. وهذا وحده كفيل بجعل الكذاب في حالة زهو غير مسبوقة إذا حصد المرتبة الاولى. كما من شأنه أن يدفع صادقاً الى الانتحار، لأنه فشل في الدفاع عن نفسه أو وجهة نظره. ومن يرد التجاهل والتجاوز ما عليه سوى اختبار نفسه ضمن مسابقة النقاط، التي تحصر في هذا العالم بلعبة «لايكات»، تتحول الى علامات نجاح أو رسوب، وهي ما تجعل من الانطباع قوة رئيسية في التفكير بالقول، كما تجعل من الـ«ترند» قوة رئيسية في الفعل… وهكذا!

في لبنان اليوم، وعلى هامش الأزمة القائمة، ثمة حشد مقبول، من أشخاص وجمعيات وجهات وقوى ومؤسسات، يديرون يومياتهم السياسية على أساس الانطباع القائل بأن جمهور المقاومة في لبنان صار عدواً لكل من يطالب بالإصلاح. وهؤلاء يتصرفون على أساس ان غالبية لبنانية تقف الى جانبهم، وأن أقلية تقف في جانب جمهور المقاومة الذي يتعرض لعملية عزل متواصلة. والبعض من هذه الفئة يتصرف على أساس أنه قادر على تحديد وجهة التفاعل على الارض، ولا يهم بقية الناس، لان الانطباع هو الأقوى. لكن هذه الفئة لا نعرف كيف تتصرف عندما تصدم بحقيقة الوقائع، التي تنسف الانطباع، وتفرض صورة معاكسة تماماً، حتى ولو حصل ما حصل من إشكالات وخسائر!

بناءً على لعبة الانطباع، التي يمكن تحويلها الى حقيقة، لا الى «ترند»، وجب اليوم قول الآتي:
كل مشارك في الحراك لا يخرج الى العلن، ويدين صراحة قاطعي الطرق، هو شريك فعلي في جريمة اغتيال المواطنين حسين شلهوب وسناء الجندي على طريق الجية.
كل ناشط في الحراك لا يخرج الى العلن، ويذيع بياناً يدين بالاسم مرتكبي هذه الجريمة، هو شريك في سفك دماء الأبرياء.

كل إعلامي، مؤيّد للحراك، لا يكتب أو يذيع موقفاً واضحاً، جهاراً نهاراً، يشتم فيه قاطعي الطرق هو شريك مساهم في الجريمة.
كل سياسي مؤيّد للحراك بكل صنوفه، طوعاً أو غصباً، وعن حق أو عن دجل، لا يسارع الى إيجاد وسيلة إعلامية لإذاعة بيان يدين بالأسماء المسؤولين عن قطع الطرقات هو شريك في هذه الجريمة.

كل جمعية مدنية، أو منظمة غير حكومية، تشارك في الحراك، لا تصدر بياناً واضحاً، فيه إشارة واضحة الى المسؤولين عن قطع الطرقات، وتحميلهم مسؤولية الجريمة، شريكة في الجريمة وتتحمل مسؤولية الدماء التي سفكت.

كل قوة سياسية أو حزب أو حركة تشارك في الحراك، وتملك الجرأة على المطالبة بإسقاط النظام، ولا تخرج وتعلن على لسان قيادييها أنها تدين قطع الطرقات وتهاجم المرتكبين بالأسماء، هي قوة وحركة وحزب شريك في الجريمة.

من يتوهّم نقل البلاد الى جبهة الغرب هو أسير انطباع لن يكون حقيقة، ولو تحول الى تراند عالمي!

ولمن لا يعرف، أو يتذرع بعدم المعرفة، فإن زعران سعد الحريري وسمير جعجع وسامي الجميّل ووليد جنبلاط هم من يتولى قطع الطرقات، ومن يتولى مهاجمة المارة وشتمهم، ومعهم كل المجموعات التي تعمل طوعاً أو غصباً مع مخابرات الجيش اللبناني، ومع فرع المعلومات في قوى الأمن الداخلي،

أما من يعتقد بأن هناك طبقات اجتماعية عند ضحايا فوضى الحراك، ويعتقد أن إعلاماً حقيراً ومشوّهاً منذ نشوئه، يمكنه التمييز بين هذا أو ذاك، ويمكنه تجهيل الفاعل وتحييد الناس، وتركهم ضحايا الانطباع إياه، وأسرى الـ«ترند» إياه، فمن المفيد تذكير هؤلاء بأننا سوف نلاحقهم، اسماً اسماً، وناشطاً ناشطاً، وجمعية جمعية، ومنظمة منظمة، وجهة جهة، وحزباً حزباً، وحركة حركة، وإعلامياً إعلامياً، وإعلامية وإعلامية، ولن نترك منهم أحداً من دون مساءلته يومياً عن مصدر أمواله ومرجعيته، وسنلزمه، الآن وكل يوم، بأن يقدم لنا جردة يومية بكل ما قام ويقوم به، وسنروي للناس ما حرصنا على كتمه من أجل الصالحين في الحراك..

أما من يهربون من مسؤوليتهم في تنظيف الحراك من هذا الوسخ، فهم اليوم أمام استحقاق أساسي، لأن من يريد التلطّي خلف شعارات عامة ومطالب مفتوحة، عليه أن يعرف أن نتائج الأفعال تقع على عاتق من بيده الأمر من بين هؤلاء، ومن لا يزال يتوهم أن بإمكانه نقل البلاد الى جبهة الغرب، فقط لأنه قرر ذلك، إنما هو أسير انطباع لن يكون حقيقة، ولو تحول الى «ترند» عالمي!

يجب أن يعرف هؤلاء أن دموع الصبية الناجية من محرقة الجية أمس، وحرقتها على من فقدته أمام عينيها، هي أهم من كل شعار يرفع في أي ساحة من ساحات لبنان.

Related

اتصالات روسية فرنسية مشجعة: لا مصلحة دولية في انهيار لبنان.. و إن انهار!

  • اتصالات روسية فرنسية مشجعة: لا مصلحة دولية في انهيار لبنان.. و إن انهار!

 من المؤكد أن ما يشهده العراق ولبنان، على الرغم من أحقية الحراك المطلبي، قد دخل مرحلة التسييس المعلن مع الأحداث العابرة التي شهدتها شوارع إيران، والتي سرعان ما نجح المسؤولون الإيرانيون في احتوائها، في مؤشر على معرفة مسبقة بالسياق العام لخيارات المحور المقابل في هذه المرحلة في المنطقة.

مرّ خبر ارتفاع سعر السندات اللبنانية بالدولار في الساعات القليلة الأخيرة مرور الكرام.

ربط بعض الاقتصاديين الموضوع بتصريح الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب باستعداد الولايات المتحدة للعمل مع حكومة لبنانية جديدة. يُدرك الضالعون في السياسة الدولية و صُنّاع القرار أن ارتفاع قيمة السندات في توقيت كهذا لا يتم من دون موافقة دولية، وأنه إشارة محددة إلى جهات داخلية في لبنان.

في الواقع، شهدت الأيام القليلة الماضية، حراكًا دوليًا جادًا على خط الأزمة اللبنانية، بل قُل “المسألة اللبنانية”، ذلك أنّ النقاش بات في مستقبل التركيبة اللبنانية لا في أزمتها الراهنة فقط.

بعد مرور أكثر من 38 يومًا على الحراك الشعبي، يفرض العامل الاقتصادي نفسه على حسابات جميع الأطراف المعنية محليًا ودوليًا. الجولة الميدانية بين المناطق اللبنانية تُبرز مشهدية ستكون شديدة التأثير في الأيام المقبلة في حال استمرار الإخفاق السياسي في اجتراع الحلول، ففي حين تظهر بوضوح تبعات الأزمة الاقتصادية شمالا وفي الوسط، فإن ضاحية بيروت الجنوبية وجنوب لبنان يشهدان استقرارًا ملحوظًا سببه قيام الجهة السياسية النافذة في هاتين المنطقتين؛ أي حزب الله، بإتخاذ خطوات غير ملحوظة لضمان سير الحياة بشكل شبه طبيعي.

من المؤكد أن ما يشهده العراق ولبنان، على الرغم من أحقية الحراك المطلبي، قد دخل مرحلة التسييس المعلن مع الأحداث العابرة التي شهدتها شوارع إيران، والتي سرعان ما نجح المسؤولون الإيرانيون في احتوائها، في مؤشر على معرفة مسبقة بالسياق العام لخيارات المحور المقابل في هذه المرحلة في المنطقة.

لكن ما يهمنا من المشهد اللبناني الشديد التعقيد هي مؤشرات ومعطيات ترسم معالم مسار الأحداث على المدى البعيد.

كان لافتًا عودة معظم القنوات الإعلامية اللبنانية إلى شبكة برامجها المعتادة والاكتفاء بالنقل المباشر بين البرامج المعتادة عند الحاجة. بغض النظر عما اذا كان ذلك نتيجةً لقرار أم أنه انعكاس لنبض الشارع، فإن الإعلام اللبناني يعكس أيضًا نبض الاتصالات السياسية. وغاب أهل الحراك المستقلين عن المنابر الإعلامية لصالح وجوه أكثر ارتباطا برؤى سياسية.

في هذه الاثناء، كانت الاتصالات الاميركية – الفرنسية وتلك الروسية – الفرنسية قد بدأت في بلورة أفكار معقولة. بالنسبة للموقف الأميركية، ليس لبنان في صدارة الأولويات بالتأكيد، ومن يتولى متابعة الملف اللبناني في واشنطن هم شخصيات معروفة باهتمامها بلبنان من منطلق شخصي. ولعلّ ما نُقل عن “دايفيد شينكر” من باريس عن تقدم الفرنسيين في لبنان والتسليم بقدرتهم على التواصل مع مختلف الأفرقاء يعكس حقيقة الموقف الأميركي غير القادر على أن يقدم حلًا في ظل خصامه السياسي مع شريحة واسعة من اللبنانيين، ونظرة هذه الشريحة بريبة إلى أي مقترح أميركي. في حين أن هذه الشريحة نفسها لا تجد إشكالية في استقبال الموفدين الفرنسيين وتبادل الآراء معهم، وإن كان الموقف الفرنسي ليس مجانيًا بطبيعة الحال، وهو ينطلق من مصلحة فرنسية خالصة، ولكنه يبقى أقل حدة من أي موقف دولي أخر.

وفي هذا السياق، لا يرفض الفرنسيون فكرة حكومة ينخرط فيها حزب الله، وهو ما يتقاطع مع الموقف الروسي أيضًا الحاضر بفعالية، إثر اتصالات بين موسكو وطهران، مدفوعة بحرص روسي على مشاريع الغاز قبالة السواحل اللبنانية والسورية. وهو ما يتطلب استقراراً في لبنان.

ما الذي يفسّر تمسّك الرئيس سعد الحريري بموقفه إذا؟ لدى الحريري اعتبارات ترتبط بحسابات شعبية بعد أن اخترق الحراك بعمق الشرائح المناصرة له، خاصة في طرابلس وبيروت. كما أن الموقف السعودي – الإماراتي من مشاركة حزب الله في الحكومة لا يزال على حاله بالرفض الكامل. وبالتالي فإن أي حل دولي قد لا يعني بالضرورة انخراط الحريري شخصياً به، وإن كان من الطبيعي أن يشمل تياره.

هل يعني هذا أن الحل بات قريباً؟ الجواب هو لا.

قد لا يكن اللاعبون الدوليون قادرين على اللحاق بقطار الانهيار الاقتصادي في لبنان. وهذا الانهيار المرتقب هو سبب إطالة الأزمة في المرحلة المقبلة، لكن الغطاء الدولي يظلّ عاملاً هامًا في ضبط الأمور والبناء عليه لتحقيق تسوية واسعة تجيب على مطالب الحراك المحقة، و تشمل إجراء انتخابات نيابية مبكرة بعد الاتفاق على حكومة مؤقتة.

%d bloggers like this: