|
With only a few days left before leaving Beirut, I had the
opportunity to meet Sheikh Amine Gemayel, the former President of
Lebanon.
As anywhere else in the world, in Lebanon one cannot meet or
interview the important political players without being recommended by someone
from their entourage. The recommendation brings you a step closer to the aim,
but even then it's not sure you will reach it.
Pierre Maroun, a dear
friend and respected member of the Lebanese American lobby for a free and
independent Lebanon, used his personal connections to get me on the list of
journalists eager to talk with President Amine Gemayel.
After a few
phone conversations with Amine Gemayel's secretary, we scheduled the interview
for my last day in Beirut. Although the president had a full agenda for the
day, his secretary squeezed me in for a brief interview. I cannot express how
honored I felt to be able to meet the president at my (still) young age and on
short notice.
Although I began my journey to the president's office one
hour before the scheduled appointment, I arrived 10 minutes late for the
meeting. This was a very stressful situation, but the taxi driver was not
familiar with the Christian area outside Beirut where the president has his
office and we had to ask numerous times for directions until we arrived at my
destination. I thought to myself: "Great! I've started out on the wrong foot.
Maybe he will cancel the interview." President Gemayel's secretary announced to
him that the taxi driver had trouble finding the office, and therefore in a few
minutes time, I was able to meet with him. It is difficult to describe how I
felt while waiting in the anteroom, anxious to meet President Gemayel. I have
read and heard many things about him and was fearful that it may not work the
way I wanted it to. During his mandate, Amine Gemayel confronted attempts by
the PLO to establish itself on a permanent basis in Lebanon as well as Syria's
bid to control the political life of the country.
Finally, when the
secretary told me I could proceed to the president's office, my knees began to
tremble and I clearly heard my heartbeat in my ears. Could he (the president)
hear it, too? Hopefully not.
My first impression was that of an
extremely polite, yet distant person. After asking me a few questions about the
publication I write for, about my educational background and about the way I
perceive the situation in Lebanon, Amine Gemayel was ready to answer my
questions. We were brought water, tea and coffee.
Once we started the
interview, the emotions were still high, but the answers captured my whole
attention. Sheikh Amine Gemayel was as open as possible, although obviously
tired because of his extremely busy schedule. He emphasized the fact that
Lebanon needs to stand on its own feet without the interference of the
Iranians, Palestinians or Syrians, and then we will see a democratic Lebanon.
His past experiences with all of the above groups were enough for me to trust
his judgment. By asking for free, independent parliamentary elections and
emphasizing the importance of voting, the current opposition has won only half
the battle. Much more should be done to improve the quality of citizenship in
the country and to elect a parliament - a government that truly represents
Lebanon in all its diversity.
The new office will represent Lebanon in
the world, and the messages it will send to the EU, UN, US and the world at
large will matter. President Gemayel and many others were ready to pay with
their lives to see Lebanon independent again. The 1.2 million people who
demonstrated after Hariri's assassination proved that President Gemayel is not
alone. Hopefully, the opposition will know how to use this important and rare
popular momentum that they are now experiencing to the benefit of the people of
Lebanon
At the end of the meeting, I was reminded of an important life
lesson: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for
your country
Manuela Paraipan
Correspondent Broader
Middle East
World security network
During your mandate as the President of Lebanon, you
took some daring steps against both the PLO and Syria. Can you please comment
on your policy?
My policy was not directed against anyone in particular,
but rather it was for Lebanon. It served Lebanon's national interest. I was
trying to restore the sovereignty and independence of the country. When I took
office in 1982, Lebanon was under several occupations: The Israeli occupation,
the Syrian and Palestinian occupations through the Palestinian enclaves all
over Lebanon and the Iranian occupation through the presence on our soil of the
Pasdaran, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Therefore, my struggle was
multidimensional at that time.
What is your view on the so-called
troika formed by Nabih Berri, Omar Karami and President Lahoud-that we see now
acting on the Lebanese political stage?
It is unconstitutional and
undemocratic in general since it leads to confusion between some branches of
government, mainly the executive and the legislative ones. The Legislative
branch is supposed to balance the power of the executive branch, and not be a
part of it as is actually the case in Lebanon. At this time, there is complete
confusion between the two branches.
Beside the political problems,
you also experienced a huge economic deficit. Would you blame the poor
management ability of Lebanese officials or would you place the blame with
Syrian interference in all aspects of Lebanese society?
Both. Lebanese
officials were appointed by Syria. Thus, they are the Syrian proxies in
Lebanon. The economic problems are the result of Syrian hegemony and the
terrible misconduct of the administration, which is completely and directly
controlled by Syria; this created a debt of over $40 billion for a very small
country. It's a huge and unprecedented deficit.
How do you perceive
the political situation at large in the region, given your long time contacts
with both the US and Europe?
Washington is trying to implement
democratic systems in the Middle East. President Bush is trying hard to push
the various countries in the area to join the democratic trend. The Europeans
are also trying to push the region towards democratization, freedom and a free
economy. We hope they will succeed in accomplishing this task. Lebanon used to
be an example of such a democracy in the region and restoring the Lebanese
democratic system will be a real incentive for the whole region.
What
are the main challenges Lebanon will likely faces in the upcoming
months?
The main challenge is Syrian hegemony. It will not be very easy
to eradicate Syria's influence even after the withdrawal of its army and
intelligence apparatus. After 30 years of Syrian hegemony, the Syrians had
enough time to infiltrate our institutions and our society. We will need some
time to wipe away this kind of infiltration from our society.
What is
the future of the current opposition? Is there a good chance to see them as one
unified group after the elections?
We have to work very hard to keep
this consensus and to preserve our unity in order to maintain a genuine and
constructive dialog between the various communities for the sake of
Lebanon.
Are there any differences between the Taëf Accord and
UNSCR 1559?
There is absolutely no contradiction between the two. UNSCR
1559 was issued by the Security Council because the Lebanese and Syrian
governments failed to implement the Taëf Accord.
What should be
done with regard to Hezbollah?
Hezbollah should play a political role
and not a military one. Ever since Israel withdrew from the South in 2000 in
accordance with UNSCR 425, which was passed in 1978, Hezbollah's raison
d'être has ended.
The Kataëb Party is now split. What is
its future?
The Kataëb Party is a victim of Syrian hegemony. Syria
used to exercise direct control over the various constitutional institutions in
Lebanon as well as over the political parties. Historically, the Kataëb
was the main supporter and the main defender of the sovereignty of the country.
Therefore, it became a target of Syrian attacks and a threat to Syria's agenda,
because we could not accommodate Syrian interests and goals in Lebanon with our
party's role to serve the interests of the Lebanese people. This is why Syria
could not afford leaving the Kataëb Party free and independent. What we
are focusing upon after the withdrawal is the liberation of the Kataëb
Party. We need to get rid of the confiscation of the party.
Is it
likely that a new political formula will emerge in Lebanon instead of the
political system organized along largely sectarian lines that you now
have?
It is too early to talk about the future of the political system
or of the constitutional system in Lebanon. Now, there is the Taëf
Agreement that we must implement and if there is a need for further improvement
of the political system, then it should be discussed at a later
date.
For years you have promoted and struggled for an independent
and democratic Lebanon, either from Lebanon or from abroad while in exile. Do
you see any role for you on the Lebanese political stage after Syria's
withdrawal?
It is still my task and my mission to serve a democratic and
free Lebanon regardless of where I stand. As a member of parliament before
1982, as President until 1988, in exile until the year 2000 and in the present
time, it is my duty to serve my country. I know I can do a lot for Lebanon and
I am trying to be as helpful as I can |
