Aoun to Saniora: Ratify an adequate electoral law, and we will elect a president tomorrow
Source: Nowlebanon.com, 18-05-2008
On May 18, the website of the Free Patriotic Movement www.tayyar.org posted the transcript of an interview by FPM-affiliated OTV with General Michel Aoun:
Q: Forty-eight hours have passed in Doha, but you haven't uttered a word. Why?
A: I am committed to the etiquette of hospitality. In the first meeting, Sheikh Hamad asked us not to talk or comment in order to allow a space for negotiations without dispersing rumors and news. I was committed to the etiquette of hospitality, while others were not and talked about me. They said I am hindering the formation of the government even before we discussed this issue. They said I am defending the use of weapons, while my comment was about treating the reasons that led to the use of weapons. They said so many things, and gave people false hopes and information.
Q: A few minutes ago, a meeting with Qatar's prince was concluded, and you were among the attendees, along with Speaker Berri and PM Saniora and Deputy Saad Hariri. Can we know what happened during this meeting?
A: I pitched new ideas outside the context of the set agenda. It appeared that the trend of some sides to control is still there regarding the seats allocated for Christians in Beirut. The meeting was ceased to continue negotiations later on, and I think this issue is one of the challenges that overshadowed the meeting.
Q: My understanding is that there are two points: deviating from the agenda of the meeting and the agenda of the statement. Is there any deviation from the statement of Phoenicia?
A: Yes, there is deviation on the level of organizing the priorities.
Q: Hence, are the reports talking about the majority's persistence in discussing the relationship between the state and organizations before agreeing over the electoral law and the national unity government true?
A: The sequence is as follows: the national unity government, the electoral law, and then the election of a president. These facts were reshuffled, and some of the Christian rights were overcome.
Q: Does the second deadlock lie in the electoral law?
A: Yes, in the electoral law itself and in the processes. We came [to Qatar] on the basis of discussing the national unity government and then the electoral law, and then crowning all these efforts with electing a president. But this agreement was amended by the new proposal, and there are discussions with the rivals to settle the issue.
Q: Let us discuss the electoral law. Does the deadlock stem from reasons related to the Christians? Are some rivals from the majority attempting to "swallow" the Christian seats to secure their success in the forthcoming elections?
A: Yes, to secure their success by swallowing half of the seats in Beirut while allowing a competition over the second half.
Q: Thus, the Armenian issue is not a problem in itself. Is this issue being exploited to achieve this goal?
A: Indeed, they are displacing the Armenians to another constituency... We will not allow this issue to pass...
Q: Is the issue of one or two seats hindering the solution in Lebanon?
A: No, the issue of the government has not yet been discussed. As for the election in Beirut, they want to give us a merit by leaving half of the seats for Christian-Christian competition, while the other half remains for the loyalists...
Q: Why is the focus centered on Beirut? Is it because of the large number, or because some of the loyalists intend to compensate the military defeat with an electoral and political victory?
A: No, this is not the issue at all. This is a huge lie. When the committee headed by former Deputy Fouad Boutros examined the issue, there wasn't any military defeat at all. We asked them to refer to this new electoral law, and if they do not want to, the 1960 law. They did not endorse this [suggestion] or the law suggested by Minister [Sleiman] Franjieh in 2004. They want the law that is tailored to fit them...
Q: Do you feel that the loyalist group expressed leniency regarding the national unity government, in return for having the opposition express leniency in the electoral law?
A: Yes, we heard about such a thing. Our answer was "thank you;" you share the government with us for 11 months, then you take control over the presidency and parliament and everything. These are childish suggestions, as if they are bargaining in a grocery market, instead of thinking about a solution to the crisis to establish a state.
Q: Did you try to reverse the proposal?
A: Yes, we tried to propose a fair electoral law in return for expressing leniency in the issue of the government, since the latter is temporary, while the electoral law establishes an adequate authority in the country. The entire world knows that I do not recognize the legitimacy of this parliament, especially as the illegitimate deputies commenced their jobs by dissolving the Constitutional Council...
Q: Was the issue of the relation between the state and armed organizations discussed?
A: In the inauguration session before forming the working committees, Sheikh Hamad suggested that every participant deliver a speech to express his thoughts and concerns. Some talked about the weapons, while others did not. In this context, I said in my speech that employing weapons recently was a result of not respecting the known customs in Lebanon. The lack of confidence led us to use weapons and not the contrary. I determined the basis for dealing between the Lebanese, which are:
Lebanon is based on partnership, not on control; on integration, not domination; and on balance, not monopolization. Regrettably, one of the media outlets - which received information from the majority group - summarized my speech by saying that General Aoun is defending the use of weapons by Hezbollah, and this wiped out the real meaning of the speech...
Q: Is the issue of weapons one of the items to be discussed on the table of dialogue?
A: No. No one discussed this issue with me, and no one mentioned the issue in the working committee related to the electoral law or in the talks held by Sheikh Hamad to form a government. Sheikh Hamad doesn't discuss the issue of weapons, but if one of the rivals talked to Sheikh Hamad about this issue, it doesn't mean that he discussed this topic with Hezbollah or Amal Movement deputies.
Q: Do you expect a solution or further impasse?
A: I am always reserved over unilateral solutions. We should always keep a margin for failure and propose transitional solutions. When I was in Beirut, I suggested forming a transitional government, but I did not insist so they wouldn't say that General Aoun wants to hinder elections. During the last meeting, I told Prime Minister Saniora, "Ratify an adequate electoral law, and we will elect a president tomorrow." I asked him to eliminate prejudices hurled at anyone suggesting new solutions...
On May 18, the website of the Free Patriotic Movement www.tayyar.org posted the transcript of an interview by FPM-affiliated OTV with General Michel Aoun:
Q: Forty-eight hours have passed in Doha, but you haven't uttered a word. Why?
A: I am committed to the etiquette of hospitality. In the first meeting, Sheikh Hamad asked us not to talk or comment in order to allow a space for negotiations without dispersing rumors and news. I was committed to the etiquette of hospitality, while others were not and talked about me. They said I am hindering the formation of the government even before we discussed this issue. They said I am defending the use of weapons, while my comment was about treating the reasons that led to the use of weapons. They said so many things, and gave people false hopes and information.
Q: A few minutes ago, a meeting with Qatar's prince was concluded, and you were among the attendees, along with Speaker Berri and PM Saniora and Deputy Saad Hariri. Can we know what happened during this meeting?
A: I pitched new ideas outside the context of the set agenda. It appeared that the trend of some sides to control is still there regarding the seats allocated for Christians in Beirut. The meeting was ceased to continue negotiations later on, and I think this issue is one of the challenges that overshadowed the meeting.
Q: My understanding is that there are two points: deviating from the agenda of the meeting and the agenda of the statement. Is there any deviation from the statement of Phoenicia?
A: Yes, there is deviation on the level of organizing the priorities.
Q: Hence, are the reports talking about the majority's persistence in discussing the relationship between the state and organizations before agreeing over the electoral law and the national unity government true?
A: The sequence is as follows: the national unity government, the electoral law, and then the election of a president. These facts were reshuffled, and some of the Christian rights were overcome.
Q: Does the second deadlock lie in the electoral law?
A: Yes, in the electoral law itself and in the processes. We came [to Qatar] on the basis of discussing the national unity government and then the electoral law, and then crowning all these efforts with electing a president. But this agreement was amended by the new proposal, and there are discussions with the rivals to settle the issue.
Q: Let us discuss the electoral law. Does the deadlock stem from reasons related to the Christians? Are some rivals from the majority attempting to "swallow" the Christian seats to secure their success in the forthcoming elections?
A: Yes, to secure their success by swallowing half of the seats in Beirut while allowing a competition over the second half.
Q: Thus, the Armenian issue is not a problem in itself. Is this issue being exploited to achieve this goal?
A: Indeed, they are displacing the Armenians to another constituency... We will not allow this issue to pass...
Q: Is the issue of one or two seats hindering the solution in Lebanon?
A: No, the issue of the government has not yet been discussed. As for the election in Beirut, they want to give us a merit by leaving half of the seats for Christian-Christian competition, while the other half remains for the loyalists...
Q: Why is the focus centered on Beirut? Is it because of the large number, or because some of the loyalists intend to compensate the military defeat with an electoral and political victory?
A: No, this is not the issue at all. This is a huge lie. When the committee headed by former Deputy Fouad Boutros examined the issue, there wasn't any military defeat at all. We asked them to refer to this new electoral law, and if they do not want to, the 1960 law. They did not endorse this [suggestion] or the law suggested by Minister [Sleiman] Franjieh in 2004. They want the law that is tailored to fit them...
Q: Do you feel that the loyalist group expressed leniency regarding the national unity government, in return for having the opposition express leniency in the electoral law?
A: Yes, we heard about such a thing. Our answer was "thank you;" you share the government with us for 11 months, then you take control over the presidency and parliament and everything. These are childish suggestions, as if they are bargaining in a grocery market, instead of thinking about a solution to the crisis to establish a state.
Q: Did you try to reverse the proposal?
A: Yes, we tried to propose a fair electoral law in return for expressing leniency in the issue of the government, since the latter is temporary, while the electoral law establishes an adequate authority in the country. The entire world knows that I do not recognize the legitimacy of this parliament, especially as the illegitimate deputies commenced their jobs by dissolving the Constitutional Council...
Q: Was the issue of the relation between the state and armed organizations discussed?
A: In the inauguration session before forming the working committees, Sheikh Hamad suggested that every participant deliver a speech to express his thoughts and concerns. Some talked about the weapons, while others did not. In this context, I said in my speech that employing weapons recently was a result of not respecting the known customs in Lebanon. The lack of confidence led us to use weapons and not the contrary. I determined the basis for dealing between the Lebanese, which are:
Lebanon is based on partnership, not on control; on integration, not domination; and on balance, not monopolization. Regrettably, one of the media outlets - which received information from the majority group - summarized my speech by saying that General Aoun is defending the use of weapons by Hezbollah, and this wiped out the real meaning of the speech...
Q: Is the issue of weapons one of the items to be discussed on the table of dialogue?
A: No. No one discussed this issue with me, and no one mentioned the issue in the working committee related to the electoral law or in the talks held by Sheikh Hamad to form a government. Sheikh Hamad doesn't discuss the issue of weapons, but if one of the rivals talked to Sheikh Hamad about this issue, it doesn't mean that he discussed this topic with Hezbollah or Amal Movement deputies.
Q: Do you expect a solution or further impasse?
A: I am always reserved over unilateral solutions. We should always keep a margin for failure and propose transitional solutions. When I was in Beirut, I suggested forming a transitional government, but I did not insist so they wouldn't say that General Aoun wants to hinder elections. During the last meeting, I told Prime Minister Saniora, "Ratify an adequate electoral law, and we will elect a president tomorrow." I asked him to eliminate prejudices hurled at anyone suggesting new solutions...
