From the US government to fellow Lebanese leaders to many who joined in the Oct. 17 uprising, FPM leader Gebran Bassil has many detractors. (Credit: Yasser Al-Zayyat/AFP)
Accused by his opponents of being the reason behind the stalemate in cabinet formation, FPM leader Gebran Bassil answers the questions of L’Orient-Le Jour in an exclusive, wide-ranging interview.
The United States sanctioned Bassil on Nov. 6, but the former minister defends himself by saying he is “the target of a campaign designed to destroy me politically” that “culminated with the US sanctions.”
At the same time, Bassil acknowledges his closeness to the head of state, speaking of Aoun’s “paternal role” to him politically, and talks about his relations with Hezbollah, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and FPM members.
With Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri, Bassil says he has a “love-revenge” relationship — love from his side and revenge from Hariri’s.
Despite his troubles with fellow Lebanese leaders and, if the initial days of the Oct. 17 uprising are taken at face value, the general public, he does not view himself as the most hated man in Lebanon.
* * *
Let us start with what is currently happening. What do you think of the controversy surrounding the legal proceedings brought by Judge Fadi Sawwan against the outgoing prime minister and former ministers as part of the Beirut blast probe?
I am not in a position to be aware of the details of the investigation to determine responsibilities. But I can say that I am in favor of continuing the investigation until the end, and of the trial proceeding. I am also for preventing the creation of a political and sectarian climate intended to impede justice.
At the same time, I have the impression that certain choices in dealing with this case are not clear. For instance, it is strange that Judge Fadi Sawwan sends a letter to Parliament saying that he wants to prosecute all successive prime ministers, as well as the transport, justice and finance ministers. They cannot all be responsible.
He chose some and brought proceedings against them, but on what basis and according to what criteria? What’s more, we are talking here about the negligence and administrative incompetence part in the performance of duties. But there is also the part of premeditated crime regarding the explosion itself and what caused it.
In this second part, I do not see how responsibility lies with a prime minister, ministers and a group of people who, by virtue of their functions, do not have a direct executive responsibility in this area. They are accountable for negligence, but not directly responsible for the explosion.
A person who was informed of the issue seven years later does not have direct responsibility for the crime, especially since one has to see how things were presented to him.
This being said, defending the prime minister should not be through sectarian mobilization. We are against attempts at undermining the office of the prime minister, but I fear that the sectarian mobilization is aimed at preventing the judiciary from opening any corruption case. The real defense of the prime minister and the finance minister should be done through defining their respective responsibilities.
If we want to talk about Hassan Diab, we must first speak of the responsibilities of the prime minister in absolute terms. In my opinion, he is not responsible in such a case. The same goes for the finance minister and for the only security service that had drawn attention to the possible disaster, and which is pursued while others are not worried.
What is lacking in dealing with this issue is speed of action, and we have repeatedly denounced the slow pace of the investigation. There is also the lack of clarity. You don’t want to compromise the secrecy of the investigation, but with such a major tragedy, you have to explain to people what is going on.
Therefore, to start with, the responsibilities of each party should be determined. There is the responsibility of the port management, the security services in charge of the port, the magistrates who have issued judgments.
Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, we still haven’t heard anything about the actual criminal act, which is the explosion. There is ongoing talk about incompetence and neglect. But how did the explosion happen? What triggered it?
Certainly not Hassan Diab or Ali Hassan Khalil, Youssef Fenianos and others. This question must therefore be answered. The good thing is that Judge Sawwan does not appear to have limits in his investigation. But we must not hide the crime behind negligence.
So you will not object if one day the judge summons the head of state?
There are procedures that must be followed. But if you want my opinion, knowing the president, I am certain that if he had any additional information to what he already said in his statement, he would himself contact Judge Sawwan to give testimony.
Your opponents accuse you of standing behind Judge Sawwan and of inspiring his decisions to settle political scores…
We have absolutely nothing to do with him, neither with his appointment nor his actions. On the contrary, I made remarks about his way of handling this case, in terms of the slow pace, the lack of clarity and the fact that we know nothing about the explosion itself. We have repeatedly raised these issues in our press releases.
You often say that you want to put corrupt officials in prison…
I want there to be a forensic audit and trials for the corrupt. But if I had the wherewithal to make it happen, I would have done it a long time ago. Honestly, I don’t have the means, and my only objective today is to save the country, form a government and deal with the daily problems of the Lebanese.
Speaking of the government, your opponents accuse you of blocking the formation of a new cabinet because of your insistence on having a blocking third…
That is not true. We have yet to decide whether or not we want to be part of the government and if we will support it. To date, we have no demands, we did not demand to have a blocking third or any specific portfolio. We have only asked that the government be formed on a clear basis.
Those who do not want a government are those who refuse to accept this basis. Those who do not want a government are well aware that they are bypassing the constitutional rules and the political balances in the country; they are those who believe they can name all ministers, those who every time we take a step forward, take several steps back.
The government is a building. We cannot build the roof before the foundations. We cannot start throwing out names before we know the form of the government and the distribution of portfolios.
Our position is clear. We say, “Do whatever you want, but we will not participate.” So, they accuse us of obstructing the formation of the government. But what is exactly asked of us? To sweep away the constitution, the Lebanese, the parliamentary blocs in order to facilitate the formation of the cabinet? Do we want to form a government of specialists?
So be it, but how can we entrust one minister with the foreign affairs and tourism portfolios, or the minister of social affairs with the environment portfolio? Based on what criteria? How can the prime minister name all ministers? The Taif Agreement is clear about the partnership between the head of state and the prime minister in forming the government.
Moreover, according to the same agreement, the prime minister-designate carries out parliamentary consultations, which are admittedly nonbinding for him. But the goal is that his government obtains the support of the parliamentary blocs.
It is in our interests to have a government. First for the sake of the country, the president and for us. How can they believe for one moment that we do not want to have a government as soon as possible? In any case, it’s not us who are afraid of sanctions since they have already targeted us.
Is the French initiative buried, and what do you think French President Emmanuel Macron will do on Dec. 22? (Editor’s note: This interview was originally published prior to Macron’s diagnosis with COVID-19, which disrupted his plans to travel to Lebanon.)
If the French initiative were buried, President Macron would not come to Lebanon on Dec. 22. But it greatly saddens me to see that he is more worried about Lebanon than the Lebanese themselves. The real Christmas gift would be to launch reforms.
How have the US sanctions affected you?
I no longer have a checkbook or credit cards.
Do you plan to take legal action in the US to challenge these sanctions?
Before the sanctions, it was said that all I was doing was aimed at avoiding them. In my speech after the sanctions, I said, now they will say that all I am going to do will be aimed at lifting these sanctions! I take my political stances regardless of the sanctions.
What matters to me about this is the injustice I suffer in the corruption accusations. One day, people will know that these accusations are all false. But my decisions and political positions have nothing to do with this issue.
What exactly is your role in relation to the head of state?
I cannot hide my closeness to the head of state and his paternal role in relation to me politically. But in general, it is the son who listens to his father and not the other way around.
Regarding relations with Hezbollah, do you think today, after all that has happened, that the Mar Mikhael agreement was a mistake?
Certainly not. I believe that this agreement has protected the country. But I also think that the Lebanese had higher expectations for the building of the state.
The Lebanese thought that when two parties, one Christian and the other Muslim, as important as Hezbollah and the FPM came together, it would lead to the building of a state. We did not achieve this. People hold us to account for this, and it is their right to do so.
You said in one of your speeches that you wanted to review certain points of this agreement. Can you tell us which ones?
We are currently working on this. I would rather not talk about it just yet. If we succeed, the results will speak for themselves. But what is for sure is that we cannot go on like this, giving people less than what they expect.
Your stance on Hezbollah is still ambiguous. Are you looking to keep the door open with the US?
When I give my opinion on a matter, do I really have to be trying to coax a party? That’s my position, full stop. My problem is when I give an opinion, there is always a party that is not happy with it. If I were really trying to coax the Americans, why would they impose sanctions on me? Do you think they still haven’t figured out that I don’t give in to blackmail? I would prefer a thousand times to be finished than to give in to pressure.
Some claim, in fact, that you are politically finished…
When I’m buried, I’ll be done. But the FPM will remain.
The Aounist rank and file are becoming increasingly hostile to Hezbollah. Can you maintain the Mar Mikhael agreement under these conditions?
It is true that the FPM base is no longer satisfied, and that is why we can no longer continue like this. For us, building a state is as high a priority as resistance is for Hezbollah. The pertinent question is: has state-building elicited the same efforts as the preservation of the resistance? This is the root of our supporters’ frustration.
Was the Maarab deal a mistake? You said you were going to talk about it one day.
Quite frankly, our goal through the Maarab agreement was to agree on a unified basis for the situation of Christians in power and in the state, starting with the presidency. Gen. Aoun was the first concerned. Samir Geagea agreed to vote for Gen. Aoun, but he did not want to lay the foundations for the Christians’ participation in power. In return for his vote, he preferred to have a share in power. It is his right. But that’s not what we prefer. He then backed down, when he himself brushed aside the spirit of the deal. We wanted to cooperate. He wanted to be in the opposition and at the same time have his share. This is what caused the deal to falter.
Your Muslim partners sometimes accuse you of employing Christian extremist language…
We are part of a sectarian system, whether we like it or not. When Geagea speaks of the rights of Christians, he is right to do so. We, in the FPM charter, advocate for a secular state.
But as long as the system is sectarian, does that mean that all other communities can obtain their rights except Christians? Those who do not wish to talk about the rights of communities, let them stick to our project of secularism.
We can agree on Christian rights with the Lebanese Forces, but the problem with Geagea is that he tends to want to eliminate other Christian parties.
Some blame you for the unending war that you are waging on Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, putting Hezbollah in a difficult position…
I am not waging any war against the speaker. On the contrary, I aspire to a stable relationship with him, given his position and what he represents at the popular level. But I repeat, there are some people whose sole purpose is to stir up conflict. No sane person would want to provoke a conflict with Speaker Berri. But there are some people who are dedicated to creating conflicts with the speaker and pitting us against each other. Alas, they often succeed in their mission.
What is your problem with Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri?
It’s a love-revenge relationship. Love from my side and revenge from his.
How do you explain that you are the most hated man in the country today?
I don’t see myself as such. Every day, I live surrounded by a large number of people who love me. But it is normal for all those who feel threatened by me to take refuge in attacking me. I don’t think anyone can deny that I am the target of a campaign designed to destroy me politically. This campaign culminated with the US sanctions.
What about the FPM? We have the impression that everyone in this party engages in a different discourse.
It is true the FPM is the subject of terrible smear campaigns. But I am certain it will remain united and strong, as it has been in the past. I know how much our partisans are suffering today. Do you know that since Oct. 17, 2019, we have had 10 times as many new members than people who have left the party? All this out of solidarity.
Could you leave the party leadership?
If in the next election I lose the majority, I will quit the presidency of the party.
This article was originally published in French in L’Orient-Le Jour. Translation by Sahar Ghoussoub.
