Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
My testimony against the testimony of Marwan Hamadeh / Part.3
Written by Nasser Kandil,
When the Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri told me about his attitude towards the former Deputy Fares Saeed, he wanted to give me an example on how these groups understand the relation between Muslims and Arabism apart from the attitude of the form and the content of the administration of the Syrian – Lebanese relationship. He added presenting his disagreement with the Deputy Walid Jumblatt on how to distinguish between the two issues. He indicated that he has sent who can participate symbolically in what was known as the Meeting of Bristol as a message to Syria which stated “ Do not leave me in an alliance with those I do not want to be with” He added “ I was like someone stood on the edge and waiting from a friend to seize him and prevent him from slipping not to leave him , so how if he felt that this friend is facilitating his falling.” The President Al-Hariri has another narration of Hamadeh’s current one which we have explained, that he has changed his previous narration of the two attitudes of Jumblatt and Al-Hariri. The attitude of Hamadeh was closer to Al-Hariri’s one in his trying to bridge the gap between Jumblatt and Syria, at which Hamadeh was aiming and Al –Hariri was despaired of the attempt.
On the eve of the parliamentary elections and in the process of preparing for them, The Israeli withdrawal had generated an international environment accompanied with the American presidential elections which had the project of the neo-conservatives; the expected entrance was to open the Syrian Lebanese relations issue and the Syrian presence in Lebanon. The President Al-Hariri has built his equation by inspiring Syria that he is honest in his relation with it, in order to strengthen his position in the confrontation with the President Emile Lahoud. After two years of Lahoud’s rule and the presence of Al-Hariri out of it , and the bet of Al-Hariri on the Syrian support and the electoral triumph to return to the rule and to participate from a different position with Lahoud, he went as far as possible in ensuring that his conflict with Lahoud was not a conflict with Syria but as much as possible to show a strong relation with Syria without affecting its relation with the President Lahoud. Knowing that among the Syrian officials there were who stood beside the President Lahoud frankly in this conflict, and there were who did not embarrass of their standing with the President Al-Hariri.
Contrary to all the speech of a Syrian obligation on Al-Hariri to accept the candidates of his list by Syria, I can talk about the meeting of the President Al-Hariri with the Major General Ghazi Kanaan in the house of the Minister Abdel Rahim Morad in Bekaa , and the speech of the President Al-Hariri about his desire of a list that suggested that who was standing against the list of Al-Hariri was standing against Syria. I can say as well from my personal experience and from countless clues and evidences, that Al-Hariri was trying his best through investing his relation with the Syrian Vice President Abdel Halim Khaddam and the Major General Ghazi Kanaan to bring as many as possible names that inspired that he was in strong relation with Syria in order to put them at the top of his electoral list, in order first, to reassure the voter Al-Beiruti that there was not any problem between him and Syria because of his disagreement with Lahoud. Second, because according to his belief, his parliamentary triumph will not achieve and even if he achieved it, it would not enough to return to the government’s presidency, unless Al-Hariri got the consent of Syria and its reassurance. Surely the equation tended to approach the elections after the extension, despite the annoying messages like; the participation in Bristol Meeting as the President Al-Hariri has described it to me later in a meeting on 4th of February 2005, and despite the inefficiency of his Syrian friends who had already his Lebanese file. Personally I knew that the Major General Kanaan has asked me in February in the year 2000 about the possibility of my candidacy for the elections, I told him I prefer to stay a Chairman of the National Media Council, because this role is so sensitive and mono while it is possible to bring dozens of friends and activists to the parliament. We agreed on postponing the matter to after the possibility of the Israeli withdrawal in summer, in order to decide the best. Kanaan was not afraid after Al-Hariri had informed him that his desire is to be me on his list, he added the Shiite seat in Beirut is under the barter of the President Nabih Berri of the seat of the Deputy Bahiya Al-Hariri, and that my parliamentary seat in case of my consent will not let Hariri owe me, but according to an internal Shiite order. If I approve, then Kanaan will ask Berri who wanted to get rid of the Deputy Mohammed Yousuf Beydoun according to an alliance with Al-Hariri in Beirut.
Later when the matter was settled after the death of the President Hafez Al-Assad, and to fulfill his desire as Kanaan has told me, I wanted to grant the priority to be on the list of the President Al-Hoss,, after a consultation with the President Berri, the Bridger General Ghazaleh has arranged for me an appointment with the President Al-Hoss, I tried to convince him, but he supposed that I was a candidate from Syria to impose on him, as he presented his later narration of the meeting, he expressed his adhering of the Deputy Mohammed Yousuf Beydoun, so I said “ If it is allowed in the elections for the President Salim Al-Hoss to have a diligence in politics, then it does not matter my presence on the list of Al-Hariri”. He said “Surely the elections are elections” I felt what has happened in an earlier case between me and the President Al-Hoss, which its content was the President Al-Hariri and Future TV was just to lift the admonishment The President Al-Hoss has not known of the real contrary narration to what he wrote or published but only after years.
On the background of the meeting with the President Al-Hoss, as in the attitude of the President Al-Hariri towards me , was an incident related to Future TV, where the desire of the President Al-Hoss to punish the Future TV because of its insulting performance against the government, I refused as a Chairman of the National Media Council to respond to his desire, insisting that the government has to hold that if it wants, thus it has the full authority, otherwise it has to grant the legal controlling means for the Media Council, and to accept its evaluation of the punishments towards the loyalists and the opponents violators. The incident of hosting the LBC channel a dialogue with David Kimche the General Secretary of the Foreign Israeli Affairs was got the suggestion of the Media Council to punish it, this channel considered the government of the President AL-Hoss is supportive and loyal to it, The President Al-Hariri has thanked me in private, while I have visited him in public in the summer of 1999. His palace was empty of visitors unlike the days of his regime, I told him “Do you remember Mr. President when we have quarrled upon the licenses of Tele Lumiere, Al Nour Radio, Al Ghad Radio, and the jurisdictions of the Media Council. This was what I wanted from the Council to disagree with you when you have an authority, and to protect you when you are in the opposition. Because the President Al-Hoss was in the authority, I told him the same speech when I refused to punish Future TV. Therefore my relationship with both of them has got anxiety while they were governors, and I thought they have liked me only when they were out of the rule.
After this meeting with the President Al-Hoss, I received a call of admonishment from the Bridger General Kanaan, who told me that the President Al-Hariri was enthusiastic to have me on his list and angry from my communicating with the President Al-Hoss like a doubt of his honest with Syria, although this matter was just a personal estimation, but the response of the President Al-Hoss was in my interest to be on the list of the President Al-Hariri as he wished. This was the revealing point of Jumblatt and Al-Hariri concept towards the electoral issue, and the relationship with Syria. Jumblatt has decided to make use of his dialogue on the pages of Al Nahar newspaper on the eve of Beirut’s elections, in order to make a campaign against my candidacy on the list of Al-Hariri, praising the Deputy Mohammed Yousuf Beydoun and said, “If I had votes and a list in Beirut I would have supported him”. Because the Minister Ghazi Al-Aridi was a partner in the list, which is headed by Al-Hariri and which includes both of us, and while we were on the eve of the elections, I told the President Al-Hariri that I would ask the candidates publically to cancel the name of Ghazi Al-Aridi as long as Jumblatt has called his followers in an interpreting way to cancel my name. There were mediations in which Al-Raidi has participated in arranging the matters and Al-Hariri has tried his effort. They have invited me on the next day for a breakfast at Jumblatt’s home in order to make reconciliation and to announce an attitude. I have escaped from this invitation, and accepted the public speech which is issued by Jumbulatt and his party to ask the voters to support the whole list of the President Al-Hariri in Beirut, because I felt that the meeting with Jumbulatt would be according to me an unnecessary restriction, because Jumblatt has put himself with the groups which have a clash with Syria, he has decided his belonging as a preparation for the next stage.
As soon as the parliamentary elections have ended, and the new parliament has started its first duties, and the new government has constituted and headed by the President Al-Hariri with a big Syrian support. Hamadeh knew the role which the Minister Ghazi Al-Aridi has handled to cooperate between the President Al-Hariri and the Bridger General Jamil Al Sayyed in administrating all the governmental issues. Moreover, the Parliamentary Confidence Session has started and the ministerial statement which Al-Hariri described as a legitimate and timed statement of the Syrian Presence has discussed, then Jumblatt’s speech was the first transition, when Jumblatt was about to finish his speech I have ascended the presidential platform, and have registered an order among the spokesmen , I have agreed with the President Nabih Berri to have a speech on the next day, when I returned to my seat, the President Al-Hariri has left the governmental platform, and sat beside me and asked whether I want to respond to Jumblatt ,so he said “ The speech of Jumblatt has exceeded the acceptable and the respond is inevitable, I wish you to take into consideration that in our block, are who represent him and who are his allies, otherwise he would be forced to ask the Minister Al-Aridi to respond in a press conference accompanied with the Minister Hamadeh, if they want”. I said “This is the most appropriate solution for me as I will not pass this talk” I added “ You know me fully after our experiences together in the media file, I neither ask nor discuss, I do not think that anyone knows in advance what Jumblatt will say, Here I am and in full spontaneity I decided to respond” He said “ I know and I respect and I will protect your right in privacy as long as I can” It must be said that our relationship remained the same throughout all my parliamentary reign.
My speech was on the next day, everyone discovered that the Syrian leadership has surprised with my speech, but it has highly appreciated and depended on it. I did not forget how the President Berri has surprised when he knew that the reason of the request of my word on the next day of Jumblatt’s one, was just for informational accounts, that related with the abandonment of the first day for the Jumblatt’ s event while the next day was for the media, and not for the consultancy with the Syrian leadership, It is known that Jumblatt who have raced the developments which were against Syria, has returned and felt that he was in a hurry, and that the waiting time was long, so he withdrew and made peace. The insistence of the President Bashar Al-Assad has facilitated the reconciliation, but I was certain that we are coming back, because what has been prepared will not appear except after the war against Iraq and this is what has happened.
Al-Hariri’s point of view was to adhere to the relationship with Syria publically, to confront what he has seen as an internal danger against his role which is represented by the President Emile Lahoud, and to the public concept which he presented to Taif in his comparison between the shelter and the salon, while Jumblatt has the need to adjust the rhythm of his time according to Al-Hariri’s to confine the confrontation with Lahoud, despite his position in the conflict with Syria, and despite his decision as Al-Hariri described it, as the going out of the salon.
Marwan and others whom I do not want to embarrass them by mentioning their names fully know that I am honest and according to their confirmatory speech with me even after the assassination of the President Al-Hariri. Some of them have been sent by Jumblatt when Al-Hariri was ready to have reconciliation with Syria, and has asked me to arrange a similar reconciliation. Those whom I mentioned their names mostly alive, and I have not talked about how they were thinking in private. The witnesses of my testimony are still alive through a reported speech and occured events, while the witnesses of Marwan Hemadeh’s testimony are dead and its content was about how they thought in private…. Therefore I say “ Oh Marwan, that’s enough, the platform of Hague does not grant a credibility for a needed talk, but since it is a platform, it needs for whom grant it this credibility.
Tomorrow is the presidential elections of the year 2004, and my conversations with Al-Hariri and the extension…
2014-11-24 | عدد القراءات 1835
