Lebanese Ex-FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: I Differed with Hariri, But We Were United over Calamitous Emile Lahoud

Lebanese lawmakers are seen at parliament during a session to extend the term of then President Emile Lahoud in 2004. (Getty Images)
Lebanese lawmakers are seen at parliament during a session to extend the term of then President Emile Lahoud in 2004. (Getty Images)
TT

Lebanese Ex-FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: I Differed with Hariri, But We Were United over Calamitous Emile Lahoud

Lebanese lawmakers are seen at parliament during a session to extend the term of then President Emile Lahoud in 2004. (Getty Images)
Lebanese lawmakers are seen at parliament during a session to extend the term of then President Emile Lahoud in 2004. (Getty Images)

In 1998, then Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri turned to his Syrian and French allies to prevent the election of staunch Syria ally Emile Lahoud as president. He found out that the decision to elect him was taken and not up for discussion.

He tried coexisting with the new president, but realized that Lahoud had only one agenda: weakening Hariri and ensuring his failure.

Hariri refused to surrender. Parliamentary elections in 2000 were held according to a law that was tailored to defeat Hariri, but the PM came out victorious, turning the table on Lahoud. Hariri was again appointed prime minister and Lahoud had no choice but to “booby-trap” his governments with ministers who would obstruct his agenda.

Asharq Al-Awsat sat down with Lebanese former Foreign Minister Farez Boueiz to discuss Lahoud’s two tumultuous terms in 1998 and 2004 and the president’s strained relations with Hariri.

Boueiz said he differed with Hairiri on political affairs, but they were united over a “calamity called Emile Lahoud.” At the time, Syria had enjoyed political and security hegemony over its smaller neighbor, Lebanon.

In 1998, Lebanese and Syrian officials began to float Lahoud’s name to late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad as a successor to Elias Hrawi. They explained that Lahoud, then army commander, was not interested in politics, but was rather more invested in other pursuits, such as swimming and other sports, allowing Syrian intelligence free reign to assume the role of president should he be elected.

These factors favored Lahoud’s election and led to Boueiz’s opposition to him. He declared that he would not have allowed Syrian intelligence to play the role of president.

Ultimately, pro-Syrian Lebanese parties and Syria itself succeeded in securing Lahoud’s election in 1998, paving the way for Damascus to have complete control over Lebanon. Boueiz believed that someone in Lebanon actually headed to Damascus on a daily basis to received the “order of the day.” Lahoud was not opposed to this. He did not argue, ask questions or object to any of this.

Assad died in 2000 and was succeeded by his son, Bashar, with whom Lahoud saw eye-to-eye. “Lahoud was content to do what he was told by Syria, believing that it knew more than us what to do. He was a very disciplined officer,” Boueiz said.

Minister in Hariri’s government

Boueiz said he did not expect to be appointed as a minister during Lahoud’s term in office, saying he was part of the opposition. Days before the formation of a government headed by Hariri, he learned from the media that he would be named minister of environment, rather than foreign affairs.

“Truthfully, I didn’t want to become a minister. I believe that being named minister of environment was a step down from minister of foreign affairs,” he stated, adding, however, that he had no real objections to the environment portfolio. “I soon arranged for a press conference so that I would declare my resignation as soon as a government is formed,” he revealed.

Moreover, he said Hariri had not even consulted him about being named a minister.

“One night, Hariri telephoned me. At the point, with Lahoud in office, the strained relations I had with Hariri were no more. We were united in our calamity,” Boueiz continued. He said the PM telephoned him to persuade him to be a minister in his government.

He explained that he needed a minister who would be loyal to him, expressing his confidence in Boueiz, whom he described as bold figure who could stand against Lahoud.

“Without you, I would be alone in the confrontation. I need Maronites by my side,” Boueiz recalled Hariri as saying.

Boueiz told Asharq Al-Awsat that he initially refused to be a “hired” or “mercenary” minister who would “wage Hariri’s wars.” “Hariri told me that he was certain that if I were part of the government, I would confront Lahoud. ‘I appeal to you and hope that you would consider this as a permanent understanding between us,’ the PM told me,” Boueiz added.

After much insistence, Boueiz relented and agreed to become minister despite knowing that he would be at odds with Lahoud.

Tussles at cabinet

“And so it was, I became a minister and disputes erupted over the smallest details. As minister of environment, I believed in environment work and I wanted to work,” stressed Boueiz. He recalled that he had drafted a project on “national planning for crushers.” “The ministry had poured all its energies into the project, while Lahoud avoided addressing it whenever I brought it up at cabinet. He did not want to approve it. He did not want to acknowledge that Fares Boueiz had made an accomplishment,” he recalled, saying he had proposed the draft no less than five times at cabinet.

“One day I received a telephone call from [head of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon] Rustom Ghazale,” said Boueiz. “I had served as foreign minister for nine years and not once did a Syrian security official telephone me. Now they were calling me even though I was just an environment minister with no real power.”

“For nine years no Syrian had contacted me and now Ghazale wanted to talk to me about crushers?! Syria only ever talked to you about politics,” remarked Boueiz.

“I told Ghazale that my project was ready, but I have no idea why Lahoud was not allowing it to be approved by the government. The next time the cabinet met, Lahoud told me, ‘We are still waiting on your crusher project.’ I smiled and knew that Ghazale had spoken to him. ‘It’s good that you have finally woken up to it. I have raised the issue at cabinet five times already and you have been avoiding it. I don’t know what happened to make you change your mind. Perhaps something unexpected has taken place,’” Boueiz added.

“Of course, the Syrians had their interests, and some political parties were perhaps benefitting from the crushers,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Liaison between Lahoud and Syrians

Asharq Al-Awsat asked Boueiz about Jamil al-Sayyed, Lebanon’s head of General Security during Lahoud’s term. “Al-Sayyed was the liaison between Lahoud and the Syrians. In effect, he was the one bringing the ‘order of the day’ to Lebanon. He was Lahoud’s godfather and the official responsible for his behavior. He was the figure who had initially promoted Lahoud to Bashar al-Assad.”

As Lahoud’s time in office drew to an end, heated discussions started to emerge over the contentious issue of extending his term. Boueiz expressed his objection to the extension at cabinet. “Of course, I was unsuccessful. I also expressed my objection at parliament and was unsuccessful there as well.”

“Hariri, who was on a visit to Damascus, came back to inform us that the decision to extend Lahoud’s term had been taken by Syria. I informed him that I would resign as a result,” continued Boueiz. The next day, instead of submitting his resignation to Lahoud, he made the announcement to the media.

Lahoud’s extension and Syria’s threat

Boueiz vividly remembers the infamous visit Hariri paid to Damascus, which had demanded that he support the extension.

The PM traveled to the Syrian capital a week before the extension came into effect in 2004. He recalled that it was a Saturday and that Hariri had headed to Damascus at around 2 pm and was back in Lebanon two hours later.

“I headed to his mountain residence. I noticed that there were no guards around,” he added. He recalled seeing a defeated Hariri seated alone at the home. “‘There is nothing we can do. They want the extension,’ he told me. I asked him if he had fought against it, and he replied: ‘Do you insult me? What do you think?’ With tears in his eyes, he added: ‘They said they would destroy Lebanon on my head and on the head of [former French President and Hariri’s personal friend] Jacques Chirac.’”

Hariri’s assassination

Boueiz recalled to Asharq Al-Awsat the fateful day when Hariri was assassinated on February 14, 2005. The minister and PM were at parliament in downtown Beirut. Boueiz revealed that Hariri had invited him to his house for lunch, but he had to turn down the offer because he was scheduled to attend a parliamentary committee meeting on the electoral law.

“He told me ‘Why are you wasting your time? The law has already been prepared,’ nodding his head in Damascus’ direction. I told him, ‘I know that, but I will simply express my objection to it.’ He told me: ‘Listen to me, let’s go have lunch together. It will be more useful than this and we will prepare for what is to come.’ I again respectfully declined because I had commitments at the committee. ‘I will speak for five minutes and then catch up with you,’ I told him.”

“Of course, if I had agreed to the lunch invitation, I would have joined him in his car and would have died with him,” Boueiz said. Hariri was killed in a massive explosion in Beirut minutes later.

The minister completed his work at parliament and was speaking to the media when the explosion happened. He headed outside and saw a plume of black smoke in the near distance.

“I immediately got into a car. I sensed that Hariri was the target. I contacted his residence at Qoreitem and asked about him. The employee on the line asked if I wanted the call to be transferred to him. His answer led me to believe that Hariri was at his residence, so I declined and ended the call. Soon after, MP Farid Makari approached me and asked me who I thought was targeted in the attack. He too had contacted Qoreitem and believed Hariri was safe,” Boueiz said.

Boueiz and his entourage headed to the scene of the blast and were astounded by the devastation. “We didn’t linger and couldn’t make out anything from the scene. We turned back and I wanted to go to Hariri’s residence, still assuming that he was expecting me for lunch.”

“On my way, I came across journalist Faisal Salman. I stopped to talk to him, and he said: ‘My condolences and may he rest in peace.’ I asked him who he was talking about, and he told me: ‘Hariri’. I replied: ‘How? I am on my way to have lunch with him’. He told me that he had just come back from the hospital where he had seen his corpse. I couldn't believe it. I made my way to Qoreitem and saw the angry and mournful crowd and found out the truth.”

Boueiz then headed to the nearby residence of MP Walid Jumblatt who said a meeting would be held at Hariri’s house in hours to declare a united front and revolt against Emile Lahoud. The movement would become known as March 14.



Gaza War Resonates But Has Global Diplomacy Shifted One Year On?

Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
TT

Gaza War Resonates But Has Global Diplomacy Shifted One Year On?

Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER

A year after the October 7 attack that sparked war in Gaza, diplomacy has failed to produce a ceasefire and the world watches on as the death toll mounts.
Fears of war engulfing the wider region have soared as exchanges of fire have escalated between Israel and Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
Over the past year, South Africa has taken Israel to court and some European governments have drawn Israeli anger by recognizing the State of Palestine, but analysts say only a radical change in US policy can stop the conflict, AFP said.
Here is a breakdown:
How has the war resonated?
Palestinian militant group Hamas carried out an unprecedented attack against Israel on October 7, resulting in the deaths of 1,205 people on the Israeli side, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures, which includes hostages killed in captivity.
Out of 251 people taken hostage that day, 97 are still being held inside Gaza, including 33 the Israeli military says are dead.
Israel's retaliatory military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 41,000 Palestinians, a majority of them civilians, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.
To the north, Israeli air strikes killed at least 558 people in Lebanon on Monday in the country's deadliest day of violence since the 1975-1990 civil war, the health ministry said.
Around the world, the conflict has had a polarizing effect, generating passionate support for both sides.
"This war has considerably deepened fracture lines," said analyst Karim Bitar.
"What is happening today in Lebanon only compounds this."
For many people, especially in countries which experienced colonial rule, the West's perceived failure to defend the human rights of Palestinians had exposed its "hypocrisy", he said.
In the Arab world, "there is this idea that all great principles fly out the window when it comes to Israel and that the West remains consumed by guilt" from World War II and the Holocaust.
Palestinian historian and diplomat Elias Sanbar said that the West had given the Israelis a "carte-blanche of impunity" for decades, ever since the creation of Israel in 1948.
But today "it will be much harder to show unconditional support to Israel", he said.
Has international law prevailed?
South Africa in December brought a case before the International Court of Justice, arguing the war in Gaza breached the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, an accusation Israel has strongly denied.
Colombia, Libya, Spain, Mexico, Türkiye and Chile have since joined the case.
Analyst Rym Momtaz said the ICJ proceedings against Israel were "unprecedented".
"International law is taking over the issue," she said.
In May, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court sought arrest warrants against top Hamas leaders -- but also Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister -- on suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Since October 7, violence against Palestinians has also flared in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where far-right parties in the governing coalition have championed a quickening expansion of Israeli settlements, regarded as illegal under international law.
At least 680 Palestinians have been killed in the territory by Israeli troops or settlers, according to the Palestinian health ministry.
UN member states have adopted a non-binding resolution to formally demand an end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories within 12 months.
But Israeli historian and diplomat Elie Barnavi said his country "doesn't care" about what the so-called global South thinks.
Is European support for Israel waning?
Some European governments have taken a stance.
Slovenia, Spain, Ireland and Norway have recognized the State of Palestine, drawing retaliatory moves from Israel.
The European Union has implemented sanctions against "extremist" settlers, and EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has called for more against some far-right members of the Israeli government.
The United Kingdom has suspended 30 of 350 arms exports licenses for Israel.
Barnavi noted a "real shift in the attitude of Europeans towards Israel", but said it was "insufficient".
Zeenat Adam, of the Afro-Middle East Centre in South Africa, said the UK arms exports suspension was "minuscule".
"The recent 'recognition' by European states of Palestine is mere lip-service," she added.
In the end, said Sanbar, countries in Europe largely still supported Israel, even if "a sort of embarrassment" at times triggered statements of concern.
"It's simply not enough," he said.
What of the United States?
All eyes are instead on Israel's main ally the United States, which has pushed for a ceasefire but kept up its military aid to Israel.
"If the United States does not change their stance, there will be no change," said Momtaz.
"There has been no real fraying of US military support to Israel. Yet it's that support that is crucial and makes all the difference," she said.
The Israeli defense ministry said on Thursday it had secured a new $8.7 billion US aid package to support the country's ongoing military efforts, including upgrading air defense systems.
Momtaz said it was not clear that the US presidential election in November would change anything, regardless of whether the winner was Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
"There has been no sign that a Trump or Harris administration would be ready to use US leverage, the only efficient means to help both parties stop this war," she said.
Bitar said that among US voters, the Jewish community and young progressive Democrats were more openly distancing themselves from Israel, but that might only have a political impact in 10 to 15 years' time.
No end in sight?
The Gaza war has revived talk of a so-called "two-state solution" of Israeli and Palestinian states living in peace side by side, but that goal seems today more unattainable than ever.
For too many years, the international community "promised a two-state solution without doing anything to end the occupation, to end settlements to make a Palestinian state viable," Bitar said.
"Many believe the train has left the station, that it's perhaps already too late," Bitar said.
Barnavi said there was "no other solution", though it would involve dismantling most settlements in the West Bank.
"It would imply a lot of violence, including a period of civil war in Israel," he said.
Sanbar said: "Never have the two sides been so distanced from each other. I don't know what could bring them closer."