Geagea: Dialogue with Hezbollah, its Allies Is a Waste of Time

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the election of a president similar to Aoun means endlessly prolonging the Lebanese crisis.

Head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea. (Lebanese Forces)
Head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea. (Lebanese Forces)
TT

Geagea: Dialogue with Hezbollah, its Allies Is a Waste of Time

Head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea. (Lebanese Forces)
Head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea. (Lebanese Forces)

Head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea usually prefers to remain optimistic, in contrast to the dreariness in Lebanon that is grappling with an unprecedented economic crisis.

The situation has also worsened with the country plunging in presidential vacuum with rival political forces failing to elect a successor to Michel Aoun and with questions being raised about the legitimacy of the caretaker government.

“We need to double efforts to end the crisis,” Geagea told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He said his main concern now lies in easing the social suffering that has hit the weakest segments of society the hardest and also ensuring the election of a president that will effectively mark the beginning of the road to salvation.

However, Geagea believes that the election of a president to simply fill a vacancy is not the right way to resolve the crisis.

He stressed that Lebanon needs a president who would be different than Aoun.

Choosing one who is just like him will only endlessly prolong the crisis, he warned.

Rather, the election of a competent president would bring hope to Lebanon, he noted.

Geagea openly holds Hezbollah and its allies responsible for the crises plaguing the country, and therefore, he sees no point in holding dialogue with them.

“We believe that the other party, meaning the ‘resistance axis’, is the reason why we are here today. We cannot hold dialogue over ending the crisis with the parties that caused it,” he explained.

Moreover, he remarked that even the daily practices of this camp bode ill for Lebanon. He elaborated by saying: “Since the eruption of the crisis three years ago, the other camp boasted the majority in parliament and the government. Did it do anything to address the crisis? Did it cease the heinous practices it was committing? In both cases, the answer is no.”

Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati had a vision over how to partially ease the electricity crisis, but the other camp prevented him from doing anything.

Asked if he is hopeful about the election of a president, Geagea said: “We have not reached a dead end. There are 15 lawmakers who have positioned themselves in the center. Some have voted for candidates who have no chance of becoming president and others have submitted blank votes.”

“We, as an opposition group, have openly declared that we want the election of a president who can kick off the recovery process and contribute to it. We don’t want a president who is just there to fill a vacuum. We want a president who can help in the required recovery process,” he urged.

“We hope the others realize the need for this,” he said.

Geagea said he was willing relinquish the LF’s candidate for the presidency and Michel Moawad was willing to abandon his run if there was a “convincing alternative who enjoys the desired qualifications and can garner the most votes.”

On the LF’s support for holding the presidential elections with two thirds quorum at parliament and its differences with Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rai who called on Sunday for the regular quorum to be adopted, Geagea said there is no dispute because “we have not taken a final decision over the issue.”

“This issue is being proposed at the wrong time. What’s the point of bringing it up right now?” he continued.

“This issue had never been brought up before the resistance axis came to power in Lebanon. It is being raised to obstruct the elections, not resolve it,” he added.

“In the past, parliamentary blocs used to respect themselves and the people who voted for them. They used to go to parliament and elect a new president even if they had not secured the majority that they needed,” he remarked, noting how Suleiman Franjieh was elected president in 1970 with only a one vote margin over his nearest rival.

“The MPs need to show enough dignity and honor to show up at parliament and hold the elections,” said Geagea.

“The withdrawal of one MP from the electoral session is understandable, so is the withdrawal of a bloc, but it is shameful for the elections to be obstructed every time when their candidate doesn’t have the highest chance of winning,” he stressed.

He acknowledged that the LF did it “once or twice or even more” just so it could influence the positions of other blocs, “but we never refrained from showing up to elections like others are deliberately doing in order to make rivals yield to their demands.”

At this, Geagea was critical of Speaker Nabih Berri whom he said should ensure that work is maintained at the only functioning constitutional institution.

He should therefore, call on the heads of blocs that are refraining from showing up at the polls to be present at the electoral sessions.

“The resistance axis is obstructing the elections and it is not doing so in wait of an international settlement,” he charged.

During the first elections session, Hezbollah wanted the election of Suleiman Franjieh as president, but it did not have enough support for the candidate, so it has resorted to obstructing the polls until head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) MP Gebran Bassil has a change of heart, “which I believe will be very unlikely.”

“What sort of logic is this? If no consensus is available, then there is no need to show up at elections?” wondered Geagea.

“Whoever wants consensus must speak to other parties and propose their candidate and qualifications. The consensus they are after is for us to support the Hezbollah candidate, which is impossible for us and mad for them to envisage,” he declared.

“Until further notice, the only hope lies in the 65 MPs, excluding the resistance axis,” he said, while expressing his disappointment in some MPs who chose to play a centrist role.

Geagea stressed that it was “impossible” to reach an understanding with Hezbollah and the FPM. “We have seen their practices and know their true colors.”

“Even after the country collapsed, they still hold the same positions and carry out their same old practices that cannot yield solutions to the crises. They have not derived any lessons from what has happened,” he went on to say.

“I am not waiting for anything from them, but will look to the other MPs who are not part of the resistance axis,” he revealed.

“We are working tirelessly every day to persuade various MPs, but it is a very challenging task,” he admitted.

“Hezbollah has its own major project that is rooted in religion, history and geography, and therefore, it wants to hold dialogue to impose its conditions. That is why we will not talk to them because it is a waste of time when we don’t have a minute to spare,” he stated.



Goldrich to Asharq Al-Awsat: No US Withdrawal from Syria

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
TT

Goldrich to Asharq Al-Awsat: No US Withdrawal from Syria

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich has told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US does not plan to withdraw its forces from Syria.

The US is committed to “the partnership that we have with the local forces that we work with,” he said.

Here is the full text of the interview.

Question: Mr. Goldrich, thank you so much for taking the time to sit with us today. I know you are leaving your post soon. How do you assess the accomplishments and challenges remaining?

Answer: Thank you very much for the chance to talk with you today. I've been in this position for three years, and so at the end of three years, I can see that there's a lot that we accomplished and a lot that we have left to do. But at the beginning of a time I was here, we had just completed a review of our Syria policy, and we saw that we needed to focus on reducing suffering for the people in Syria. We needed to reduce violence. We needed to hold the regime accountable for things that are done and most importantly, from the US perspective, we needed to keep ISIS from reemerging as a threat to our country and to other countries. At the same time, we also realized that there wouldn't be a solution to the crisis until there was a political process under resolution 2254, so in each of these areas, we've seen both progress and challenges, but of course, on ISIS, we have prevented the reemergence of the threat from northeast Syria, and we've helped deal with people that needed to be repatriated out of the prisons, and we dealt with displaced people in al-Hol to reduce the numbers there. We helped provide for stabilization in those parts of Syria.

Question: I want to talk a little bit about the ISIS situation now that the US troops are still there, do you envision a timeline where they will be withdrawn? Because there were some reports in the press that there is a plan from the Biden administration to withdraw.

Answer: Yeah. So right now, our focus is on the mission that we have there to keep ISIS from reemerging. So I know there have been reports, but I want to make clear that we remain committed to the role that we play in that part of Syria, to the partnership that we have with the local forces that we work with, and to the need to prevent that threat from reemerging.

Question: So you can assure people who are saying that you might withdraw, that you are remaining for the time being?

Answer: Yes, and that we remain committed to this mission which needs to continue to be pursued.

Question: You also mentioned the importance of humanitarian aid. The US has been leading on this. Are you satisfied with where you are today on the humanitarian front in Syria?

Answer: We remain committed to the role that we play to provide for humanitarian assistance in Syria. Of the money that was pledged in Brussels, we pledged $593 million just this past spring, and we overall, since the beginning of the conflict, have provided $18 billion both to help the Syrians who are inside of Syria and to help the refugees who are in surrounding countries. And so we remain committed to providing that assistance, and we remain keenly aware that 90% of Syrians are living in poverty right now, and that there's been suffering there. We're doing everything we can to reduce the suffering, but I think where we would really like to be is where there's a larger solution to the whole crisis, so Syrian people someday will be able to provide again for themselves and not need this assistance.

Question: And that's a perfect key to my next question. Solution in Syria. you are aware that the countries in the region are opening up to Assad again, and you also have the EU signaling overture to the Syrian regime and Assad. How do you deal with that?

Answer: For the United States, our policy continues to be that we will not normalize with the regime in Syria until there's been authentic and enduring progress on the goals of resolution 2254, until the human rights of the Syrian people are respected and until they have the civil and human rights that they deserve. We know other countries have engaged with the regime. When those engagements happen, we don't support them, but we remind the countries that are engaged that they should be using their engagements to push forward on the shared international goals under 2254, and that whatever it is that they're doing should be for the sake of improving the situation of the Syrian people.

Question: Let's say that all of the countries decided to talk to Assad, aren’t you worried that the US will be alienated in the process?

Answer: The US will remain true to our own principles and our own policies and our own laws, and the path for the regime in Syria to change its relationship with us is very clear, if they change the behaviors that led to the laws that we have and to the policies that we have, if those behaviors change and the circumstances inside of Syria change, then it's possible to have a different kind of relationship, but that's where it has to start.

Question: My last question to you before you leave, if you have to pick one thing that you need to do in Syria today, what is it that you would like to see happening today?

Answer: So there are a number of things, I think that will always be left and that there are things that we will try to do, to try to make them happen. We want to hold people accountable in Syria for things that have happened. So even today, we observed something called the International Day for victims of enforced disappearances, there are people that are missing, and we're trying to draw attention to the need to account for the missing people. So our step today was to sanction a number of officials who were responsible for enforced disappearances, but we also created something called the independent institution for missing persons, and that helps the families, in the non-political way, get information on what's happened. So I'd like to see some peace for the families of the missing people. I'd like to see the beginning of a political process, there hasn't been a meeting of the constitutional committee in two years, and I think that's because the regime has not been cooperating in political process steps. So we need to change that situation. And I would, of course, like it's important to see the continuation of the things that we were talking about, so keeping ISIS from reemerging and maintaining assistance as necessary in the humanitarian sphere. So all these things, some of them are ongoing, and some of them remain to be achieved. But the Syrian people deserve all aspects of our policy to be fulfilled and for them to be able to return to a normal life.