Lebanese Former Foreign Minister Fares Boueiz responded to the attack against him by former President Emile Lahoud over the time they served in office.
Asharq Al-Awsat had published a five-part interview with the former FM to discuss his long political career, including the time he was minister when Lahoud was army commander and later, when Lahoud became president.
Lahoud retorted to Boueiz’s version of events in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat published on Friday. Boueiz telephoned Asharq Al-Awsat to refute his allegations, saying: “It appears that age has taken its toll on him.”
The first point Boueiz refuted was Lahoud’s accusation that he had demanded, through the Higher Defense Council, that the army be deployed to the South to prevent the resistance from retaliating to Israel during its 1993 offensive.
“First of all, the Council met at the request of then Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. I had nothing to do with it and I don’t have jurisdiction there,” he explained.
“Second, Boueiz is a man of law and he knows full well that the Council doesn’t have the authority to make orders to the army. It observes the army and security forces’ implementation of government decisions”, he clarified.
Lahoud, who was then army commander, was absent from the Council meeting to address the Israeli attack.
“His absence spoke for itself,” remarked Boueiz. “He may have known what order the Council intended to take and probably had no intention of carrying it out.”
“Hariri was the one who brought up the order and I objected to it because the Council had no jurisdiction over giving orders to the army. I told him that the government needed to meet to tackle the issue,” he recalled.
Third, such an order would have had broad regional implications and could not have been taken without regional contacts at the highest level, explained the former FM.
Fourth, Boueiz said he had headed a delegation at the Madrid peace talks. “I knew that any diplomatic negotiations needed to be based on the reality on the ground. Given that a tenth of Lebanon was occupied by Israel at the time, it would have been impossible for any sound individual to demand the elimination of the resistance at the Madrid talks.”
“Such a suggestion would have cost Lebanon any leverage it had at the negotiations,” he added.
“Therefore, it would not have been in the interest of anyone leading the negotiations over Israel’s withdrawal from the South to strike the resistance,” he continued.
“Were Lahoud adept at politics, he would not have made such an error that could not be farther removed from all reason,” he stressed. “It is as though he is claiming false heroics by saying had refused to carry out the Higher Defense Council order.”
“The truth is, he waited for Syria’s opinion on the matter before he could announce his refusal,” Boueiz stated.
On Lahoud’s claim that he had demanded that the army strike the resistance, Boueiz said: “I would like to remind him that I never met or telephoned him throughout the time he served as army commander.”
“Moreover, I am not naïve enough to make such a request because I was aware that he did not carry out the orders of the Lebanese government, rather he took orders that came from beyond the border,” he stressed.
On Lahoud’s claims that he made very few visits to Syria because he was its “strategic ally,” Boueiz commented: “What is Lahoud’s strategic vision? What is his strategic weight?”
“The truth is he didn’t need to contact them [Syrian officials] because someone else was contacting them on his behalf and relaying to him the summary of their call, in a so-called ‘order of the day.’”
“There was no need for him to contact him because perhaps he didn’t understand them, or they didn’t understand him. So, it was easier for someone else to assume this task and brief him with a summary,” Boueiz added.
Tackling Lahoud’s claims on how Boueiz was appointed minister in 2004, he said: “Lahoud alleged that President Elias Hrawi had requested that I be named a minister. The truth is that when I learned that my name was being floated, I called for a press conference to declare my immediate resignation in advance.”
“I knew that it would have been impossible for me to serve as a foreign minister in a government headed by Lahoud.”
“That was when Hariri contacted me. In fact, he visited my house late at night to insist against my resignation and that I agree to become environment minister so that he would not be alone in the government in confronting Lahoud,” added Boueiz.
“He insisted on me because he was the one who proposed my name and clung on to it in spite of our past disputes because we could not allow Lahoud to run things in government unchecked,” he stated.
“After over an hour of insistence, I relented and forged a new understanding with Hariri,” he revealed.
Boueiz addressed Lahoud’s allegations related to then MP Walid Jumblatt’s efforts direct protests towards the presidential palace in wake of Hariri’s assassination in 2005.
“Yes, he did want to use the rage at the moment to send the protests to the palace to demand Lahoud’s resignation,” recalled Boueiz.
“However, he was challenged by some Maronites who said that they could not agree to this without first consulting the Maronite patriarch, who feared the creation of vacuum in the presidency.”
“Jumblatt assured them that he had carried out intense contacts with all parties, including those that would eventually become part of the pro-Syria March 8 camp, who informed him that they agree to Lahoud’s resignation on condition that he would not be succeeded by a figure who is hostile to them,” Boueiz said.
“Jumblatt never proposed my name or the name of anyone else,” he stressed. “All he said was that he firmly believed that the vacuum could only be addressed with a president who is not hostile to the other camp.”
“Our ambitions were never aimed at Lahoud, his accomplishments and term. We never envied him and were never jealous of his style of rule and its results. Clearly, this is what led to our resignation from government,” Boueiz clarified.
“We were the first to resign when Lahoud’s term was extended, and we had objected to this extension. This needed to be clarified because it seems Lahoud’s memory had betrayed him, deliberately or naturally,” he stated.
