iloubnan.info : Members of March 14 consider that the assassination of Antoine Ghanem aimed at reducing the number of MPs affiliated to the Majority and sabotage the presidential election; they see in this attack, Syrian implication. What do you think of these declarations?
Hussein Hajj Hassan : They have been accusing Syria of perpetrating these assassinations for three years now. It is a political accusation and I believe that justice can only be based on material proofs. We, the Hezbollah, have condemned this attack: we condemn any political assassination taking place in any country - all the more in Lebanon - especially when it targets our colleagues and my friend Antoine Ghanem. It is shocking and distressing to everyone. The March 14 coalition accuses Syria of wanting to decrease the Majority. Did Syria also convince eight March 14 MPs of stating that the presidential election session could only be declared open in the presence of two thirds of the parliamentarians? This is just not logical!
The talks between Opposition and Majority to designate a candidate for presidency were ongoing. Which stage had they reached before the assassination of Antoine Ghanem?
They were exactly where they are today: there were in fact plans for Mr. Nabih Berry to visit Patriarch Sfeir and for a meeting with Mr. Saad Hariri. After the assassination, both the visit and the meeting took place. We, the Opposition alliance and the Hezbollah, totally support the efforts for reconciliation and consensus.
What compromises is Hezbollah prepared to make in order to find this consensual candidate?
It is not a question of compromise; it is rather a matter of reaching an agreement with the March 14 alliance on our differences.
Is it specifically the question of the execution of UN resolution 1559 (calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah NDLR) that is causing a problem?
We totally reject resolution 1559. We want to reach a consensus regarding the Resistance’s weaponry, a Lebanese national defense strategy within which we are able to define prospects for the Resistance and its weapons. Amongst other essential matters on which we should reach political agreement: the electoral law, the next government, economic reforms, the relations with Syria, and military armament.
You indicated that Hezbollah has not yet made public the name of the candidate it endorses. However, you are most likely to support Michel Aoun.
Michel Aoun was named by the largest part of the Opposition. We have not announced our candidate yet but I consider that Michel Aoun is amongst the best, perhaps even the best. He is a consensual candidate.
If Majority and Opposition fail to reach a consensus on Michel Aoun, would Hezbollah be willing to endorse other independent candidates such as current Minister of Justice Charles Rizk or former Minister of Foreign Affairs (1990-1998) Fares Boueiz?
It is a topic that the negotiators would tackle themselves. They must consult all parties and find solutions.
Can you tell us more?
(He smiles). Listen, we will not disrupt the negotiations now, will we?
After the adjournment of the session to elect a president, Saad Hariri declared to the press on September 25 that there is “a positive and conciliating climate, that is favorable to the election of a president for all the Lebanese people”. In turn, Nabih Berry appeared optimistic. What about Hezbollah?
I believe that I cannot be merely optimistic, I must be! We all are supposed to show optimism in order to save Lebanon. We should not engage in political confrontations. The country should be protected. I do not want the Lebanese people to be anxious; I want them to believe in this consensus.
The Majority still did not give up its project to elect a president with a simple majority of votes. What would this entail?
Since we are speaking about a consensus, it is not valid to evoke the prospects and the difficulties that could block it. I am currently working to achieve this consensus, I will thus not say: “This is what I will do if no consensus is reached”.
Mohammad Raad, leader of the Hezbollah parliamentarian bloc has nevertheless stated that there is a risk of finding ourselves with two presidents on November 25th.
This declaration was made preceding the current environment. Now, no one is saying that anymore. At that time, his statement was logical. Today everyone speaks only about consensus. We support it. Let us see how the situation will evolve.
Hezbollah called upon the Constitution to boycott Tuesday September 25th’s session. But isn’t it unconstitutional that parliament Speaker Nabih Berry disposes single-handedly of 127 parliamentary votes and that he reserves the right to block or unblock the Parliament?
We did not boycott the session, we were present: not in the room but in the offices. It was not sound to ensure the presence of two thirds of the parliamentarians thereby allowing the Majority to appoint a president among the candidates of its choice. A more logical scenario would be to all agree on a candidate and ensure the presence of the required two thirds of votes in order to open the session and elect the president.
Concerning the Parliament, to block or unblock it is a democratic question. I do not want to attend because if I do, my presence would complete the required number of parliamentarians to open the session but my electoral vote will not have any political weight.
Will the coming four weeks delay revive the Arab and international mediations in an attempt to reach a compromise?
All the Arab, Moslem and international communities, to the exception of Americans, are supporting the Lebanese people to reach a consensus. Do you find normal that George Bush declared, a few weeks ago, that the national government of Mr. Fouad Siniora is guaranteeing the American national interests? This is why I said earlier that we do not want a president who defends US interests in Lebanon.
Could the invitation that the Americans just sent out to Syria to participate in the November conference on the Middle East have a positive incidence on the internal situation in Lebanon?
One day they invite them, the next day they don’t. I do not know where the truth lies in these declarations.
In the aftermath of the Israeli raid on the north east of Syria, the warnings that France and the United States addressed to Iran, and Iran simply ignoring the decisions of the Security Council… Do you believe that there are signs of a regional war in the Middle East?
It is possible. But who will be responsible for this regional war? Is it Iran that will attack the United States or the other way around? Is Iraq occupying the United States or the other way around? The shocking phenomenon in today’s world is that victims are asked to yield while assassinations are shielded.
