Hariri Says Aoun Remarks a Bid to Turn Political Dispute Sectarian

PM-designate Saad Hariri’s press office on Friday described President Michel Aoun’s remarks to al-Akhbar newspaper as "an unsuccessful and rejected attempt to turn the political dispute into an Islamic-Christian one."

Below is the full text of an English-language statement released by Hariri’s press office:

“It is very regrettable and painful that the comments of the President of the Republic, as quoted by ‘Al-Akhbar’ newspaper, are published while the country is facing a series of health, security and political crises, and the second capital, Tripoli, is witnessing an organized attack that raises suspicion in more than one direction.

It seems that the country is in a ‘valley’ of suffering and crises, while the ‘strong mandate’ is in in another deep ‘valley’ of indifference, denial and insult to others.

What worsens the regret is that the Presidential Palace spheres did not deny nor clarify the comments, in order to spare the President and the position of the presidency incorrect positions and stances that do not suit the position of the presidency and its national responsibilities in these difficult circumstances.

We found it necessary to highlight some of the points mentioned in his Excellency's ‘column’, to correct the facts and prevent the fall of the Lebanese public opinion into the traps of poisoned news.

First - It is clear from the full context of the attributed comments that the Baabda Palace spheres want to direct the governmental clash towards sectarian paths, thereby removing the president of the republic’s quality of representative of the Lebanese of all sects to limit this representation to his responsibility for the shares of Christians in the state, the authority and the government. He said, according to the article: ‘I will not jeopardize what we accomplished in recent years, by making the Christian team an actual partner and not the creation of others who impose their will on it. Here is the source of my constitutional powers and my political responsibilities.’

The palace spheres probably know, and do not want to admit, that Saad Hariri is not the one who jeopardizes the rights of Christians, their role and their place in the state, power and institutions, otherwise General Michel Aoun would not have been in the position of presidency now. And that Saad Hariri is the son of a political school that for decades believed in coexistence in words, deeds and constitutional texts.

The transfer of the political dispute to the sectarian arena is an unsuccessful and rejected attempt that will not pass, to organize an Islamic-Christian clash that some consider as the shortest muddy way to refloat those they want to refloat and pave the Baabda road for the political legacy.

Second - His Excellency says in the article: ‘In one of my meetings with Prime Minister Saad Hariri, he told me that he is the Prime Minister-designate and he is the one who forms the entire government. Of course, I did not allow this before, nor now. According to Article 53.’

The comment here is not at its right place and just an illusion and a wrong reading. What sane person can imagine that the Prime Minister-designate adheres to an exclusive right to the birth of the government, while he is the first to realize that the formation decrees are issued by agreement between the two presidents? The constitution is clear and there is no need to use it in political calculations and quotas. The Prime Minister conducts parliamentary consultations to form the government and signs the formation decrees in agreement with the President of the Republic.

Third - The article also quotes his Excellency as saying: ‘It is natural for the President of the Republic to name the Christian ministers due to the reluctance of the Christian parties to participate (...) and he invented the third + 1 as if I am asking for it. This is incorrect, and I have never asked for the third +1 (..) I have asked for six ministers, i.e. five +1. This is the representation quota and not the blocking quota. (...) When you ask him about the Shiite ministers, he says that he is in agreement with Speaker Nabih Berri about the Ministry of Finance, and with Hezbollah over its ministers. As a result, Walid Jumblatt nominates his minister, the Shiites name their ministers, the Tashnag name its minister, Suleiman Frangie too, and Hariri names the Sunni ministers and wants to be a partner in naming the Christian ministers. This cannot be accepted, because it disturbs the balance within the government.’

The President missed the fact that he gave me a list of a group of names, from which I chose a group of persons well known for their competence, most of which were published in the article. He also missed the fact that the solution that was adopted for the Ministry of Finance was obtained by consensus and there was no objection to it from Baabda Palace, evidenced by the fact that the paper he handed to me shows that the Ministry of Finance is allocated to the Shiites. As for the blocking third, it is linked to the distribution of the portfolios to the sects and the representatives of the political forces. This card completely violates the principle of forming a government of specialists, and drags the formation automatically into the blocking third.

In the end, it is desirable to reiterate that we demand a government of specialists, and the palace wants a government of party representatives. The hidden point in this field is no longer hidden when the President says in the article attributed to him: ‘We gave him as he wishes a government of 18 ministers. It seems that he only sees it as he wants it. We will not talk from now on except about a government of 20 with the addition of two ministers, a Druze and a Catholic.’

In summary, there will only be a government of 18 ministers ... period.

Fourth - ‘I no longer understand him. What he wants today is different from what he will ask for the next day.’ This phrase quotes the President, but it is suitable to be used by the Prime Minister-designate, who leaves Baabda Palace after each meeting, loaded with positive atmosphere, until obstacles emerge from the surrounding rooms.

Prime Minister Hariri bet on opening a new page that would move the country to areas of reconciliation, achievement and economic salvation, and he embarked on the adventure of electing General Aoun for president, realizing the importance of establishing a new phase that is not governed by the policies of denial and obstruction. However, the winds blew unfortunately counter to what good intentions desire, and counter to the will for coexistence and the effort required to stop the state's depletion in the sectarian arenas.

The Press Office did not need all that was said, especially as it remained silent in the name of Prime Minister Hariri and acted on the basis that the country needed calm, not tension, and wisdom in approaching matters and principles in the relations between the presidencies and not the tendency towards escalation.

As for the conclusion of the article signed by his Excellency, it is also, unfortunately, a poor fabrication of false information saying that the Prime Minister-designate suggested, ‘in order for the government to gain confidence in Parliament, to dismiss the forensic audit. Speaker Berri and Walid Jumblatt do not give confidence in light of the forensic audit.’

It seems that His Excellency the President forgot that the Parliament approved the forensic audit on December 20, and the Future bloc agreed to it, along with the two blocs of Speaker Berri and Minister Jumblatt. He perhaps also forgot that he was the first to praise the decision of the Parliament. If he presented to have forgotten, it is a tragedy, and if he really forgot, then the tragedy is greater.

What imagination creates all this for the president to justify in front of the Lebanese his policies of obstruction? What mind wants a sectarian clash in any way, sometimes with this side and at other times with another?

Their methods will not work with us anymore, and we will not give them the opportunity to rejoice at any Islamic-Christian clash.’