Friday, 18 February 2005Ghassan Charbel
Strong people reassure and intimidate. Rafiq Al Hariri's problem is that of the strong. His supporters are many and his opponents are not few. Relinquishing him is an adventure. His project's success is expensive. The Lebanese are split in two: those who fear for him and those who fear him. For the first time since Lebanon's independence, the game of opposition and support is played around the person and project of a Prime Minister.
Shortly after the legislative elections in the summer of 1992, the Second Republic sought Rafiq Al Hariri's help. It was almost broke. Its new parliament needed a cover. Its model lacked appeal, inside and outside. President Elias Hraoui had no choice but to seek the help of the "golden cover" that Hariri's name brings in Lebanon, the Arab world and the world. Hariri stopped the Lebanese Pound's suicide and avoided the Second Republic the "revolution of the hungry." He averted Damascus social and economic troubles in Lebanon that might undermine the peace it administers in it.
Hariri entered Lebanese politics as the savior. The urgent need for him was added to the trust his name equals in international forums and to his financial strength, all of which turned his name into a strike force the political equation is not used to deal with or tolerate. Hariri entered, as a great boxer, the arena that does not allow success and knock outs, especially that the major decisions are not taken within this arena. From the start, it was obvious that the regime that leaned on Hariri operated at the same time to deny him the description of the star player. The last two years experience (1993-1994) indicated estrangement between Hariri and the political system. In fact, the Premier does not come from behind the war barricades, and he is not a member of the First Republic's clubs. He is stronger than to become an ordinary player, and weaker than pulling all the puppet's strings.
Hariri was given the premiership but not the essential keys for the rescue. This is clearly expressed by the formation of his cabinet, the absence of exceptional prerogatives, the feuds of problem ministers, the duels in parliament and the disputes between the three top governmental posts. At dire times, Hariri remembered the lack of keys and authorization and he warns, isolates himself and reaches resignation. Then the game starts again: giving him up is impossible, and his complete or swift success is forbidden. Under such a conditional endorsement, he had to accept what he usually refuses and rule by "that was the best there is." Undermining his attempt became the absolute priority to his opponents and he became the prisoner of the journey he started. His opponents committed many mistakes, and he committed a few. A lot was said about him. His proponents loved him so much that they harmed him. His opponents hated him so much that they harmed the country. In true fashion of the strong, he does not feel the need to explain himself and prefers to do it by mediators. But does he have the right to remain silent while it is on his experience that depends the ability of Lebanon to follow the path with the new Middle East and the ability of the Lebanese to bet again on the state, investments, and prosperity?
Never before did Hariri give a long interview in which he tackled his political role prior to seizing the reins of the premiership, especially during the 1980s, a dangerous period. Never before did he speak of his vision regarding Lebanon and its structure, neither about his political ambitions and his empire that employs 25,000 people across three continents.
A few days before the end of last year (1994), it was declared that Hariri was on holiday in Monte Carlo. I called him to arrange for the interview, to which he agreed; it was on the evening of that same day. It was not easy to convince a man who is still in power and at the height of his battle to agree to recollect some hot periods. He said that it is still too early to do and that he does not like to talk about his role. After some give and take, the interview was underway, which took two long sessions in Monte Carlo and a third one in Beirut. Here is the first part of the interview.
Ghassan Charbel : Some say you turned the country a hostage to your presence in the premiership.
Rafiq Hariri : This is not true, why don't you say the opposite?
GC: Others say you cannot resign.
RH: This is why I told you why you don't say the opposite.
GC: What is story of the trouble-making ministers?
RH: Some ministers think that they are not concerned with the Cabinet's unity. Every minister expresses his opinion, which is a right and necessary. However, some of them believe that not taking their opinion into consideration gives them the right to vilify the Cabinet's deliberations. Some of them say during the session that they will defame it when going out. It happened several times. It is a pity because it gives the wrong image of the situation. Trouble-making has nothing to do in a discussion. Among those who discuss and oppose the most is minister Fouad Siniora, yet, he never went out and attacked the government or the president because he feels responsible and would rather go home and leave the government than hurt it.
GC: Don't you think that part of the opposition refers to the way you entered the political club and the way the media portrayed you as the savior who brings fear to those who have roles to play?
RH: I hear such talk. I don't think about it. I did not come to limit roles or engage in such battles. We are not in an ordinary situation to waste our time in such a manner. The role is not to forbid the others from working or showing the ability to undermine. Creating crises doesn't create the role. A man of government searches for solutions and sets the interest of the country as a priority. If the country is not healthy, what is the value of playing roles in it? In reality, I see no justification for this campaign against me. I see no national justification, especially that campaigns hurt the public interest first and sometimes, those who launch them. If you mean the role of both the President and the Speaker of the House, let me tell you that no one can cancel the others' roles, be it the president of the republic, the speaker of the house or the prime minister. The person himself cancels his own role, but the nature of the system does not allow one to cancel the other.
GC: Is there any estrangement between you and the mentality of the political system or political class? Should any of you absorb the other, or try to change him?
RH: Of course, I came from outside the presidential club. I did not start with politics, but from the educational and development sector, i.e. from the public national action. This is maybe why my political practice is still restrained by some national and moral controls. When I started to work in the educational sector, I did not plan to reach politics. Had that been my objective, I would have found shorter roads. Yes, there is some difference in the way of conducting business. I like clear issues, straight to the point, and discussing the issues openly because the public good cannot be decided in the back hallways. Sometimes they blame me for my honesty, but it is my style. In a country like Lebanon, it is not permissible make postponement the rule just because issues are sensitive or hot. We are required to rise to the level of the problems and their solutions. When I took the responsibility, there were many sleeping issues or pushed away from the limelight, to which I disagreed, which is the cause of some problems. It is not acceptable to postpone taking decisions, building the country and avoiding the difficulties, just like it is not permitted to rush and accept any compromise. Let us say that the war is the reason of the delay and postponement, knowing that the pre-war period witnessed such practices.
GC: How would you describe your relations inside the premiers' clubs?
RH: Good. Or rather not bad.
GC: Does discussing corruption annoy or worry you?
RH: Not at all. I don't feel annoyed. I feel disgusted, because the issues brought to the judiciary are false and those who made them up know that. Those who tackled it started doing so in front of the media before the judiciary, which means that the objective is a media and political objective par excellence.
GC: what do you have to say about talk of payments to deputies with regards to the Solidere issue and bribes to journalists and institutions?
RH: This is untrue and sad. What happened is that the project was put to parliament and caused a big tumult. Some deputies suggested better elucidation for the MPs and the media, which is why I asked the concerned people to do for the same reason. Some MPs were convinced; others were not and kept opposing it. Talk of bribes to MPs of the former parliament does not target Solidere inasmuch as it says that the former parliament had no credibility, and it is the one that made the Taif and launched the constitutional reforms. The aim is to cast doubt on the whole formula. Accusations about bribes lead nowhere but doubt the credibility of the former parliament. They say that 40 MPs received bribes. Those who went to Taif were 26. This means that doubt includes the majority of MPs and consequently what they decided and everything related to the political system. This is why I said I was disgusted.
GC: Can you deal with politics from above?
RH: How?
GC: This game has rules.
RH: The mission of the opposition is to show mistakes and propose alternatives; however, throwing accusations is not.
GC: Were you not supposed to decide, as soon as you became PM, not to buy even an inch of land?
RH: I did without being asked to. Tell me what am I doing in Lebanon, except for what is said I am doing. I told you what I possess in Lebanon. The number of lands I own did not drastically increase over the past two years. I took the decision. As for being a shareholder in Solidere, I was the one to suggest that a person, his wife and his children cannot own more than 10%, to be written within the law. Some people are never ashamed even if their accusations seemed wrong. The laws in Lebanon protect, unfortunately, the right to slander.
GC: Can we say that your fortune diminished after becoming PM?
RH: No. No you cannot. My businesses may have dropped back a little, but not my fortune. There is a difference.
GC: Not supervising business may have an impact?
RH: It affects the business.
GC: They say that the public sector is costly. Did the financial burdens not increase for you?
RH: We have a special program for offering scholarships and educational and social aids, and the institution is continuing its work. No doubt we have a lot to spend in this field. Do you know why one feels angry about the accusations? Because the amounts of profits they talk about can be achieved by the mere fact of saving some of the aids we offer, the majority of which is undeclared. A person who spends this amount of money needs a piece of land?
GC: Is there an approximate figure for the expenses of teaching students?
RH: Between the graduates, those continuing their education, the social aids, in addition to the Kfarfalous project, hundreds of millions of dollars.
GC: Is this why it upsets you when people accuse you of buying a piece of land or filling the shoreline with sand?
RH: Of course. We have spent around a billion dollars on the aforementioned issues: educational, social and medical aids, and the majority of which is undeclared. Until 1993, 12,000 university students graduated.
GC: Are they members of the Rafiq Al Hariri Party?
RH: They belong to Lebanon's party, for they are from different confessions and regions. I mean by Lebanon's party that they constitute a force that promises the future, i.e. education, progress, culture and dialogue no matter how different their political tendencies are. I do not know the great majority of them.
GC: Some people say that your financial power is far les than people think.
RH: I never talked about a financial power.
GC: Can you assure that your financial situation did not suffer a downturn?
RH: (He laughs) Thank God, no. I said nothing about it. People talk, some of them add and others subtract.
GC: How many people do your companies employ around the world?
RH: Around 25,000.
GC: Where?
RH: Most of them in Saudi Arabia. There is a team in France, Britain, Switzerland, and the U.S., in addition to Lebanon and some Arab countries of course.
GC: What does running such a large empire call for?
RH: It requires the presence of skilful managers. They are available.
GC: Do you sign important decisions?
RH: Never. Since I assumed the premiership I avoid signing.
GC: Who worked with you in the early 1980s? Who betrayed you? Who did you let go of, or had discrepancies in your calculations with?
RH: I already told you that I am open to all people. I also stressed that never in my life have I felt I would become PM, or planned it. God helped me to avoid arrogance, which is why I always seek to learn. I believe that the majority of people try to learn; some do not but are forced to through experience. I am one of those who strive to learn. A person who thinks he has nothing to learn is limited and over. I cooperate with all people. Some are used to say that someone influences another and that this person has become distant after he was very close. Let me tell you that we are at the end of the 20th century and we have to respect expertise and experience. One who is responsible must listen to the experts and the experienced. To seek the help of the tight person in the right issue is inevitable. Most of my work is not individual. Contrary to what people think. Maybe there is some truth to it but the main thing is that I consult a lot, and if I am convinced, I go ahead and take the responsibility.
GC: When was the idea of rebuilding Beirut 's down town born?
RH: In the 1980s. Dr. Mohamad Atallah was the president of the development and reconstruction council. We were discussing this issue. Never have I thought that war was the final choice for the Lebanese, and that force is the only language of dialogue. In parallel to the ideas we had about putting an end to the war, we had ideas about rebuilding peace. I never gave in to the logic of war. No one has the right to despair. All people experience catastrophes and crises then get through them. In the end, the role of reason, rebuilding, and removing the scars of the war, from the hearts and places together, begins.
GC: What did the idea of rebuilding Beirut mean to you?
RH: A lot, a lot. Construction is the field I worked in and loved because, in addition to the economic aspect, it shows there is life, progress and will. First, it is dear to me on the professional level, the reconstruction of a city is very important. Second, and more important, it is a revenge on war. Rebuilding the country is the revenge of honest people on war as an idea, style, and the miseries arising from this choice, including all the savagery, destruction, catastrophes and the idea of resorting to weapons to resolve problems. The result was that Beirut was destroyed and it was necessary to reconstruct it by hands that were not part in its destruction with ideas that counter the reasons that led to destruction. Some forces destroyed, others are reconstructing. People will see and reach conclusions.
GC: Does reconstruction mean reviving the partnership of interests between the sects, or something else?
RH: Of course, Beirut's reconstruction restores the common interests between Lebanese. I personally don't like the word "cohabitation" and what is meant by Beirut's reconstruction is the reinforcement of the return to the "coexistence." I am against the idea of cohabitation because it might be with enemies. Coexistence cannot be based except on love and conviction.
GC: What is the volume of your personal contribution to the reconstruction of down town Beirut ?
RH: $125 million, which is around 7%.
GC: What is the return on investment you expect from this contribution?
RH: In principle, what the other 93% expect. I already declared that the profits of this contribution will all go to the Hariri Association to be spent on education and charitable and social institutions.
GC: Did your businesses suffer after you became PM?
RH: The majority of my business is outside Lebanon.
GC: What I mean is, your being away from the daily running of the business, did it affect them?
RH: Of course it has. And this is natural, otherwise my presence and absence would be the same. However, I manage my institutions and businesses in a way that the absence of one person does not matter much. It has an impact but not a big one.
GC: It is said that you became PM while your companies still operate in Lebanon ?
RH: This is not true at all. In Lebanon I have three things: my shares in Solidere, i.e. rebuilding Beirut's down town, which is a project I was behind long before I came to power. The truth is that when the idea of contributing was suggested, I thought a lot about the advantages and disadvantages of it. I was afraid that if I do not contribute, confidence in the project would be lost and many people will in turn not contribute, which could lead to the failure of the project. I also thought that if I do, people will say that the PM is contributing to such a big project. In the end, God inspired me and I did and I declared that I grant the profits of my contribution to the education and social and charitable institutions. Second, I have two banks in Lebanon, ever since war time, and I do not manage them. In Lebanon, there are currently around 80 banks. Third, I have some lands I bought years ago when I was abroad. They are undeveloped plots. The majority of them are crop lands in the South in addition to some scattered pieces. I also own Oger-Liban, a company that suspended its employees a while back because I thought I should not establish such a large company in Lebanon. I thought it is my duty to leave the way open to the others, especially that our operations are essentially outside Lebanon; in the Gulf, Europe, and the U.S.
GC: They talk about buying lands and real estate?
RH: Buying real estates is not forbidden as long as you are buying them legitimately with your own money. I refuse this idea and I know what is the objective of those who say such things. About buying a lot of them, I say this is not true. There is a big difference between what we are been offered to buy and we really buy. I know why such things are being said. The truth is that every broker who has a land and wants to promote it, tries to increase its value by telling the client Hariri wants to buy it but I would rather you do. Many promote their real estates in that way, while we sometimes do not know that they exist or that they are for sale. We are in a democratic country and people say what they want. When a man is financially powerful it is considered a strong point and a weak one too because some people say he wants to buy the country. Many people launch false accusations for well-known objectives. Of course, the majority of the people knows the truth and what I did ever since the beginning of the 1980s until now is enough of a response, so no need to discuss more details.
GC: They also say that you let the economy collapse in order for you to become the only savior to resort to?
RH: To do such thing, a man must be free of morals, pride, humanity and patriotism. When the economy collapses, people experience hunger and lose their money and hopes. One who does such things must be void of values. Very humbly, I say that Rafiq Al Hariri is not of that kind and never in his life has he shown that the people's destiny does not concern him. He showed the opposite. The economy collapsed due to many factors, the war at first and its repercussions and not the behavior of officials. It collapsed due to the destruction of the infrastructure. In addition, the country was spending without producing. The state was spending without collecting money or be granted such. In this case, the only consequence is bankruptcy. Due to the crisis, people lost their trust in the officials from all aspects. There was no trust, no specific financial plan to preserve the value of the Lebanese currency.
GC: What would happen to the economy one day if the Lebanese wake up and discover Rafiq Hariri is no longer PM?
RH: I do not like to answer this question in order not to fall in the mistake of praising myself. Let us leave this issue to the people. I will consider that I succeeded in my mission when the day comes where nothing changes, whether I am in power or not. I will consider this the peak of success because it will mean that the country's situation is based on institutions, not on individuals. At a certain stage, we were probably in need of someone whom the people trust. Thank God, the trust in the situation in Lebanon is growing and the country is becoming stronger. I clearly say: I consider that I succeeded in my mission as a PM and government official when the situation in the country allows the fact of my being outside the authority.
GC: How many years do you need to achieve that goal?
RH: We are making great strides towards that, no doubt.
GC: Let us suppose that for some odd reason the government failed in winning the confidence vote from parliament. What would you do?
RH: I see what you mean. I cannot take any action that might harm the country. I think I am patriotic enough to differentiate between the national work and political work. If my presence in the opposition serves the country, I will join it, if not, I won't. The national duty obliges me to do so. We are passing through a specific stage that requires everybody to work together. The situation does not allow the rule of selfishness and undermining efforts.
GC: Your strengths are known. What is your weakness?
RH: My wealth. Being rich and having money gives the man a halo on one side, and facilitates defaming his image on the other. God granted me wealth, but I feel with the poor. However, when you are a wealthy man, it is easy to doubt such words. For example, you cannot accuse PM Salim Al Hoss of wanting to buy the country because it is well known that the man is not wealthy, hence the accusation is inadequate. As for me, if someone says Hariri wants to buy the country, I have to deploy an effort to show the opposite. The reason is easy, because I have money. Hence, my wealth is my strong and weak point at the same time. Because I am wealthy, I find myself obliged to pay attention to many things, much more so than others.
GC: Some people talk of another weakness: egocentrism.
RH: Me? No way. On the contrary. I do not want to go into details. I already told you, I do not like to talk about myself.
GC: Many people make jokes about you, your cabinet, your policy and your financial power. How much criticism and jokes can you tolerate?
RH: They do not bother me at all. If I do not find anyone to make a joke, I do it myself.
GC: It does not bother you to wake up and see a stinging caricature against you?
RH: On the contrary, I like to. I am not annoyed by such things. I do not go after the details of negative things.
GC: Are you authoritarian with your advisors and employees?
RH: Not at all.
GC: When someone tastes power, could he live without it?
RH: I do not have this problem.
GC: Influencing decisions is one thing and being a decision-maker is another?
RH: You are pushing me to talk about a subject I do not like to discuss because it is not humble to do so. I am probably among the very few in Lebanon whose authority comes from themselves. It is not humble to say so but this is the truth. It is maybe my situation and experience that created this image. Outside power, I have more freedom of movement than inside it.
GC: Apart from your wealth, do you have any weaknesses?
RH: Nobody is perfect. I do not smoke, I do not drink alcohol. I do not gamble. I have a home, a family, and children. I love and respect them and I love my work. I deal with my family with love and gratitude. After all, we were all raised according to religious values, be they Christian or Islamic. This is why we can distinguish between right and wrong. I may have committed mistakes and errors.
to be continued... |
Friday, 18 February 2005
Al Hayat
|
|
