Leader of the National Block since 2000, Carlos Eddeh succeeded his uncle Raymond Eddeh. Elected by the Party’s assembly few hours after the death of his uncle, he had no previous political activities in Lebanon. Eddeh adopts a strong laic and anti-Syrian position, mainly opposing the Syrian decision of extending the mandate of President Emile Lahoud. In the fall 2004, he was close to the other opposition parties and actively participated in unifying them, which led to the Cedar Revolution. He ran for the parliamentary elections of 2005, as candidate of the Maronite seat of Jbeil, on the list of March 14thcoalition defeated by the list of General Michel Aoun. In this interview, Carlos Eddeh talks with transparency about all major political sticking points in the country.

Do you think « the national dialogue» would really put an end to the current crisis?
Carlos Eddeh: I have never believed in that dialogue though I am, in general, a fervent defender of negotiations between parties in order to reach a solution. Before the first round, I confirmed that « the national dialogue» wouldn’t succeed. My stand didn’t change after the war, and I was recently skeptic as well regarding the success of the meetings between the House Speaker and P.M. Saad Hariri. The reason is that there is no common denominator between March 8th and March 14th. March 14th has a Lebanese agenda, based on seeking the national sovereignty, which inevitably goes through dismantling and disarming the State of Hezbollah, and recovering the national decision, mainly the decision of war, in the name of the Lebanese people represented by both the parliament and government. Moreover, March 14th seeks to be in harmony with the International Community, which implies respecting the agreements concluded with the United Nations and creating a stability that would boost economic development, investments, recruitment and debts decrease. On the contrary, March 8th, headed by the Hezbollah, is completely dependent of Iran and submitted to Syria. This opposition is ready to trigger a destructive war, to undermine the economy, to breach the law by closing the roads…
It is ready to create a hostile climate among the different confessions, through irresponsible statements and threats of resorting to force, which means the weapons of Hezbollah and the pro-Syrian militias. These attitudes can’t stem from Lebanese leaders, even if they belong to the opposition, because the only beneficiaries of this situation are the assassins, for whom hindering the international tribunal is a matter of life or death. Here lies the real problem. If the opposition, or some of its members, had nothing to be blamed for, the tribunal wouldn’t have been impeded.

The opposition calls, among other things, for the modification of the international tribunal’s composition; do you think that fears of the tribunal impartiality are justified?
Carlos Eddeh: The international community, represented by the United Nations, will control the impartiality of the Tribunal so that this procedure would not only solve the problem of Lebanon but all problems arising all over the world. In any court, the accused remains innocent until proved guilty. Yet the Syrians, based on their own experience in tribunal matters, where the accused is guilty before even being trialed (in case there is a trial), think that the same thing would happen with the international tribunal, which is not the case.

What is your outcome of Michel’s and Sultanov’s visits and the contacts held between the UN Secretary General and the Syrian President? _ Carlos Eddeh:All these contacts have showed to the United Nations officials and to the Russian vice Minister of Foreign Affairs who is well intentioned and who is of bad faith – it is actually the term used by some foreign officials in private conversations.The Arab Summit had already freed the majority of all dialogue obligations, and besides, it had paved the way to the United Nations in order to take concrete and immediate measures concerning the international character procedure that should condemn and neutralize the assassins who committed those attacks that shook the country.Various meetings held with officials from the opposition haven’t led to any of the wished changes with relations to the International Tribunal. Several emissaries have visited Syria, the source, to know the restrictions of the one who gives the orders. As expected, the only answer they could get was that Syria would like to have a solution suitable for all Lebanese. This is a situation qualified by Americans as “Catch 22” or the perfect vicious circle. The fact is that the only acceptable solution for Syrians and for the opposition is the non establishment of the Tribunal.The tension of the Lebanese spokesmen of the Syrians shows the fragility of their situation. Since they cannot officially refuse the Tribunal, they are trying to gain time, asking for impossible terms, hoping thus that the changes of presidency in France and the United States will make the political climate less hostile regarding the Syrian régime and make the Tribunal issue fall into oblivion.

On this topic, what would be the impact of the presidential elections in France on the French foreign policy in Lebanon and the region? Who, between both candidates to the second round, is according to you better for Lebanon?
Carlos Eddeh:The relation between Lebanon and France goes beyond the frame of personalities given the old ties between both countries. I have no doubt that the relation will not change and that the French foreign policy enjoys a real stability towards Lebanon. Naturally, it will be difficult to find a French president that will invest himself in Lebanon as much as President Chirac did. But I am sure that neither of both candidates will drift from this policy that has been applied till the moment.

Don’t you fear that setting the tribunal under Chapter VII aggravates the divisions and tensions?
Carlos Eddeh: The behavior of the opposition and its refusal of equitable solutions compelled the majority to resort to the UN Security Council, who will decide on the suitable measures to be taken and if the only remaining option is resorting to Chapter VII, then the Pro-Syrian forces will be held responsible.

You said that if the opposition, or some of its members, had nothing to be blamed for, the tribunal wouldn’t have been impeded. Are you directly or indirectly accusing anybody?
Carlos Eddeh: As a defender of rights and independence of tribunals, I cannot venture in no-evidence accusations. However, all evidence point at one direction, as revealed in the last report of prosecutor Brammertz and in the previous reports of Mehlis. There are different kinds of responsibilities: the responsibility of those who gave the order, those who carried out the assassinations, those who facilitated the attacks in a way or another and the responsibility of those who know the truth but preferred to remain silent and help confuse the issue. There is of course Lebanese and non-Lebanese people involved in all those responsibilities. The importance of the tribunal is to gather all evidence discovered so far, take the necessary measures and make every Lebanese assume his responsibility because, when the time comes, each of us would have to choose: either defend the murderers or defend the State of the law.

What about the presidency issue?
Carlos Eddeh: We would have wished that things followed their normal and legal course and that the presidential elections had taken place just after the parliamentary elections. But unfortunately, the mandate of president Lahoud was extended by an arbitrary measure imposed by Syria, while he had lost his popularity. The swing of General Aoun upon his return to Lebanon prevented the Cedar Revolution from leading to a real change.

Presidential elections are close and I am confident that, when the time comes, they will take place in accordance with the Constitution, and that this parliament will elect the next president. There would be of course a lot of tensions and threats, and even maybe another coup d’état, by force this time, but the Lebanese are responsible enough to avoid such an adventure. Besides, the international community, acting as bumper, will make sure, like it did in several countries, that the electoral process is in conformity with the law.

Is to be noted that the Constitution requires a quorum of 2/3 in the first ballot, and the absolute majority in the second one (50+1). Many studies have already been conducted by eminent foreign constitutionalists, showing that in a State and a society like ours, the 2/3 can permanently immobilize the decision making.

What do you think the best electoral law would be?
Carlos Eddeh: The opposition is trying to reverse the order of priorities; and in the best case scenario, with the modification of the electoral law, the parliamentary elections will take place after the presidential ones. As far as I am concerned, I am against early elections, even after the election of the President of the Republic. In spite of my defeat in 2005, it’s in my best interest that the elections take place, especially that I enjoy now a rising popularity. The Lebanese citizen has to learn to abide by the law, whatever it is. If he wants to, he has to change the law first, or change his stand. And if a democratic regime has to function, there should not only be equitable institutions but also stable ones. The opposition, very influenced by the Syrian regime, thinks that the leader’s will prevails over the institutions, which only confirm that will. So, they extend a presidential mandate when they wish to, they shorten the mandate of the Parliament, when it suits them… In short, they want to keep governing Lebanon in the totalitarian way of the Assad Family and company, whereas we have already experienced that kind of rule during the Syrian mandate.

Based on this I am in favor of the single -candidate district. Two years and a half ago, we presented a complete draft law (the only complete one) defending this electoral system, which makes the choice easier for the voter, allows a better transparency during elections, guarantees the verification of counts during the mandate of the elected person and prevents big financers from monopolizing the parliament, as it is the case in the list systems. It is the only way for those who have a promising political future to be directly elected by the people. This system is used by the 2/3 of the countries, among which those who enjoy the older democratic tradition, such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom… Moreover, opinion polls show that this is the electoral system that most Lebanese, including the Maronite Patriarch, wish to see adopted.

What happened about your suggestion of modifying the bank secrecy law in order to fight corruption?
Carlos Eddeh: Fighting corruption is difficult everywhere. Corruption exists under different forms all over the world, even in the most transparent countries. However, thanks to the IT development, it became harder to dissimulate funds. In Lebanon, war on corruption seems to be difficult due to different factors. In fact, the Syrian regime which was so far behind all nominations in the Lebanese government and which was intimidating our tribunals had no interest in fighting corruption. From time to time, some voices protested against one person or another but they were immediately fought by counteraccusations, and everything used to fall into a temporary oblivion. I think that in order to fight corruption, the following elements should be brought together:

1. A clear will on the part of the Lebanese people to reach true results, which can be only fulfilled by electing honest deputies determined to reach those objectives;
2. A certain stability in the country for this procedure to succeed;
3. An independent judiciary. For the time being, it is the only encouraging element given the efforts deployed by the magistrates, who seem to be determined to recover their independence. But unfortunately, this is being impeded by the President of the Republic who refuses to ratify a decision taken unanimously by the Higher Council of Magistracy and the Minister of Justice;
4. The Lebanese bank secrecy, which was promoted by Raymond Eddé, and which made the glory of the Lebanese banks, is a double-edged weapon, since it allows covering corruption-linked financial transactions. So, I suggest that the bank secrecy law be amended so that the bank secrecy would be lifted in case of deputies, ministers and civil servants. This measure won’t have any negative impact on our banking system; on the contrary, it will give it more respectability and open the way to new funds.

In conclusion, what is your assessment regarding the project of the National Block? What did you achieve?
Carlos Eddeh: We have gone through several little internal crises due to my ignorance of the Lebanese ways and customs, the members of the party and the Lebanese political scene, and mainly because I arrived unprepared in a period of change in the Lebanese scene and the regional and international politics. In fact, 14 days after my election, the Israelis withdrew after 22 years of occupation; one month after I got involved into politics, the Syrian president changed; 3 months after the death of Raymond Eddeh, the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations stopped and the Intifada resumed with renewed vigor, and one year after, September 11 came to mark the beginning of a new political era. Facing all these changes in my life and activities and in the world, I think that after all I have pulled through.
Within the party, I was confronted to a mentality which believes that the first objective of the party is gathering “families” and pursuing a hostility campaign against our former enemies. As far as I am concerned, I believe that politics means looking at the future, with clear objectives, and that abiding by these objectives and by the personal and political ethics is more important than the electoral results. I succeeded in shedding light on a policy of principles and objectives and breaking the discords and the revengeful quarrels of the past.