The Primate of the Maronite Church reports never-released details of his meetings with King Salman, Prince Bin Salman and Lebanese Premier Hariri. And he dampens rumors about the alleged Saudi project of founding a center for inter-religious dialogue in his own nation.
*****
The wars provoked by external agents in Palestine, Iraq and Syria have destroyed us. And now, please spare us the melodrama of the Westerners asking us what can be done to save Christians...”. As always, his Beatitude Béchara Boutros Raï, Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites, speaks his mind clearly. His recent trip to Saudi Arabia was an event of international importance in the convulsive Middle Eastern scenario. In Riyadh, the primacy of the Maronite Church touched the nerve points of the crises agitating Lebanon and the whole Middle East region. His realistic approach helps to avoid the pre-packaged and misleading theses that are increasingly shaping the representation of Middle Eastern scenarios: whether it is about the condition of local Christian communities, or about grasping the complex Lebanese balances. Among other things the Patriarch recognizes that “Hezbollah is one of the Lebanese Parties. It is the only party that has weapons, and this creates a problem. But we cannot call it a terrorist organization”.
Patriarch Béchara, what factors have made your trip to Saudi Arabia relevant?
My visit to Saudi Arabia took place at the official invitation of the Saudi authorities. For the first time, a Saudi King invited a patriarch, who was received with honors reserved for a Head of State. Then, the visit became even more important because it coincided with the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who announced them when he was in Riyadh. But the date of my trip was decided two months earlier.
What did you talk to the Saudi monarchs about?
King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman wanted to talk to me about Lebanon. King Salman knows Lebanon well, he used to spend his summer holidays in his Lebanese villas. Both have shown admiration and nostalgia for the spirit of openness and cohabitation in Lebanon. They praised the Lebanese community in Saudi Arabia, saying that it cooperates in the development of the country. And they have expressed to me their concerns about the present and future of Lebanon.
What did they raise the alarm on?
They fear that Lebanon will be absorbed into the conflicts of the region. They attribute all the danger to Iran, which according to them, is dragging Lebanon through Hezbollah. They said that Lebanon must remain open to all, in order to continue to be a meeting place for all religious identities”.
Is this a well-founded concern?
Lebanon is a small country with 10,000 square kilometers, and can have no interest in entering into war against any country. Even in 1967, when all the Arab countries coordinated against Israel and said that they wanted to “repatriate the Jewish State at sea”, the only one that did not participate in that war was Lebanon. Our country must remain a meeting ground. It must avoid entering armed conflicts so that it can always play the role of an element of stability and peace”.
Hariri announced his resignation while he was in Riyadh, didn’t this risk destabilizing everything?
I told the reigning Saudi monarchs that we could not tolerate our Prime Minister’s stay outside his homeland. We were on the brink of an institutional and political crisis, everyone appealed for his return. I eventually also met with Hariri. He denied that the Saudis or his family tried to prevent him from returning to Lebanon. And a few days later he returned. Everything went well. We thank God.
Did your visit help unblock the situation?
I think there has been a certain moral contribution. I had asked the King and the Crown Prince whether they would support Hariri’s return to Lebanon. And they had answered me yes, and that it was necessary to convince Hariri himself, because he was the one who was afraid. In my talks, I always asked everyone to let me know the truth, also to properly inform the Holy See about what was happening. When I came to Rome I met Cardinal Parolin and Archbishop Gallagher and left an account for the Pope, whom I saw a few days later.
You said that you understood the reasons for Hariri’s resignation. What are they?
He said that Lebanon must maintain the line of equidistance, while instead the Hezbollah Shiite party is involving Lebanon on Iran’s side in the conflicting axes of force in the Middle East area. Hariri said that “we have 400 thousand Lebanese who work in the Gulf countries, we have responsibilities towards them, and we cannot allow ourselves to be at odds with those countries”.
In your opinion, how has President Aoun managed and continues to manage the crisis?
Right from the start, Aoun acted wisely. There were those who pushed for the immediate acceptation of Hariri’s resignation and for his replacement. The President said no and that the resignation would not be accepted until Hariri returned to Lebanon. He consulted with all the political and religious leaders of the country, including myself, asking to avoid conflicting declarations and contribute together to national concord.
And when did Hariri return?
The Prime Minister wanted to confirm his resignation, but Aoun asked him to freeze them to see if a new agreement based on constructive equidistance could be found to move forward. The consultations taking place in recent days serve to verify this possibility. Clearly, certain considerations of Hariri have been taken seriously. Of course, the solution is not easy. The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran weighs heavily on everything.
But is the role of Hezbollah really so negative, as its opponents say?
Hezbollah is one of the Lebanese parties. We cannot call it a terrorist organization, not because we are afraid, but simply because it is not true. Hezbollah is present in the Parliament, in the government, and in local administrations. However, it is the only party that has weapons, and this creates a problem. It must be resolved wisely, and the solution does not only involve Lebanon, but involves regional and global ties and relations of strength. No one can tell the Lebanese: “It is your problem, you solve it alone”. They said that Hezbollah’s weapons were used to defend themselves against Israeli attacks. Now Hezbollah has crossed the borders. It is involved in regional conflicts between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I do not judge whether the effects of this involvement are all positive or negative. All I can see is that all this exposes Lebanon to bear the consequences.
It was said that during your trip to Riyadh, the Saudis expressed their intentions to create a center of inter-religious dialogue in a restored old church. Is there some truth to that?
Someone wrote in the newspapers and social media about that, then the news spread itself alone. But neither the Saudis nor I had mentioned the subject. I spoke about Lebanese immigrants in Saudi Arabia and about recognizing Lebanon as a country of dialogue between cultures and civilizations, according to the proposal also made by President Aoun at the UN. In this context, I also mentioned the possibility that Saudis could support a center of inter-religious dialogue in Lebanon, as they do with the Kaiicid Institute, based in Vienna. I also spoke with them about the serious problem of Syrian refugees in Lebanon: there are now one million 700 thousand refugees, and another 500 thousand Palestinian refugees to be added to them. The refugees are more than half the Lebanese population, the situation is unsustainable.
But during your talks with the Saudis, did you talk about the five million Christians living in Saudi Arabia?
We have not talked about this. But the Saudis know about this reality. They praised the Lebanese migrants, both Christian and Muslim. And when they come on holiday to Lebanon, their villas are in Christian neighborhoods. Can “positive” equidistance be a leading criterion for Christians in the region? Or do the Middle Eastern Christians always need to tighten up with some protector, perhaps outside the Middle East? But we Christians have lived in the Middle East for two thousand years, and with Islam we have lived together for three hundred years. We have gone through more or less difficult times than the present. We have been able to create a life in common. It is the wars provoked by external agents in Palestine, Iraq and Syria that destroyed us. And now, please spare us the melodrama of the Westerners asking us what can be done to save Christians....”
Do Christians suffer?
Christians suffer, and so do others. When there is no water, no food, no electricity, when there are bombardments, they all suffer and run away. The million and seven hundred thousand Syrian refugees in Lebanon are almost all Sunni Muslims. Pope Francis has been the only one who said from the beginning that the war in Syria was fueled by arms trade. All the others made calculations on how to change, for their own benefit, the situation in the Middle East. And now, there is no point in crying and saying that we need to act to save the “persecuted Christians”... But what persecution? The bombs are persecuting us all.
In your opinion, is there a way to really help Christians? And should we really give the idea that the West is moving to help only Christians?
Only the Pope speaks of peace. The leaders of the world continue to discuss: what shall we do with this regime, what shall we do with this other regime? I say: let the peoples of the Middle East decide their destiny. Leave them in peace. All mercenary groups and organizations that have brought terror and war are supported externally. Muslims in the Middle East are not terrorists, they are not fundamentalists. We know them. And these wars are certainly not wars between Christians and Muslims. We must stop wars and help refugees to return home. All, both Christians and Muslims. To allow them to start walking together again.
