with decisions made by other bodies that Syrian troops should withdraw from Lebanon.

It first agreed to this in October, 1976, as part of the RiyadhCairo accords. In September, 1982, it signed on to the Fez Declaration which committed it to start negotiations to withdraw its troops. Finally, as has been mentioned a number of times this morning, in October 1989, the Taif Accord obligated the Syrian Government to redeploy and ultimately withdraw its troops. None of these accords have been fulfilled.

The current situation reminds me of a very famous statement by Tacitus, the Roman historian. In judging the Roman conquest and occupation of Britain, he said of the Romans, "They made a desert and called it peace." We see something similar to that in Lebanon. The Syrians have conquered Lebanon, and they have made a desert of it. It is quiet. There is not the same sort of terrorism as once existed, but it is replaced by the quiet of the desert.

The record of the last 15 years suggests to me several conclusions: First, that Syrian promises to leave Lebanon have no value and should not be sought again. Second, even were the uniformed troops to withdraw, Assad will still have enough assets in Lebanon to exert considerable control over the country. Third, the Assad Government seeks to occupy Lebanon permanently.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of the Lebanese population-and not just the Christians among them-rejects the Syrian occupation. Survey research conducted some years ago suggests that a mere 3 percent of the population of Sunni Muslims favor union with Syria. Anecdotal evidence confirms this.

That Lebanese opinions so overwhelmingly reject the occupation is not surprising, but what is perhaps more surprising is that so much of the outside world, including our own executive branch, has acquiesced to the Syrian takeover. To the best of my knowledge, the White House and State Department have never condemned the occupation, preferring to see this instead as an issue to be raised in the context of the Arab-Israeli negotiations.

In contrast, this Congress is one of the very few governmental bodies in the world to condemn the occupation. You voted unanimously in July, 1993, to consider, "the Government of Syria in violation of the Taif agreement". A second, similar resolution was passed by the House in June 1995.

Now, as a government, we face a basic choice: whether to accept or to contest the Syrian domination of Lebanon.

We can work with the occupation, which means recognizing the Government of Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri as a real government, accepting the August, 1996, elections as legitimate and acquiescing in general to the rules established by the Syrian regime. Such a policy has the advantage of winning favor in Damascus and perhaps encouraging the rulers in that city to participate in the peace process. But it disheartens natural allies of the United States in Lebanon and abroad, and it signals to the world that, while a blatant invasion such as Saddam Hussein's into Kuwait is not acceptable, a subtle one such as Assad's into Lebanon is indeed acceptable.

The other alternative is to ignore the Government of Lebanon, to denounce the occupation and to pay little attention to all the pseu

do-structures in Beirut. This has the advantage of sticking with our friends and our principles.

It, of course, raises dangers as well. But to my mind there really is no choice. The U.S. Government must stand in solidarity with the oppressed against the oppressors.

Just as we supported Estonians and Czechs through their decades of Soviet domination, even when the prospect of their independence seemed impossibly remote, so we must stand by the Lebanese people in their hour of need. Nor is this only a matter of principle. Baltic leaders, for example, all agree on the importance of the U.S. Government refusing to accept Soviet occupation. One day, I am convinced, Lebanese patriots will similarly thank us for standing with their people even as they face the seemingly invincible might of the Syrian sword.

Accordingly, I urge you to do all within your power to condemn and repulse the Syrian occupiers. Toward this end, Congress can take several steps.

First, you can use your bully pulpit by sending a direct message to the tyrants in Damascus. I particularly commend to you Representative Elliott Engel's amendment to H.R. 1986 concerning sanctions against Syria, which passed by a vote of 410 to 15 on June 10th. The Assad regime takes close note of such resolutions. Second, you can pressure the executive branch to show some spine as, in fact, you are doing today. In 1994, for example, you took a lead position on a critical role in assuring that functionaries in the U.S. bureaucracy did not take Syria off the terrorism and narcotics lists.

Third, you can close the "national interest" loopholes that permit the executive branch to waive regulations, and which it seems to do disproportionately for Damascus. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime earlier this month, it came out that, in 1996, Syria has received $226 million in U.S. exports, of which $81 million was in controlled commodities. This must not continue.

Finally, I urge you to turn away from Friends of Lebanon appeals for money and appropriate no funds for that country, on the assumption that any funds that do go there will ultimately end up in Mr. Assad's pocket.

Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pipes.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pipes appears in the appendix.] Chairman GILMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Peter Tanous, the founding chairman of the American Task Force for Lebanon, a nonprofit association of Americans of Lebanese heritage who seek to strengthen Lebanese-American relations. The ATFL has been active since 1987, and we commend Mr. Tanous for his commitment to improving these relations.

In his other activities, Mr. Tanous is president of Lynx Investment Advisory of Washington, an investment advisory firm. He has written several articles on the securities industry and has authored Investment Gurus, which was published recently by Prentice-Hall. Mr. Tanous has long been active in promoting ties between Lebanon and the United States. In 1991, he was the recipient of the ATFL's Philip C. Habib Award for Distinguished Public Service, whose prior recipients have included Senators George Mitchell, Bob

Dole, Governor John Sununu, Representative Nick Rahall, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Tanous, we are pleased to have you with us today. You can either read your full statement or summarize it, whichever you see fit.

STATEMENT OF PETER TANOUS, FOUNDING CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN TASK FORCE FOR LEBANON

Mr. Tanous. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you especially for allowing us to testify.

I will submit my statement for the record, if I may.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. TANOUS. And I will summarize it herewith.

I would like to direct my remarks as much to the LebaneseAmerican community as to the Committee. Since its founding in 1987, the American Task Force for Lebanon has been unequivocal in calling for the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon. But a dose of reality and pragmatism leads to the conclusion that the United States will not pressure Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

You will recall that U.S. Security Council Resolution 425, which was supported by the United States and which calls for Israel to "withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory," has been in existence since 1978. Nor do we expect that the United States is in a position to expel Syrian troops from Lebanon. You will recall that the United States declined to do this during the tense period from 1982 to 1984, when the United States participated in the multinational force in Lebanon.

So it seems now that the most likely way to secure a withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon is through a comprehensive Middle East peace process, something the State Department has repeatedly made clear.

I do want to stress, however, that the ATFL advocates the implementation of U.S. Security Council Resolution 425 and U.S. Security Council Resolution 520, which calls for "the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon."

We also advocate the implementation of the commonly held interpretation of the Taif Accord, as well as the U.S. policy calling for the disarmament of all remaining armed factions in Lebanon. We realize the difficulty in implementing these resolutions and agreements because they are intertwined with the complexities of the peace process.

But I would like to focus the bulk of my remarks on the issue of immediate concern, which is the travel ban about which we have heard today. The ban on the use of passports may have made sense when it was imposed by Secretary of State Shultz in January 1987 but it did not make sense when Secretary of State Warren Christopher renewed it in January 1997. We sometimes lose track of time, but the last American citizen kidnapped in Lebanon was U.S. Marine Colonel William Richard Higgins on February 17, 1988, over 9 years ago.

46-636 98-2

I should add, Mr. Chairman, that in listening to State Department Representative David Welch's prepared testimony, I thought his arguments for removing the ban were better than mine. So I thought his conclusion was rather bizarre in recommending that it stay on.

We do have firm figures of the numbers of solely U.S. passport holders visiting Lebanon in 1995 and 1996. I am not talking about Lebanese-U.S. dual nationals who enter with Lebanese passports or identity cards. This is a group that the State Department tends to dismiss somewhat inelegantly as a group of individuals who blend in with the population, so nobody notices them.

Lebanon's four diplomatic missions in the United States issued 9,990 visas to U.S. passport holders in 1996 and 12,344 visas in 1995. Surely, there were ample American targets in Lebanon if any group wanted to take any.

The new Secretary of State will complete her review of the travel ban by July 31st, when it next expires. We are told she brings an open mind to this issue. It is no secret that the Near East Affairs Bureau, the Office of Counterterrorism and the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon all recommended to Secretary Christopher in January that the travel ban be replaced by a stern travel advisory.

Recently, Mary Ryan, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, was in Lebanon from June 9th to 12th. Eric Boswell, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, and Richard Jones, the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, personally inspected Beirut International Airport on May 24th.

Lebanese authorities, acting upon a recommendation from the United States, are building a new airport road which bypasses the Southern Suburbs of Beirut and which should be completed by October. By the end of August, Lebanon's national carrier, Middle East Airlines, will implement the final phase of the Sabre passenger reservations system, which would enable detection of anyone accessing passenger lists. The FAA will train three Lebanese aviation security officers in the United States in August.

Mr. Chairman, the Lebanese are cooperating and the United States cannot continue to request that Lebanon undertake costly security measures with no corresponding American action in return. This leads many, including ourselves, to conclude that the real reason for not lifting the ban is purely political. But if that isn't the case, why does the United States impose a travel ban on Lebanon and only a travel advisory on countries which are arguably far more dangerous?

Let me be clear. The ATFL is not urging an irresponsible policy on the travel ban. We are suggesting that the State Department communicate its concern about travel to Lebanon through a travel advisory, as it does for countries which do not have U.S. passport restrictions, such as Iran, North Korea, Colombia, Algeria and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Few would argue that Lebanon is today more dangerous than any of those countries.

In fact, may I respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that you ask State Department officials, as we have often done, whether or not if a travel ban on Lebanon were not in effect today, would they impose one today, given the conditions as we know and understand them?

Pope John Paul II's visit to Lebanon from May 10th to 11th was tremendously important, given the Vatican's caution about papal security. In a mass attended by approximately 300,000 people, the pope said, "A country of many religious faiths, Lebanon has shown that these different faiths can live together in peace, brotherhood and cooperation." He added that Lebanon needs to recover "total independence, complete sovereignty and unambiguous freedom".

Allow me to mention names of some prominent Americans who have visited Lebanon since March of last year: George Bush, former President of the United States; former Senator Hank Brown; Charles Percy, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; Terry Anderson, who is here with us today; George Mitchell, the former Senate Majority Leader; Stephen Solarz, former Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific; Nick Rahall, Representative from West Virginia, who sits with you today; Carl Levin, the Senator from Michigan; and I especially want to cite Ms. Deborah Bodlander, the Majority staff person on this Committee who visited Lebanon from January 30th to February 3rd of this year.

Incidentally, I spoke with Senator Mitchell last week and he asked that I submit his letter to you, Chairman Gilman, for the record. I brought it with me. In it, referring to Senator Mitchell's recent visit to Lebanon, he states, "Based on that personal experience and on many other factors, I believe the ban on travel to Lebanon should be lifted."

Chairman GILMAN. We will make the letter a part of the record. Mr. TANOUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Mr. TANOUS. Given Lebanon's present state of affairs, we believe that principles of democracy should be supported and encouraged by the United States to ensure that no government tamper with Lebanon's democratic institutions. The United States should continue to communicate through diplomatic channels its concern to the Lebanese Government about elections, freedom of the press and human rights.

Comments by the United States do not fall on deaf ears. We know of incidents where U.S. intercession has been effective.

The American Task Force for Lebanon also has concerns about the integrity of parliamentary and municipal elections and the arrest of Lebanese citizens without due process.

On a positive note, in the past year, the Lebanese judiciary has shown some independence in a number of instances and is beginning to resume a proper role as a check on the executive and legislative branches. As an example, the constitutional counsel overturned the parliamentary election of four parliamentarians whose opponents filed complaints.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Lebanese often liken their country to the Phoenix, the mythical bird that ignites itself, only to rise from the ashes. We in the American Task Force for Lebanon do not believe that the Phoenix needs to burn again to be properly resurrected. The Phoenix may not yet be soaring, but we believe it is very much alive and ascending.

Thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Tanous.