Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Chairman GILMAN. You know, you have stated principles, but you still haven't told us what actual steps we are taking to try to find a way to bring about the independence of Lebanon. You mention all these principles and the agreements. What are we doing in trying to implement some of that?

Mr. WELCH. Well, I think we consider Lebanon to be independent now, Mr. Chairman. It has an agreement with Syria on their relationship, and it is up to them to modify that were they to seek our assistance in doing so, we would lend our hand. They have indicated their priorities are otherwise for now.

Chairman GILMAN. Do you consider Lebanon to be an independent government right now?

Mr. WELCH. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. Strange. Some of us question whether it truly is an independent, free country with all of the Syrian troops surrounding and taking part in having Syrian officials in Lebanon.

In 1989, Lebanese political leaders sought the agreement at Taif to end Lebanon's civil war and undertake political reforms. Does the Accord ultimately call for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanese territory or does it only call for redeployment of those forces to positions in the eastern part of Lebanon closer to the Syrian border?

Mr. WELCH. My recollection of the Accord-and I must say I don't have it here in front of me is that there were some stage redeployments called for in parts of it and that the eventual redeployment out of Lebanon was a matter to be negotiated.

Chairman GILMAN. Your assistant, I think, might be able to supply you with the actual Accord language. It seemed to me that they called for a redeployment rather than a withdrawal. Is that correct?

Mr. WELCH. Yes, that is correct. There were redeployments within Lebanon specified in the Accord, and then the eventual withdrawal from Lebanon of the Syrian forces present there was to be negotiated at a further stage.

Chairman GILMAN. Is Syria in violation of the Taif Accords based upon those agreements?

Mr. WELCH. I am not here to judge agreements between Lebanon and Syria. You would have to ask the Government of Lebanon whether they consider them to be in violation.

We consider that this

Chairman GILMAN. Well, has Syria redeployed according to Mr. WELCH. Syria has redeployed somewhat within Lebanon. Chairman GILMAN. Somewhat. But has it redeployed pursuant to the Taif Accords?

Mr. WELCH. No, it has not completed that further stage of redeployment.

Chairman GILMAN. Then Syria is in violation of the Taif Accord, isn't that correct?

Mr. WELCH. I would describe it that some aspects of the Accord are unfulfilled so far and that redeployment from Lebanon to Syria has not been completed; nor has it been negotiated.

Chairman GILMAN. Unfulfilled. Does unfulfilled mean a violation?

Mr. WELCH. Well, what it means for us in terms of our judgment as to whether this thing will be implemented is that there are parts of it that have yet to be done. So it is a less than complete result.

Chairman GILMAN. Wasn't the Taif Accord signed in 1989?

Mr. WELCH. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. It would seem to me that all that time-almost 8 years has passed, and they would have had time to complete an implementation of the Taif Accord.

Let me ask you another question. Last week, the Israeli press reported that Israel had approached the Government of France for assistance in brokering an agreement with Lebanon that would enable Israeli forces to leave the security zone in southern Lebanon. Can you tell us what your assessment is of that report and is that report correct?

Mr. WELCH. I know of no Israeli Government proposal in that regard.

Chairman GILMAN. You haven't seen those press reports?

Mr. WELCH. I would expect if the Israeli Government has a proposal on something like that it would communicate it directly to us. Chairman GILMAN. And you haven't read those reports at all? Mr. WELCH. I have not seen that particular one, Mr. Chairman. Chairman GILMAN. Does our Nation look favorably upon other nations' involvements in the details of the peace process?

Mr. WELCH. Well, yes. I mean, there are several parties who have demonstrated an interest in various aspects of it. There are quite a few nations that are involved in one way or another in support of the peace process, in supporting the actual negotiations themselves, for example, in the multilateral track of the peace process, in supporting the peace process through assistance. We seek and respect the involvement of some outside parties in that. I think the greater the international support for an effort to bring peace in that area, the better.

Chairman GILMAN. In the State Department's most recent annual report on patterns of global terrorism, the Administration states that Syria permits a resupply of arms for rejectionist groups operating in Lebanon by way of Damascus. However, the report doesn't state that Hizbollah receives arms from its patron Iran through Damascus. Can you tell us why the report explicitly omits this Syrian support for Hizbollah, Mr. McKune?

Mr. McKUNE. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is an accurate statement, that you just made; and I don't think there is any reason not to have it in the report. We could put it in the report next year. Chairman GILMAN. I would hope that it would be accurate. Is the Administration trying to work Syria off the terrorism list by this omission?

Mr. McKUNE. No, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. We would hope that in the future it would be a more accurate recitation of what is actually happening with the

arms.

Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have this statement-you perhaps have seen it-that appeared in the Human Rights Watch in August 1995 from a Lebanese law

yer. I am quoting now. I just want to get your reaction to the statement: "No one in Lebanon will talk about the reality. Our government is not a government. Syrian intelligence forces are controlling this country. We are moving toward a police state here in Lebanon. There are masters and servants. Lebanese Government officials are the servants of Syria."

Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. WELCH. I wouldn't make that statement.

Mr. HAMILTON. You would not?

Mr. WELCH. I would not make that statement.

We have some concerns about various aspects of the government's behavior. But that statement is too sweeping, in my view, and ignores many positive aspects of the performance of the Government of Lebanon. I would not sign on to it.

Mr. HAMILTON. What are the positive points? Let's talk about those a little bit.

Mr. WELCH. Well, I think, as I said in the prepared remarks, Mr. Hamilton, we are entering the latter part of this decade having witnessed a Lebanon that is basically free of the civil war that it went through for a decade and a half. That is a substantial achievement for the Lebanese people. Gradually, they are restoring their own authority and control over the country. That process isn't as quick or as complete as we would like, but it is occurring.

Mr. HAMILTON. Is Lebanon today more of a Syrian-client State than at any time in the past?

Mr. WELCH. I would argue that it is not.

Mr. HAMILTON. It is less?

Mr. WELCH. Yes, and I would argue furthermore, Mr. Hamilton

Mr. HAMILTON. So you see a situation where the trends are positive and that the Lebanese Government is slowly extending its sovereignty.

Mr. WELCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAMILTON. And Syrian domination is lessening?

Mr. WELCH. That is correct.

I think, in addition, that the more we support the Lebanese people in this effort the more likely that that pace will be increased. Mr. HAMILTON. You know, you described our policy in Lebanon as being in support of freedom and territorial integrity and sovereignty and independence. I think I recall those same words being used 30 years ago. I mean, I just wonder how realistic they are. Those words have become kind of a formula that our diplomats automatically cite when they talk about our policy in Lebanon. Mr. WELCH. Well, they are in favor

Mr. HAMILTON. It is not really a policy. They are kind of an expression of hope, aren't they?

Mr. WELCH. Yes, but one, I think, that most Lebanese would subscribe to; one that, while it was the case that no reasonable person would say that those conditions obtained during the years of the civil war in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, I think increasingly they are not only an aspiration, they are a growing reality.

And all American policies deal in terms of goals. We are trying to support a movement toward those goals.

I am not denying that there are imperfections and that there is a lot more work to be done. I just see that this is an area where there has been considerable progress.

I think in the time that you have been on the Committee, sir, I think you would probably agree if we were having this hearing 10 years ago it would be a much more sober rendition of those prospects. Today, I think we can be more hopeful.

Mr. HAMILTON. On the travel ban, you say that we look forward to the day when the security situation in Lebanon will have improved to the point that all travel restrictions can be lifted. When in your judgment will we reach that point?

Mr. WELCH. Let me say with respect to the travel restriction, that is the restriction on the use of U.S. passports to go to Lebanon, that that matter will be under review by Secretary Albright in the coming few weeks.

I would rather, therefore, that my remarks in answer to your question be separated from that decision process. I do not want to forecast in any way what it might be.

Mr. HAMILTON. I am trying to get the benchmarks, the guidelines.

Mr. WELCH. The issue for us is the only thing

Mr. HAMILTON. This is a very puzzling thing to me, Mr. Welch. I have asked this question many times over the past few months. I get the exact same response you just gave me: The Secretary is reviewing it. Then the Secretary turns it down, whoever the Secretary may be, and I can't quite figure out why they turn it down. They keep reviewing it, and I am just trying to figure out what the problem is.

Are you fearful of terrorist attacks against Americans? Is that what you are fearful of? And you have information that leads you to believe that that is the case?

Mr. WELCH. The protection of American citizens is something we are, by law, enjoined to do in the State Department. Where American citizens face threats in the world, we look at a number of tools to enable us to protect them.

Mr. HAMILTON. Look, I understand all of that. In Lebanon today, it is your judgment that American citizens could be the subject of terrorist attacks?

Mr. WELCH. It is our judgment that it remains a dangerous place. There are a number of groups there.

Mr. HAMILTON. That American citizens might very well be attacked, is that your judgment?

Mr. WELCH. That is always potentially the case. There are a number of groups there.

Mr. HAMILTON. Of course, it is potentially the case. It is potentially the case in Washington, DC.

Mr. WELCH. That is true.

Mr. HAMILTON. We don't have a travel ban on Washington, DC. Mr. WELCH. That is true.

Mr. HAMILTON. You see, I just want to try to understand here what your reason is. I mean, do we have information, hard information, that American citizens' lives are in danger if they are in Lebanon? If you have that kind of information, I think most Americans would applaud you, support you on it.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Hamilton, I would be delighted to discuss exactly the information we have on security threats in Lebanon with you in a different sort of session than this one.

Let me say that we do receive security threats there from time to time. We consider Lebanon a dangerous place. There are groups there hostile to Americans and to U.S. interests. They, in the past, have conducted actions against Americans; and I cannot exclude that they might do it again in the future.

Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield a moment?

Mr. HAMILTON. Sure.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Welch, is there any travel ban on American tourists going to Iran?

Mr. WELCH. There is no restriction on the use of U.S. passports for travel to Iran. The only restrictions that exist in our region are with respect to Iraq and Libya for use of U.S. passports.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HAMILTON. Now, what has to happen here before that travel ban is lifted? What are you looking at to make the determination to lift the travel ban?

Mr. WELCH. We look at a variety of elements. I will ask Mr. McKune to join me in this answer. But they revolve around a judgment as to whether this measure can add to the security of Americans there, since we continue to believe the situation there is dangerous for Americans.

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, that is a very general response. I am trying to get something a little more specific.

Mr. McKune, can you

Mr. McKUNE. Mr. Hamilton, let me add a few points. We do get occasional reports of specific terrorist operations being planned. Mr. HAMILTON. Against Americans?

Mr. McKUNE. Against Americans.

Mr. HAMILTON. By Hizbollah?

Mr. McKUNE. In particular, occasionally. These have not been implemented in recent years. As we said in our prepared statement, there hasn't been an attack against Americans or American interests in Lebanon in 6 years or more.

Given the history of Hizbollah and what we know about the organization, what we know about its world view, its hostility to the United States, which continues, its operational, organizational activities in many countries of the world, we can't ignore any intelligence of this sort. It would be irresponsible to do so.

We think it is a positive development that, in fact, there have not been any such attacks in Lebanon.

Mr. HAMILTON. How many Americans are in Lebanon today?

Mr. McKUNE. We don't know precisely. The Embassy did a recent informal poll over a couple of days just in the major Beirut area and had verifiable information of about 4,000 in the Beirut area. We undoubtedly think the number is significantly larger throughout the country. It could be 15,000, 20,000, 30,000. We don't know precisely.

Mr. WELCH. The statistics in this area are hard to get. We would like to have more. There are a large number of Americans who travel to Lebanon who are dual nationals, so they may be using an

« ÎnapoiContinuă »