Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

My daughter was there 2 months ago. She spent 5 days in Lebanon, traveled all over the country almost to the same extent that I did. She came back and said that she was treated with the greatest of respect by the people there.

For people who have flown in and out of the airport and who have traveled around the country of Lebanon, this idea that Lebanon is a dangerous place is nonsense; and it is not believed by the Americans who have traveled there.

What you are doing to the country by keeping this travel restriction on is inhibiting what-for whatever you say, there may be some American businesses who have hooked up with other businesses; the vast majority of American businesses do not go there because you prohibit them from doing that.

I can tell you when the Prime Minister was here and visited with the President of the United States and former Secretary of State Christopher, he had the feeling that you were going to lift the travel restriction, lift the travel ban. Then, as Mr. Christopher left office, he imposed it for another 6 months.

People can't understand why you are doing it. You don't present testimony here today that justifies it. You simply do not. And for anyone who has traveled to Lebanon, it is not justified.

I am speaking from my heart on this, and I am not being critical of you because you have your job to do, and it is a hard job. This travel restriction has been on too long. It needs to be lifted so that Americans can travel there.

Several months ago, there were innocent people killed in a marketplace in Israel. We did not place a travel ban on Israel, and innocent people were killed.

There have been no Americans killed in Lebanon for how many years?

Now, I know there are hard feelings on the part of some people in the State Department as a result of people who have been killed in Lebanon, going back 10 years; and I hope that is not the residual effect of this kind of policy that exists as a result of the travel restriction. But if you talk to any Member of Congress who has traveled to Lebanon-and many have-or any American who has traveled to Lebanon-and many have-they cannot make any sense out of this travel restriction any longer.

It has been on too long. It is not justified, and I hope and pray that Secretary Albright will come to her senses with respect to this restriction. It is wrong, and it is not justified.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. LaHood.

Did you want to comment at all, Mr. Welch or Mr. McKune?
Mr. WELCH. Yes, if I might.

Thank you, Mr. LaHood, for expressing those views. I personally want to say that I am delighted to share the responsibility of this decision with the Members of this Committee and with others in Congress. I think this is a significant and important choice facing us, and I will convey your views directly to the Secretary of State as she makes the decision, in exactly the words that you expressed. We, too, believe there has been change. We are not arguing that there hasn't been, and I think my testimony is directed at establishing that there is very real change.

At the same time, we have a responsibility to exercise whatever we can in terms of protection of American citizens; and that is a serious responsibility. We share it together.

I will take your views back and report them directly.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Rahall.

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to beat this travel ban to death, because I think you pretty well know the feelings of the Members of this Committee. You know the feelings of the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Hill. Resolutions have been passed in the past. That is all on record. All the Secretary has to do is go to that file and see the bipartisan support for downgrading.

Former Chairman John Dingell wanted me to expressly convey his opposition to the current ban.

But I want to touch quickly on the travel ban and then I want to move to the overall scenario of a comprehensive peace. On just a couple of issues-and I am sure you are probably sitting there, thinking only in your mind, but not saying to us, counter points to facts that our colleagues have traveled there. I have traveled there, yes, many times both during and since the conclusion of the war. I took my son with me in August 1995. You have got security and so, therefore, you feel safe. Well, that is probably true. But I have been there at times without security, without advanced announcements and not been in any danger.

Then you are going to come back and say, you are Lebanese-looking, so they are not going to hurt you. Well, that could be true, too. But, in 1996 alone, 46,000 Americans traveled there, and I am sure not all of them are Lebanese-looking as I am, and they have been traveling there safely.

Then I just want to touch on one point that my colleague, Pat Danner, mentioned about our intelligence operatives. Since they are being paid-I think there is no doubt in anybody's mind they are getting a financial reward for intelligence gathering on our side would it not be in their best financial interest to continue the rumor mill of threats to Americans in order to continue to get paid? So, you know, let's look at it in that light as well.

If you want to comment on any of the above, you are welcome to. I was going to move on now.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Rahall, among the many reasons you suggest for your safety while you were there, I think the minute that you started talking to them that they would change their impression of who you were. That accent comes through pretty strongly.

Mr. RAHALL. It is not because my grandfathers are from southern Lebanon

Ms. DANNER. You mean you recognize West Virginia?

Mr. RAHALL. That's right. It is not because my grandfathers were born in southern Lebanon. It is because I was born in southern West Virginia. That is where my accent is from.

But let me ask you now, in regard to the question that I also raised and is on everybody's mind in this room and in the Lebanese community about the Syrian influence upon the country of Leb

anon.

er

In my travels there and in meeting with the current President a number of times as I have, he has stated-and I am sure that he would do this-that the second Israeli troops withdraw from the south he would go immediately to Damascus and ask President Assad to withdraw every Syrian troop from the country of Lebanon. Now the next question, of course, is: Would Syria do that? And the obvious answer is, no, they would not until there is a comprehensive peace and some exchange on the Golan, of the land for peace formula. Because, obviously, Lebanon is being used as a chessboard for outside powers to play their games, through their proxies in southern Lebanon, the proxies of the Syrians and Iranians, the proxies of the Israelis themselves and/or the southern Lebanese Army.

Is it your opinion-and I have noted your positive statements about the Lebanese Army with which I, of course, totally agreebut if the political scenario were such and if Israel were to withdraw from the south, is it the State Department's opinion that the Lebanese Army has the capability of regaining control of every inch of Lebanese territory and securing the southern border so that there are no cross-border attacks into Israel?

Is the Lebanese Army of that strength to be able to do that, given the political go-ahead?

Mr. WELCH. I am not certain. You describe a situation in which the conditions would be radically different than what they are today. A lot would depend on the commitment of the parties involved to the maintenance of peace.

Mr. RAHALL. The Lebanese Army under General Lahoud's guidance, haven't they reached the level where they are nonsectarian now; they are a professional organization; they are capable militarily of preventing cross-border attacks into Israel? Capable of disarming Hizbollah?

Mr. WELCH. They are considerably more capable than they have been in the past. There is work still to be done; and we would like to, obviously, support the expansion of their capabilities.

But I think I want to come back to the point I was trying to make, Mr. Rahall, and that is that it is sort of less the number of troops and their quality than the commitment of the parties to peace. If that commitment is somehow not there, then it becomes very difficult for any military to impede violations of the arrangements.

I think certainly it is the case that Israel has the most capable military in the area, and it is not able to do that presently.

Mr. RAHALL. Well, can I follow up, Mr. Chairman? I noticed the red light is on.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, go ahead.

Mr. RAHALL. You have given positive statements in your testimony about the capabilities of the Lebanese Army. We have been helping them, have we not?

Mr. WELCH. Yes.

Mr. RAHALL. Selling them some equipment rather cheaply, excess defense articles, et cetera, which I commend our State Department for doing.

But lacking sufficient help from us, is it not human nature—in any country-to turn to its neighbors for help? In this case, as you

have said, the Lebanese Government is saying that it would be premature to ask the Syrian Army, Syrian troops to withdraw now. That is probably accurate, because they feel there is no help to the Lebanese Army from other countries.

So, wouldn't it be natural for the Lebanese Army to look to other sources of help, if, as you think, it does not have sufficient resources?

Mr. WELCH. I am sure they would. However, my surmise is that they would not look to Syria to provide that assistance with respect to maintaining any arrangements they have with respect to Israel. I think, in terms of the objective, it is clear what everyone would like, beginning with, first and foremost, the Lebanese Government and people, they want to see their Army do its job every place on their territory. So do we.

The conditions do not presently exist for that. There is a significant impediment, not only the presence of foreign forces but the absence of comprehensive peace arrangements. Were those peace arrangements to be negotiated and arrived at, I think very different circumstances could obtain and you would see different sorts of international support for those arrangements, including to the Lebanese Army.

Mr. RAHALL. If there were a modification of the travel ban, would that not be an incentive to the Lebanese-and with our help-to try to reach accommodation with Israel on their own, whether or not the overall peace process is back on track?

Mr. WELCH. Well, the answer is easy, sir. This issue is enormously important to the Government of Lebanon. Not one day passes when we do not hear about the travel restriction from representatives of the Lebanese Government. Of course, they would like it lifted; and, of course, they would see it as a psychological boost to them.

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall appears in the appendix.] Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

I want to thank our panelists for being with us this morning. There may be some additional questions that we will submit in writing. We would hope that you would respond expeditiously. I thank our panelists.

Panel No. 2 will please come to the witness table: Mr. Terry Anderson, Mr. Daniel Pipes, Mr. Tanous, Mr. Nassif.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, would it not be appropriate to recognize the new Lebanese ambassador who is in attendance this afternoon, Mohamad Chatah? He informed me his credentials have been presented to the White House. At this point he has been designated the Lebanese ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Chatah.

us.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you for noting that Mr. Chatah is with

Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. We hope you will be able to present your credentials.

We are pleased to have a distinguished panel before us.

Mr. Terry Anderson is the chairman of the Westchester Information Network in New York and develops Internet-based information systems. He also writes a syndicated newspaper column on government politics and is a nationally known speaker on these and other subjects.

Mr. Anderson is a former foreign correspondent with the Associated Press and the author of the best seller Den of Lions, an account of his 7 years as a hostage of the Shiite Muslim radicals in Lebanon.

Mr. Anderson is an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of Journalism, and a member of the board of directors on the Committee to protect journalists, which monitors attacks on the press around the world.

Chairman GILMAN. We are pleased to have you with us this morning, Mr. Anderson. We look forward to your remarks.

I also want to welcome you as a new constituent of mine in Palisades, New York. You may give your entire testimony or summarize as you see fit, Mr. Anderson.

STATEMENT OF TERRY ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN,
WESTCHESTER INFORMATION NETWORK

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congressmen, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for inviting me to testify this morning. I remain deeply interested in Lebanon and in U.S. policy toward that country. I have to confess an interest-my wife is Lebanese-as well as considerable experience with the country.

Last August, I made a 2-week trip to Lebanon to film a documentary for CNN. That film, Return to the Lion's Den, was aired in December and January and is expected to be shown on PBS this sum

mer.

I agree with the Committee that U.S. policy on Lebanon needs to be reviewed. Much has changed there and continues to change. Many of our policies and actions with regard to Lebanon have failed to keep pace with that change.

In the overview of Committee concerns that I was given before coming here, you listed four areas for study; and I would take those areas in order in my brief comments.

Syrian domination was the first. Your overview notes that Lebanon is under Syrian domination. That is true, at least to the extent that all major political decisions are taken in consultation with officials in Damascus. It is also true that nearly all Lebanese would like that domination to end.

However, in my extensive travel, without security and not looking very much like a Lebanese, in Lebanon and in my talks with ordinary citizens and government officials, I find those same Lebanese recognize Syria's major part in ending the 17-year civil war that destroyed a large part of the country. Some people fear that, without Syrian domination, that war could break out again. No one wants a renewal of the war.

I will quote Prime Minister Rafik Hariri as well as officials from nearly every major party and ethic group in the country in reference to the Syrian withdrawal: "Not yet. It's too dangerous."

« ÎnapoiContinuă »