would be willing to withdraw? Or is Syria still going to be determined to make an all-Syria region, including Lebanon? Mr. GEMAYEL. Not at all, Mr. Chairman. My country cannot wait until such time as Syria is ready to withdraw completely. The changes may be irreversible by then. That is the danger we are facing, actually. That is why we need full solidarity and cooperation with the Arab world, including Syria. It may be premature to claim a complete separate peace between Lebanon and Israel, but at least we could get a genuine truce as a step toward peace for the time being, as was the case between Egypt and Israel before Camp David, between Jordan and Israel before Wadi Araba, and between Israel and Palestine since 1994 in the Golan Heights. So what we require for the time being, this step, the implementation of the 425-426, that is the slogan of Lebanon First, which is another version of 425–426, the Hizbollah to live up with their engagements to disarm when the Israelis would withdraw. So that is why there is an opportunity. It would be the first step. Lebanon did not suddenly collapse. It was a process of dismantling of our institutions. That is why we cannot rebuild quickly. Nobody has a magic wand, or can push a button. But we need a process and we can't wait. The process toward peace starts with this proposal which is workable and feasible, because there is an opportunity now. But we need a strong initiative with muscles, a new U.S. involvement. Because the United States has leverage in the relationship with Syria and Israel, there is an opportunity to take this first step, which is essential. It appears as a very modest step, but this step is essential. It could have significant influence on the principal adversaries and could really impact the whole peace process in the Middle East. Chairman GILMAN. Maybe what we need, Mr. President, is yourself to go over as a mediator, an arbitrator. Mr. GEMAYEL. Excuse me? Chairman GILMAN. We may need to have you act as the arbitrator. Are you available? Under what circumstances do you see yourself returning to Lebanon? Mr. GEMAYEL. I am willing to work full time on that. Chairman GILMAN. Under what circumstances do you see yourself being able to return to Lebanon? Do you still feel you have a political role to play in Lebanon? Mr. GEMAYEL. Mr. Chairman, I can only answer that I am Amin Gemayel from the Gemayel family. Can you imagine for a single moment that we could abdicate or surrender while my country is occupied and my people are living without dignity? Believe me, I will pursue my struggle and I will work until my country is completely free and sovereign and my people live with dignity. Chairman GILMAN. Good for you. Just one last question. Lebanon has not had elections for municipal and village officials since the 1950's, yet the government wants to postpone those elections until 1998. Can you shed any light on why they want to postpone those elections at this point? Mr. GEMAYEL. Mr. Chairman, this issue of municipal elections is part of the whole national problem, since Syria occupies my coun try-and won't liberate it. I prefer to answer your questions by raising three questions myself. How can you imagine a dictatorship helping to rebuild a democracy? How can a country bent on hegemony help restore a neighboring country's sovereignty? And how can a socialist country help build free markets? Municipal elections are part of a whole democratic process, and I can't imagine, really, a dictatorship helping rebuild a democracy at any level. That is why it is the essence of the problem. And when we will answer those three questions, at that time, really, we can move forward. Chairman GILMAN. Mr. President, the last elections, 1996, the parliamentary elections, do you feel they were fairly held? There was some question about by our State Department with regard to whether or not they were fair. Mr. GEMAYEL. I will note two things, Mr. Chairman. First, I refer to the statement made by David Welch, himself, saying that there were serious problems. And the second point is, look at the result. I, myself, wasn't able to run or to return to my country and to run for a Parliament, because my security was threatened at that time. So many, many others also could not return to run. And that is why you have a rubber stamp Parliament for the time being. The 1996 election was no breakthrough or miracle. I am sure you would like to have such a consensus here in the United States, in the Congress or the Senate, to have only one voice and be able to vote on major and essential issues and national issues, with 99.9 percent. Earlier I mentioned the reelection of President Harawi. A few months before the election, I remember very well several statements by several Lebanese, leaders and Members of Parliament saying, they couldn't believe, for a single moment, that they could accept or approve the reelection of President Harawi, because the renewal of the mandate would be unprecedented. Yet when the moment of truth arrived, all those people came in with one voice to renew the mandate of President Harawi. So that is why I am saying that actually we don't have a Parliament. We have only a body invented, created, and built just to endorse Syrian decisions and aims in Lebanon. For those who are saying that it is up to the Lebanese Government to call for the withdrawal of the Syrian Army from Lebanon, I can tell you that the President himself, the Members of the Parliament and the members of the government, have been imposed upon us by Syria specifically for the purpose of endorsing the permanent Syrian presence in Lebanon. They are there precisely to object to any request from the United States or from others to implement the Taif agreement, which would require the Syrian Army to withdraw from Lebanon. They are there to oppose the withdrawal and the implementation of the President or the other leaders in Lebanon. I respect the Lebanese leaders; I have a close friendship with them, but I can assure you that they are intimidated and they are not at all able to really express the Lebanese peoples' interests or to preserve and defend Lebanese national interests. If you will allow me to take just 2 minutes, I'd like to talk about a document I received. It is a memorandum about a message deliv ered to me by John Kelly, then the U.S. ambassador in Lebanon. I would make two points about it. Chairman GILMAN. What is the date of that document? Mr. GEMAYEL. The date is 12 March, 1988, the last year of my term. In this document, Ambassador John Kelly makes two points: The first one is to say that the position of the Muslims, including Salim Hoss, who at that time was Prime Minister and leader of the Sunnis Committee on Lebanon, on power sharing is that of President Amin Gemayel. "The Syrians, including Salim Hoss, do not want," et cetera, et cetera. So it shows that we were able to get a real consensus and to build a consensual new Constitution. So the first point is the other Lebanese leaders and I agreed upon the essentials of the change in the Constitution. The second point, and this is very important, Mr. Chairman, and it is significant, when the U.S. ambassador in Lebanon expresses this, "clearly Muslim leaders live in fear and are taking positions under Syrian pressure." This was in 1988, and nothing has changed since in the period, and I was obliged to leave the country. The emissary, who at that time informed Ambassador John Kelly about this Muslim position, was assassinated 1 month later. That just shows you the kind of democracy we have and the kind of freedom and liberty enjoyed by several leaders who actually live in Lebanon, and the President and the members of the government. Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, we will make that memorandum a part of our record. [The memorandum appears in the appendix.] Chairman GILMAN. Mr. President, I cannot thank you enough for your sacrifice in time and travel it took to bring you over here and to be patient throughout our hearing. Your very eloquent remarks helped to give us a better insight Mr. GEMAYEL. My poor English language. Chairman GILMAN. You did very well. I recall when we met with you many years ago in Lebanon; at that time it was a country under siege and there was a lot of hostility going on. We met with you up in a fortress at that time at the top of the mountain. We thank you again for being here. The Committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:36 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] APPENDIX LEBANON Joint Statement by C. David Welch, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs and June 25, 1997 Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to have the opportunity to address the Committee concerning Lebanon. We understand and appreciate the interest of Members of Congress, Lebanese-Americans and others on this issue. Lebanon is a country with historically warm ties to the United States. Lebanese-Americans have strengthened and enriched this country and its institutions. A stable, independent, economically vibrant and democratically-governed Lebanon is an important U.S. national interest. U.S. policy toward Lebanon remains firmly committed to Lebanon's unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Lebanon can achieve these political and economic objectives through reconstruction, national reconciliation, adherence to free markets, participation in the peace process, and the fulfillment of the Taif Accords. We believe these steps will make possible the departure of all foreign forces. The U.S. continues to work hard to achieve a comprehensive regional peace and help Lebanon recover from civil war. We are committed to the resumption of negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, and we have continued to urge both sides to be prepared to exploit opportunities for peace. The Lebanese government has indicated that it looks forward to proceeding as soon as a favorable atmosphere develops. Israel would also like to see negotiations resume to address its concerns about security along its border with Lebanon. The Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group called for by the April 26 Understanding brokered by former-Secretary Christopher has held numerous meetings since beginning operations in July 1996. The Monitoring Group has contributed to easing tensions and avoiding civilian casualties in southern Lebanon and northern Israel by affording Lebanon, Syria and Israel a forum that helps avoid escalation and protecting civilians. The U.S. also organized a meeting of 30 countries and eight international lending institutions in a consultative group called the Friends of Lebanon to assist in Lebanon's reconstruction. The meeting took place last December 16 and was successful in focusing positive international attention on Lebanon. The meeting also generated various kinds of assistance to help keep Lebanon's reconstruction efforts on track. We encourage Lebanon's continued adherence to democratic principles. In September 1996, Lebanon completed elections in which all 128 members of the parliament were chosen. The U.S. encouraged participation by all Lebanese. The elections enjoyed heavy campaigning and a good turnout in most regions. Despite significant flaws, we believe these elections represented a step forward. They underscore the Lebanese people's desire to put the civil war behind them and to focus on strengthening their institutions and advancing national reconciliation. On the other hand, Lebanon has not had municipal elections in over 30 years. We urge Lebanon to take the necessary steps to effect free and fair municipal elections in the |