Transcript: Panel 2 Congressional Hearing on Lebanon

PANEL TWO OF A HEARING OF THE NEAR EASTERN AND
SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT:

FUTURE OF LEBANON
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
WITNESSES:
DR.DANIEL PIPES, EDITOR, MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY COLONEL CHARBEL BARAKAT, SOUTH LEBANON ARMY LOCATION: 419
DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. TIME:

10:35 A.M. EDT DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000

SEN. BROWNBACK: The second panel will be Dr. Daniel Pipes, the editor of the Middle East Quarterly, out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and a second presentation will be Colonel Charbel Barakat of the South Lebanon Army, Lebanon. Dr. Pipes, welcome back to the committee. Delighted to have you here again on such a timely issue as the future of Lebanon, when we see
the circumstances changing around us. Always appreciate your insights and your thoughts, and I appreciate your coming here to share those with the committee today.
MR. PIPES: Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to discuss Lebanon with you. My focus will be on the aspect of this subject that I know best; namely, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. I shall explain the reason for the occupation, the implications, the dramatic developments in the last month, and then have an overview of U.S. policy and give a couple policy recommendations __ all in five minutes, I hope. First, with the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, Lebanon has the unhappy distinction of being the only satellite state in the world today. The origins of the situation go back to 1920, when the French government carved out a "greater
Lebanon" that met with considerable opposition in Syria. That opposition finally could manifest itself in 1975, when the war broke out in Lebanon, and the Syrians had between 1975 and 1990 an opportunity to take over that country, which they did do.
It somewhat resembles the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait that followed in 1990, but the Iraqi occupation was very fast, very brutal, very obvious; the Syrian occupation was slow, careful and subtle. The Syrian government disposes of many levers of power in Lebanon. It has troops, intelligence agents, and a significant number of Syrian nationals living in that country.  Control of Lebanon brings the Syrian government many benefits. As you can imagine, it has, as you pointed out itself, a much higher __ or Secretary Walker pointed out __ it has a much per capita income. There are economic opportunities. There's drug trafficking. The lively press that existed in Lebanon
has been closed down. It is a place where the Syrian government can tangle with its adversary Israel without the stakes being too high. It is a place for terrorist proxies to work out of.  Curiously, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon is, by its own lights, illegal,for the Syrian government has on three occasions concurred with decisions that require it to leave Lebanon. And yet it is still there.
The implications for Lebanon have been dire.
What had been the most open of the Arabic_speaking countries, boasting decentralized power, real
democracy, rule of law, unimpeded movement and a Hong Kong_style free market, along with independent schools and an unfettered press, has turned into something like a minor version of the totalitarian state of Syria, with a more powerful central government, the increasing lack of the rule of law, of less and less freedom of movement, imposed school curricula, a declining economy, and
the like. The Lebanese population has responded with very negative attitudes towards the Syrian occupation. All our data suggests that across the board, all the communities of Lebanon, despite the many other differences, agree on the undesirability of continued Syrian occupation. However, because of the strong arm of the Syrian occupiers, they have, in general, not been able to express
these views, although from time to time in the past there has been eruption of violence against the occupiers.
The timeliness of our discussion today is due to the two major changes that took place within the last few week; first, the Israeli pullback from southern Lebanon, and secondly, the death of President Hafez al_Assad on Saturday, just four days ago. But even before these actual developments took place, they had been in the making. As you noted earlier, the Israelis already announced a
year ago they would be leaving, and the president of Syria's health has been declining for some time.
Accordingly, there has been a kind of movement in Lebanon that preceded the last few weeks. And perhaps the opening salvo of this was on the 23rd of March of this year when a prominent editorialist and journalist in Lebanon wrote an open letter to the son of the Syrian president, in which he said, "We don't want you here." And there have been some acts of violence against Syrians in Lebanon, there have been some protests, street protests, which led to labor unions and university students taking to the streets.
Perhaps most remarkably, the Syrian troops abandoned some of the more obvious checkpoints and other deployments and moved back and became a little more
subtle. Some of the leading religious figures of the country spoke out, both Christian and Muslim.
So it has been already, even before the last few days, a process in movement. I predict that there'll be a hot summer in Lebanon, and far more important than that, I anticipate the day when Lebanon will again be a free country without the Syrian yoke on it, and a sovereign government will rule.
The American responses have been interesting.
The Clinton administration has never specifically- to the best of my knowledge, has never specifically called for Syrian troops to withdraw from the country of Lebanon. They have, instead, contented themselves with a vague appeal for, quote, "all foreign forces" to leave the country. This has been the case even recently. 
Perhaps the most dramatic conversation was just a week ago, when Secretary Albright met with the Syrian foreign minister in Cairo, and according to press reports, she did not raise the issue of Syria's occupation of Lebanon. In public, she actually praised it, and I quote, "Syria has played a constructive role as far as Lebanon is concerned. We hope that they will continue to do so." Unquote. The best she could do was to avoid mentioning the Syrian troops by name and, instead, resort to the tired old formulation that, quote, "all foreign forces must depart." The Syrian authorities, not surprisingly, responded to this weak advisory by saying they have every right to be there, they were invited in by the Lebanese government, and they don't need the blessing of the United  States.
In contrast with this record of collusion that the administration has compounded, the Congress has been forthright and repeated in its condemnation - '93, '95, '97 - over and over again, the Congress has been one of the few major voices to condemn the Syrian occupation.
It has also been heartening to see that of late, other organizations have spoken up- human rights groups, major media in the United States. And I might add that my own organization just last week published a study group report calling for the end of the Syrian occupation. And I'm pleased to note that Chairman Helms was a signatory to that report. It's available, and I can make it available to anyone in this room after the hearing. The U.S. government faces a fundamental choice visa-vis Lebanon: whether to accept or to contest the Syrian domination there.
Operationally, that means either working with the constituted government or ignoring it. I think there is, in the end, no choice; we must stand in solidarity with the oppressed against the oppressors, as have done so many times around the world. Beyond the symbol of that, it's also very important, practically speaking, that people would take action against the Syrians are much emboldened when they feel they have the United States government's support. Finally, I urge you, the Congress, to do all that you can to condemn and repulse the Syrian occupiers. Towards this end, you can take several steps.
First, you can use your bully pulpit and simply say, "All Syrian forces must leave Lebanon." Secondly, you can pressure the executive branch to show some spine, as you have done in the past. Third, you can close the national interest loopholes that permit the executive branch to waive various
congressional - various legal regulations, which it has done frequently.
Fourth, you can take initiatives, such as funding of Radio Free Lebanon. And finally, I would urge you, so long as the Syrian occupation continues, not to fund the government of Lebanon, including its armed forces, because that money is fungible, and that money, in the end, is supporting the Syrian occupation. You should only appropriate funds to credible private organizations and institutions.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. BROWNBACK: Thank you very much, Dr. Pipes. As usual, good, quick, clear analysis and clear policy recommendations are always very helpful to have.
Colonel, welcome back to the committee. Happy to have you here as well a second time, and look forward to your testimony.
COL. BARAKAT: Thank you. Honorable Senator, I want to thank you for inviting me as a witness today, and I want to thank you also for the statement you have made on May 24th about south Lebanon.I have prepared a written statement, which I would like to insert in the congressional records. I will then make shorter remarks that I will - that will reflect the written testimony.
SEN. BROWNBACK: We will accept your written statement into the record.
COL. BARAKAT: Thank you.
I, Colonel Charbel Barakat, from Ain Ebel, south Lebanon, appear before your subcommittee for the second time in three years, to address the dramatic developments which have taken place in my country as a result of the Israeli withdrawal of May 23rd, 2000.
On June 7th, 1997, I appeared before this subcommittee to raise the issue of persecution of the southern Lebanese by Hezbollah and the pro_Syrian regime. During that hearing, I warned against the dangerous consequences of what would happen to our community after Israel's withdrawal if a solution is not found.
Let me just note that as a result of that testimony back in 1997, the regime in Beirut punished me by depriving me of my past wages and pensions, which I had a right to as an officer of the Lebanese Army. That was a personal price I had to pay for testifying to the Senate. And today, as I come back to you as an exile, I don't know what will be my fate in the future if I testify to the truth.
Many among them - many among the south Lebanese people went to exile after May 22nd, and they are refugees into Israel. Most of them remained in their villages and towns, they think oppressing, which is slowly but surely developing into a systematic persecution.
Over the past few months and in the media and in diplomatic circles, we wrongly described - this media and diplomatic circles have wrongly described the history of south Lebanon. And I want to say that, first of all, the South Lebanese Army and our community were not the mercenaries of Israel but allied to Israel. We were not traitors but the defenders of a free Lebanon. We are the natives; the Syrian Army is a foreign occupation. We were the freedom fighters, and Hezbollah are
the terrorists. Yet we, the Lebanese people, were crucified, and Hezbollah became the hero. And Syria is stabilizing power. Our land was occupied by pro- Iranian and pro-Syrian, and they called it liberation. Liberation from whom? Liberation from Lebanese communities who were 23 years as
defending their identity and rights? But worse than the physical tragedy was assassination of the truth. Mr. Senator, uprooting us from our land is a crime against us, but hiding the truth is a crime against you and against humanity.
I don't want to tell you more about the history of the south Lebanese area and the South Lebanese Army because of the - short of time. But I will focus on some points:
From 1976 to 1982, we were isolated and bombarded. No country in the world assisted us, not even the United Nations forces, which were sent to monitor the Israeli withdrawal according to the U.N. Resolution 425. When Israel moved into Lebanon in '82, we finally were able to travel to our capital and communicate with the rest of our country. Unfortunately, peace between Israel and Lebanon was assassinated with the killing of President Bashir Gemayel, the killing of the U.S. Marines, and the massacres of the mountain Christians, in '83, '84, and the cancellation of the 17 of May Agreement between Lebanon and Israel.
In 1990 Syria invaded east Beirut. It was based on what they have called the Taif agreement. This Taif agreement, you have to know and everybody has to know, that was never - it never invited us, as south Lebanese, to part of this Taif agreement. When Syria invaded Lebanon, invaded east Beirut in 1990, and imposed the new regime, many Lebanese who opposed Syria, including Prime Minister Michel Aoun, were forced into exile, and a new national reconciliation government was allegedly formed.
The government was supposed to end the war in Lebanon and include all Lebanese, but we, the southern Lebanese, were not invited. Moreover, that same reconciliation regime disbanded another major Christian party who opposed Syria. The Lebanese forces jailed its leader and persecuted its
followers as of 1994. Hezbollah became the only group allowed to keep its weapons.
Since then, our community became the only enclave escaping the Syrian occupation and Hezbollah's power. A war was being waged against us by way of terrorism, killing and kidnapping, under the slogan of fighting Israel. We fought for our land and our people, but we were fighting for the free world as well. We were taking the Katyushas of those who aimed at destroying Israel, and who belong to the same school as those who plotted the bombing in the skies of Lockerbie and in - (word inaudible) - and Buenos Aires, Al-Dhahran, Dar es-Salaam and Nairobi.  Our people in south Lebanon - Christian, Shi'ite and Druse, the south Lebanon army and the civilians decided to stay and resist. But the world crucified us. We asked the United Nations to talk with us, to mediate with
Beirut, to send its troops to protect our enclave. We asked for us less than what they gave for Muslims of Kosovo. They turned a blind eye on our people. Worse, U.N. Envoy Terje Larsen pressured Israel to dismantle the SLA, washing the U.N. hands from our blood. Mr. Senator, the SLA did not collapse, it was dismantled as a part of a political deal.
On May 22nd, about 8,000 civilians, mostly children, fled into Israel. Those Lebanese citizens will not return under Hezbollah's terror. Inside our villages, human rights groups have documented mass arrests, harassment, burning of houses, looting, destruction of socio- economic infrastructure,
cutting off the water supplies, elimination of national shrines, and psychological terror. In some cases, abduction and killings occurred. More than 1,500 were arrested.   Instead of an amnesty law and a national reconciliation process, they are tried for high treason and sentenced to years in prison. In addition to their terms, those Lebanese villagers will be barred from returning to their homes for
another 15 years. Now, Israel is inside its international borders. Hezbollah is in our villages.
Syria controls all of Lebanon. Our community is under persecution. The Lebanese regime refuses to protect us, and the Palestinian armed organizations are getting ready for a confrontation over Galilee.
Mr. Senator, injustice was done to the people of Lebanon and we, the last free enclaves, were sacrificed to satisfy Syria and accommodate Hezbollah. But despite the tragedy we have been through, we still believe that the American people want justice for all other nations, particularly the smallest and the weakest. We strongly believe that the American people, represented by the U.S.
Congress, will not accept that stability means the exodus of our community from its own land. The terrorists, such as Hezbollah, would be rewarded and our children would become refugees; that Kuwait should be freed from Saddam's army and Lebanon must remain occupied by Assad's army. We strongly believe that the United States government must reevaluate the developments in our area and initiate a new policy based on human values and human life. Therefore, we strongly recommend the following:
*That a congressional delegation will form a fact-finding mission to the
region and meet with the refugees in Israel;
*That it will send representatives to investigate the situation inside our villages and towns in South Lebanon, independent from Beirut's supervision;
*That the U.S. Congress will grant the exiled population in Israel an emergency
aid package to help them regather and cope with the difficult conditions;
*That the U.S. government will use its influence with the various governments in the region to ensure a safe return of the refugees from South Lebanon to their homes and to ensure a protected safe haven under U.N. auspices and the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon, and that the
U.N. will deny that area to Hezbollah, which must be disarmed, as all other militias were;
*That the U.S. government will use the influence with the Lebanese regime to stop the persecution of the South Lebanese communities, issue an amnesty for all SLA members, release the political prisoners, repatriate the political exiles, and initiate a new and real reconciliation process in Lebanon;
*That the U.S. government will use its influence to initiate the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, particularly (now) that a new president is about to take over in Damascus;
At the end, that the U.S. Congress, which has passed two legislations in protection of religious minorities around the world over the past few years, will invite spiritual leaders, exiled politicians and intellectuals from the Lebanese Christian community to testify about the particular oppression this community has been under for over 10 years.
I thank you again for the opportunity you offered me to express my point of view and to present the views of the exile population of South Lebanon. Thank you.
SEN. BROWNBACK: Well, thank you, Colonel, for taking us up on this opportunity at a great personal sacrifice yourself, financially, at first, and in other ways that you're suffering as well. And so I deeply appreciate you're willing to put yourself on the line in doing this and being here to share your thoughts. They are very good, thoughtful, concise and specific of what we can do.
Dr. Pipes, let me start with some questions for you, if we could. What's your assessment of the future of Hezbollah at this point in time? Do you think they'll recreate themselves into a political party? Do you think will they continue down a terrorist mode? What's kind of your view of what's Hezbollah moving towards and to do?
MR. PIPES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hezbollah aspires to rule in Lebanon, and there are various ways to achieve that. One is through violence;
another is through the political process. What began as a fairly marginal operation that required the use of violence has grown over the past two decades to the point that it can rely less on violence and more on the political process. It has moved into to the political arena. It has had some considerable success. They've shown flexibility.   For example, just in the last few days, since the occupation of South Lebanon, they have not engaged in out -and-out ethnic cleansing, but they've done something much more subtle, which is to ruin the infrastructure so that the people of South Lebanon have to leave. There's a flexibility and a cleverness in their approach which has served them well.
They are the victors now over the Israeli forces. They claim it, and I agree with them. They won; Israel lost. Their prestige has soared in the last month. And I believe that they are a powerful force that is probably going to become a greater force. And as that happens, their interests and those of the Syrian overlords will clash, and so there could be room at that point for others to maneuver. But until now, the Syrians and the Hezbollah movement have worked reasonably well together.
SEN. BROWNBACK: So, do you anticipate a clash between those two in the near term?
MR. PIPES: I do, yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that - I don't know about near term, but as the Hezbollah increases in force and in ambition, its interests will - could well put it on a collision course with the Syrian occupying forces.
SEN. BROWNBACK: What do we know about Bashar Assad? What's his potential for turning Syria into a more democratic, modern state?
MR. PIPES: Well, before answering your question directly, it's worth noting that the developments in Syria are very unusual. What we have is a revolutionary regime merged with a monarchy. That doesn't happen often. The only precedent I can see is North Korea. Romania was heading down that track; it didn't happen. And North Korea actually is very interesting the last few days. We do see flexibility resulting from this peculiar marriage of revolution and monarchy. There is a fundamental illegitimacy to the process. A revolutionary regime is not supposed to use monarchical means. But you don't know who you are going to get with the son, and it opens up - it's much more flexible. Had it been another revolutionary leader who took over, things would have stayed much more on the same track. Now that we have someone from a different generation, a very different outlook, different experience, I think the chances of real change are much greater.
Bashar Assad is, as was noted earlier, 34 years old. He was, until six years ago, a student in London studying eye surgery. Apparently, he decided he was not going to go into the family business. But with the death of his older brother, in January of 1994, he was recruited into this, into the business.
And he has been a fast study in the past six years. He has had a military training. He has had political training. He has apparently, from what one can tell, done a rather good job. He has taken a number of - several audacious steps. He is thrust into the maelstrom of Syrian political life; it's not for the faint_hearted. He is a rookie; we don't know his capabilities. His uncle has, in the last couple days, challenged him. We don't know his uncle's strengths at this point. But I am hopeful that, within the context of Syrian political life, which has been totalitarian and brutalized, impoverished; that within this context, the fresh face, fresh approach of Bashar Assad could lead to good things. I might also point out it could lead to dangers. If he fails to control the government, if the rivalries among the grandees of the old regime explode, there could be violence within Syria and even outside it. So it's a dangerous time, but I am overall optimistic that things could go well.
SEN. BROWNBACK: Because we didn't have much chance that they were going to go well under the father and that he had ruled with such an iron hand for so long a period of time -I mean, you are basically betting on that the son is just of a different generation and the mind-set might be something
more open_minded towards growing Syria economically and less of the militaristic rule?
MR. PIPES: Right. Under the father, one found a situation of stasis, ossification, of the sort that's extreme. I mean, rarely in human affairs does one see a country that simply had stopped in the way that Syria has in the last decade. And that was due to the father's very narrow assessment of what his concerns were, which were to stay in power and to pass on the power, as in fact he has quite well done so far in the last few days. Everything was seen through the prism of regime maintenance, staying in power. Nothing else mattered.
SEN. BROWNBACK: Passing the estate on to the next generation?
MR. PIPES: Yes. Now that that seems to be happening, the next generation is not quite so worried about the same narrow scope and has -the son, I would guess, and this is pure speculation- we don't - we only have whiffs and rumors of information about him - that he would be more willing to take chances, to lessen the grip on the country that his father had maintained.
SEN. BROWNBACK: What should the administration - you listed a number of things that you thought were items that the Congress should take on. How would you rate what the administration has done to date, given the twin aspects of the pullout in south Lebanon by the Israelis and the change in Syria towards Lebanon?
MR. PIPES: American policy for some years has been to place the peace process above all else. Everything else is sacrificed for that. And anything that's perceived as impinging on that process, obstructing that process, is to be pushed away. I think that's a mistake. I think resolution of the Arab_Israeli conflict is obviously a very important and desirable goal, but it is not the only goal. And we must keep an eye on such other problems as the totalitarian rule in Syria, as the Syrian threat, until a year and a half ago against Turkey, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. These are legitimate and important problems as well that should be not shunted aside because they don't help the peace process. And I think we have had a very special attitude towards the Syrian government because of its negotiations with Israel. I mean, it is of a kind with its peers in Iraq and Libya and North Korea and Cuba. It's a rogue regime, and even U.S. government documentation agrees with that. But our secretaries of state, even our president, have gone to Syria on occasions. Places - I mean, you never would go to Tripoli - they never would go to Tripoli or Teheran or Damascus into the process and encourage it to engage in diplomacy with Israel.
think that's a mistake. I don't think totalitarian governments respond to cajoling and encouragement. I think they respond to worries, threats. And we saw that with Turkey. The Turks for 10 years cajoled the Syrians. They had a very serious problem with the Syrian_sponsored terrorism. And from 1987 till 1998, they cajoled. They said, "Please, pretty please, pay attention to our problem and stop making trouble for us." And it didn't work. And finally, in 1998, they threatened the Syrians and said, "If you don't stop this, you'll be in big trouble." And you know what? Within two weeks, they threat was closed down. The problem was closed down. I think that's the way one deals with a regime like this. One does not send
the secretary of state to the funeral of a totalitarian thug. We didn't send it to Kim Il Jong (sic) - we didn't send our secretary of state to Kim Il Jong's (sic) - Kim Il Sung's funeral. I don't think we should have sent him - sent her to President Assad's funeral. This is not appropriate for us. We should take a much tougher stand. We should indicate to them that we don't like what they're doing, and we will make it clear, as we do with other totalitarian states, that this is unacceptable. Now, all that said, the situation has changed in the last few days. There's potential for more maneuvering and more subtlety today, because we have a new regime. But I worry about this mind_set which places total   priority on Arab_Israeli negotiations.
SEN. BROWNBACK: Colonel, you heard Dr. Pipes talk about the type of persecution and pushing out of the citizenry taking place in south Lebanon by Hezbollah, that it's not the direct, as - if I'm correctly stating for you, Dr. Pipes - killing of a number of individuals but more destruction of
infrastructure. Is that your information of what you're receiving from people in the ground in South Lebanon of the type of persecution, the type of destruction of living conditions that's occurring?
COL. BARAKAT: Yes. Last week we received information that they had put some explosion in a pump, water pump, between two villages, Surmisya (ph) and Ain Ebel (?), and they put some explosives around a big cistern, a water cistern for the whole area, about 12 villages, take their water from this big cistern. So they did not explode it because there was- you know, we made
some - we had some connections, the U.N. came, and we have talked with the journalists, the television came there, and they couldn't blow it up. But it is one of their plans to destroy such kind of infrastructure. Also, they have threatened to blow up all the buildings which Israel built before, such as schools and clubs and everything to help the people to stay there. They said it's a sign of the Israeli occupation so we have to get rid of, and they want to blow it up.  They did the same thing in Marjuyun, they blow up the place of Marjuy Saad Hadad (ph); they blow up the martyrs remember - we have a place to remember our martyrs; they blew it up. That kind of things they are doing.
SEN. BROWNBACK: But they have not actually done it, there have been threats to blow up these facilities? Is that what you're stating?
COL. BARAKAT: They blew up the pump, they couldn't blow up the cistern.
SEN. BROWNBACK: And the other buildings, there have been threats.
COL. BARAKAT: The other buildings, they threatened to blow it up.Until now, they didn't blow it up.
SEN. BROWNBACK: I guess what I hear both of you saying, that really now is a key time for the world community to focus on events taking place, particularly in South Lebanon, because of public pressure that the Hezbollah will be watching kind of what their image is internationally at this point in time?
COL. BARAKAT: Yeah.
SEN. BROWNBACK: Would you agree with that, Dr. Pipes?
MR. PIPES: I certainly would.
SEN. BROWNBACK: And that's - I hope we can take note of that, and that the Congress can call yet again for Syria to pull all of its occupying troops out of Lebanon. It's a been a consistent position here, and it should be stated clearly, and not one that we walk away from because time has lapsed and memories are short and we just don't continue to remember that, that here is a state that's been occupied by a foreign power, and that that should not continue and the United States should not abet that occurring. Thank you both for joining us. Thank you all for attending the hearing. I think it is instructive, and we are at a moment that hopefully better can occur from this point forward.
The hearing's adjourned. (Sounds gavel.)
####
END