World Lebanese Cultural Union
Commission on Information and Communication
WORLD LEBANESE CULTURAL UNION
Office of the Secretary General
   www.wlcu.org

Professor Walid Phares, World Secretary General  of the World Lebanese Cultural Union issued the following comments on the debate at the United Nations preceding the vote of the UNSCR 1559.

COMMENTS ON THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LEBANESE GOVERNMENT
Requesting the Council to withdraw its consideration of that resolution before the vote, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, Ambassador Mohamad Issa, said that "friendly Syria had helped Lebanon to maintain stability and security within its borders.  Syrian troops had been deployed and redeployed at Lebanon’s request (...) Also, the matter was purely internal and related to the upcoming presidential elections in Lebanon."

In response, the WLCU states that per the statement of the late Syrian President Hafez Assad himself in 1976, Syrian forces entered Lebanon by his own orders to accomplish Syrian interests. In 1978, these forces clashed with the Lebanese army, prompting the UNSC to issue Resolution 436 calling for a cease fire between the invading Syrian army and the local armed populations. In 1982, the UNSC issued another resolution demanding that all foreign forces, including the Syrians, would leave the country. Syrian forces have been involved in mass shelling of civilian areas, military operations, kidnapping, and torture in Lebanon. As of 1990, Syrian forces were in control of Lebanon's territories and institutions. Despite all calls for withdrawals they haven't pulled out their military apparatus.

M Issa, said that there were no militias in Lebanon.  There was only the national Lebanese resistance, which appeared after the Israeli occupation and which would remain so long as Israel remained.  The resistance force existed alongside the Lebanese national forces.  Lebanon determined the presence and size of the force, depending on the country’s need. The authority of Lebanon extended to all parts of Lebanon except those areas occupied by Israel.

The WLCU questions the statement of Mr Issa that there is nor militia in Lebanon. These armed militias operates under the name of Hizbollah, the Forces of the Baath, Jundallah, al Muqawama al Islamiya, al jamaa al Islamiya, the armed forces of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and many others are operating in the open, and often organizing military marches. Many among them operates jails, where Lebanese and other citizens are being detained and tortured. These militias have assassinated Lebanese citizens and of other nationalities. In addition, there are militias operating inside the Palestinian camps, including Fatah, FPLP, FPDLP, Ahmed Jibril faction,  as well as al Qaida. The concern we have with M Issa's statements is that he acknowledges in public that his Government endorses, supports and coordinates with these Terrorist organizations under the term "resistance," which is what these entities call themselves. Furthermore, the Lebanese Government representative stated that his Government determines the presence and size of the force, which proves that his superiors are organically involved with these Terrorists organizations. This by itself renders the UNSCR 1559 even more necessary.

Mr Issa said: that submitting the draft resolution confused two matters.  The first was the distinguished relations linking Lebanon and Syria, which achieved their joint interests, particularly the interests of Lebanon.  Friendly Syria had helped Lebanon to maintain stability and security within its borders.  It had warded off radicalism and violence, fed by the violence exercised by Israel against the Palestinians.  Secondly, the matter was purely internal, and related to the presidential elections to be held in Lebanon.  Syrian troops came to Lebanon in accordance with legitimate requests.  Their presence was guarded by an agreement concluded by two sovereign States.  Those troops had been redeployed several times.  They contributed to rebuffing the radical reactions emanating from repulsive Israeli actions.

The WLCU argues that the so-called distinguished relations are between the two regimes, not the two countries. One regime occupying the other country, and hence controlling its Government. These relations are equivalent to the relations between Iraq and Kuwait during the Saddam invasion. The Syrian regime is not friendly to Lebanon, having shelled its civilian populations between June 1976 when it invaded and October 1990, when it completed that invasion.

Syrian forces are directly responsible for the detention, kidnapping, torture, and transfer to Syria, of thousands of Lebanese citizens for over two decades. It ordered its army into Lebanon, fought Lebanon's army and population, imposed a pro-Syrian regime and signed an agreement with its own imposed regime. It is obvious that the representative of the Syrian-controlled regime would defend that "special relationship."

Syria didn't fight Terrorism in Lebanon. It shielded it, trained its forces and armed them. It spread the culture of hate, and encouraged the ideologies of radicalism. The Secretary General of the United Nations can simply send a fact finding mission to realize that. 

M Issa added: "Hence, saying that Syria supported radical movements in Lebanon was not true.  To the contrary, Syria supported the Lebanese national resistance, which desired to liberate the territories occupied by Israel.  The draft resolution was talking about supporting free and just elections in Lebanon."  He did not believe that internal matter had ever been discussed in the Council relating to any Member State.  It was an internal matter, he stressed.  The United Nations had not interfered in that matter with regard to any other State.  There was no justification for the draft resolution, which constituted an interference in the internal affairs of a Member State.

The WLCU reminds M Issa that the UN is not interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs, but it is calling to end Syria's interference in Lebanon's affairs. The UNSC is not imposing a President, nor forming Governments, nor appointing ambassadors and diplomats in Lebanon. It is asking Syria not to alter Lebanon's political process. Had Syria not been in Lebanon, the UN resolution wouldn't have been even requested. Syria created the conditions for the UNSCR to be issued. The justification for the draft resolution is grounded in the non-implementation of international law by Syria and its violent intervention in Lebanon.

International Law considers the relations between an occupier and an occupied as of the domain of the United Nations, not a closed file defined by the two regimes as bilateral relations. The complaint was filed by the civil society of Lebanon, and cannot be filed by a Government under the control of an occupation army. 

The US Position
Asserting that the Syrian actions in the past week had made a "crude mockery" of the principle of a free and fair presidential electoral process, the United States’ representative, ambassador John Danforth said the Syrian Government had imposed its political will on Lebanon and had compelled the Cabinet and Lebanese National Assembly to amend its constitution and abort the electoral process by extending the term of the current President by three years.  Clearly, the Lebanese Parliament had been pressured, and even threatened, by Syria and its agents to make them comply. (See full statement in the endnotes).

The WLCU comment on the US Position
The WLCU praises the statement of the US representative and declares that the majority of the People of Lebanon as well as the overwhelming majority of the Lebanese Diaspora supports the UNSCR 1959 and the position of the United States in this regards. The Lebanese American community, represented by its organizations and leadership stands by the US Government in requesting that the UN demands a Syrian and other foreign forces withdrawal from Lebanon.

WLCU delegation at the UNSC in March 2004. With US ambassador Negroponte

The French Position
Similarly, the representative of France, ambassador Jean Marc de Sabliere, who, along with the United States, had introduced the resolution, worried that persistent serious interference in the political life of Lebanon might cause it to retreat from the objectives that had been reaffirmed constantly by the international community.  That was why a rapid mobilization and a decisive reaction from the Council had seemed essential.  By refraining to act, the Council would have sanctioned interference in the internal affairs of another State.  By acting in a robust manner, it was showing its confidence in Lebanon’s future, which must include its full restoration of sovereignty, and not the intensification of interference.

The WLCU comment on the French position
The WLCU endorses the French position at the UNSC and praises the French representative for being clear as to the threat paused to the international community by Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs.

The Chinese position
Having abstained in the voting, China’s representative, M Wang Guangya, said "that respect for the principles of sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs constituted a centrepiece of China’s foreign policy and were principles of the United Nations.  In adherence to those principles, he supported safeguarding the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon.  But, the draft resolution touched on the question of the presidential elections in Lebanon, and such questions fell within Lebanon’s internal affairs and should be decided by the Lebanese people themselves.'

The WLCU response to the Chinese position
The WLCU respects the Chinese position described as non interference in internal affairs. However the WLCU reminds the Chinese mission at the UN that the interference in Lebanese affairs, is the Syrian occupation and intervention in the constitutional process of Lebanon. The aim of the UNSCR is to stop the interference of a neighboring country -Syria- in the internal affairs of a sovereign state  -Lebanon. The Chinese position, if it wishes to be consistent with Chinese Foreign policy should support UNSCR 1559 as a way to end Syria's interference in Lebanon's affairs. When the Imperial Armies of Japan were occupying large areas in China before and during WWII, and had established a pro-Japanese Government, allies from around the world helped the Chinese resistance to pull the Japanese military out of China and not state that actions of the Chinese Government under Japanese control were internal matters. The WLCU hopes that the Chinese Government would reconsider its position after the reprot by the UN Secretary General and help restoring Lebanon's freedom from outside interference.

The Russian Position
The representative of the Russian Federation, ambassador Andrey Desinov said that, with tensions high in the region, any wrong step might exacerbate the situation and lead to a new focal point of instability.  He had tabled amendments to the text, aimed at moving it towards the context of a Middle East settlement as a whole and preventing the document from being one-sided and from concentrating solely on domestic Lebanese affairs.  His proposals would have improved the draft by making it more acceptable to Council members.  Their lack of acceptance, however, had made it impossible for him to support the resolution.

The WLCU response to the Russian position
The WLCU understands the rational of the Russian Federation with regards the critical situation in the region, and the tensions threatening stability. The WLCU reminds the Russian delegate that a major source of instability in the region are the actions by the Syrian regime which, in addition to its opposition to the Peace Process, has been involved in supporting Terror activities both in Iraq and Lebanon. Furthermore, we remind the Russian delegate of the Russian Federation ongoing tragic problems with Terrorism within its own borders. The UNSCR 1559 aims among other issues to disarm the Terrorist militias in Lebanon. The delegate from Russia understands that among these armed groups, those who have been supportive of the Jihadi cells at war with the Russian People. By simply reviewing the media in Lebanon, the Russian Government can easily understand that pro-Jihadi Chechen groups are operating from Lebanon. By supporting this resolution the Russian Government would be in fact helping itself reducing the basis of support operating in Lebanon. When the Russian Government would request a UNSC meeting to examine the situation of Terrorism within its own borders, it would make all the sense to the Russian Government to actively support a UNSCR that would address the issue of Terror inside Lebanon.  The WLCU hopes the Russian Government would review its position and becomes active in combating Terrorism in Lebanon, as a way to respond to the horrific acts launched by Jihadists against innocent civilians in Russia's schools and hospitals.

The Pakistan position
Pakistan’s representative, Munir Akram said he had also abstained, as the resolution was not consistent with the Council’s functions and responsibilities.  Moreover, there was no evidence of any urgent threat to peace.  There had been no complaint from the country whose sovereignty and integrity the draft purported to uphold.  On the contrary, the Lebanese representatives had communicated to the Council their opposition to consideration of the resolution.  Besides, the text addressed the wrong threat.  If there were a threat to Lebanon, that was well known and did not arise from Syria.

 He said the text was also unclear, since it would be impossible for the Council to determine whether and when the constitutional rules of any country were "devised without foreign interference or influence". He added that the Council would find it impossible to enforce changes in the national constitutions and rules of sovereign States. 

The WLCU response to the Pakistani position
The WLCU in general, and the Lebanese American community, values the campaign waged by President Perves Musharref against al Qaida cells in Pakistan. We hoped the Pakistani Government would have been understanding of the threat of Terrorism arising within Lebanon. The Pakistani Government often asks the UN to discuss the situation in Kashmir while the Indian Government didn't raise it officially. The aim of the UN is to help nations and peoples to express their aspirations freely. Besides, if Pakistan considers Syria as non occupying Lebanon, then with which logic it considers India occupying Kashmir, or Israel occupying Arab lands. If Pakistan doesn't see the al Qaida cells operating from Lebanon's cities, how can it ask the international community to support its own struggle against al Qaida in its own country. Furthermore, the Pakistani Government should realize that its obstruction to the liberation of Lebanon at the United Nations is not going to help its image with millions of Lebanese Americans, Mideast Americans and tens of millions of other Americans when US-Pakistani relations are reviewed. Pleasing the Syrian regime could be important for Pakistan, but offending a whole Diaspora of active and successful people in more than 30 countries won't be the best idea for Pakistan's Government. The WLCU hopes Islamabad would reconsider its position and play a more constructive role in helping Lebanon reclaim its sovereignty.  

As far as the UN Council determination of constitutional rules, it suffice for the UNSC to send a fact finding mission to the country where abuse is taking place as was the case in South Africa, East Timor and Haiti. Besides, the UN is not calling on enforcing Constitutional stipulations, but to allow the Lebanese people to decide over them. Will Pakistan accept that Israel for example would decide over the Constitution of the Palestinians living under its rule?  

The Algerian position
M Abdallah Baali, representing Algeria said that his country "was staunchly committed to the sovereignty, unity and independence of Lebanon, as well as to respect for non-interference in its internal affairs, and had decided to abstain on the draft resolution for the following reasons.  First, the situation in Lebanon did not appear to constitute a threat to international peace and security.  Therefore, it was not of a nature to prompt an examination by and decision of the Council."

He added, the Council must not interfere in the internal affairs of States or in bilateral affairs between States.  The Council’s consideration of an internal matter for Lebanon constituted a harmful precedent which must not be repeated, unless the Council was to be led into serious excesses, running counter to the United Nations Charter.  Only a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement could bring about a definitive peace in the Middle East.

The WLCU is surprised to hear the Algerian representative state that the situation in Lebanon is not a threat to international Peace and Security. While Algeria, a country we cherish- has been attacked by Salafist Terrorists who committed barbaric acts against Algeria's civil society for more than a decade, it is ironic that its mission at the UN stands by the Syrian regime which sponsors Terrorism, rather than with Lebanon's society which is seeking liberation. Algeria should be the country that understands Lebanon the most, for it showed the world how it resisted foreign occupation. It should stand by the UNSCR that calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces. Its latest statement is unfortunate. It would have been the equivalent of a diplomat stating that the French occupation of Algeria is not a reason for concern. The Algerian representative surely knows that the Salafist Terrorists who kills children, women, singers and policemen in Algeria have roots and support in the Terrorist cells in Lebanon. The WLCU hopes the Algerian Government would stand by Lebanon and help the Secretary General act to implement the resolution.  

The Algerian representative stated that the UN must not interfere in individual countries internal affairs. Then the Algerian ambassador, who heads the Arab League bloc, should refrain from intervening on behalf of the Arabs under Israel's control. Then he should have rejected the UN endorsed intervention in former Yugoslavia's internal affairs. And more importantly, the Algerian representative must put an end to his Government constant intervention in Morocco's "internal affairs" in the Western Sahara. The so-called Middle East Peace should start with regimes whose ideologies and track record indicate military aggression against their neighbor, as is the case with Syria, and was the case with Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

The Brazilian position
M Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg representing Brazil said he had abstained on the vote.  He said his delegation was following closely the events in Lebanon, "as a result of its friendly historic ties to the Lebanese people.  Bilateral relations with Lebanon were a high priority for Brazil.  Resolution 1559 dealt with matters within the domestic jurisdiction of Lebanon.  The existence of a dispute likely to endanger international peace and security had not been properly characterized in the text.  He reiterated his commitment to a lasting peace in the Middle East, in conformity with, among other things, Council resolutions and various peace initiatives."

The WLCU response to the Brazilian position
The WLCU regards Brazil as the host country of the largest Lebanese community in the world. More than 6 million Brazilians are from Lebanese ancestry. The WLCU understands the concerns of the Brazilian Government regarding the so-called domestic jurisdiction of Lebanon. But the question is not about a normal election in a sovereign country. It is as abnormal election as was the case under Pinochet, or Brazil under the military regime. It is comparable to elections held in Nazi-occupied France or Soviet-dominated Poland. The Brazilian Government, whose good sense in international relations should realize that the mother country of millions of Brazilians, including many members of the Brazilian Congress and Government, as well as strong components of the national economy of Brazil, is under occupation. When a country is occupied, its domestic jurisdiction responds to the occupier not to its own people. Hence, the WLCU hopes the Brazilian Government would review its position, especially after consultations with the Lebanese community. The WLCU, which represent the Lebanese Diaspora, including the Federation of the Lebanese Clubs of Brazil, as an INGO, believes the Brazilian leadership would understand better the real tragedy of Lebanon, after it engages in a real dialogue with a significant community within its own civil society. 

The Philippino Position
Ambassador Lauro Baja Jr of the  Philippines said he had abstained because the resolution could not be justified as part of the role given to the Council in the collective security system under the Charter.  There was a fine but clear boundary that marked the Council’s role, as embodied in Article 39.  Resolution 1559 had crossed that line and had collided "head on" with the principle of non-interference.

The WLCU Response to the Philippino position
The Government of the Philippines which was a partner in the Coalition of the willing in removing Saddam Hussein, understands that the international society must intervene to help a population under oppression, which is different from interfering in a country's political process. Manilla supported the UN role in East Timor without considering it an interference in Indonesia's internal affairs. Besides, the Philippino Government appreciates the fact that disarming the Terrorists in Lebanon will be a part of a campaign against Terrorism which the Philippines suffers from, particularly with the Abu Sayyaf group. The WLCU hopes that the Philippino Government would revise its position in light of a better reading of this resolution.

The WLCU congratulates nine countries
The World Lebanese Cultural Union, on behalf of more than 12 million Lebanese around the world, extends its congratulations to and expresses its best wishes to the Governments of  Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom and United States. It hopes that the other members will review the decision in light of our remarks and unify their position under UNSCR 1559 in the interest of international law, justice and the aspirations of the Lebanese People.