Testimony of George Zoghby
Date:March 31, 1998
(Courtesy of USCFL)

George Zoghby, President of the Mobile Area Chapter of the National Alliance of Lebanese Americans addressing the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations

INTRODUCTION
My name is George M. Zoghby. I am the President of the Mobile Area Chapter of the National Alliance of Lebanese Americans (NALA). NALA is a tax exempt charitable organization whose primary mission in the United States is to inform and educate our fellow citizens regarding issues of Lebanese/American interests, and to bring a heightened sense of awareness to our fellow Lebanese Americans of Lebanon's rich cultural heritage, which is seriously threatened by a deepening foreign occupation. NALA wishes to thank the Committee for honoring its request to submit this Testimony to the Subcommittee.

POLITICAL BACKGROUND

Since the Subcommittee last conducted public hearings on this issue, Lebanon has witnessed both a papal visit to Beirut, in May of 1997, as well as stepped up military operations in southern Lebanon through the Summer, Fall and Winter of 1997.

Positive Developments. On July 30, 1997 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright lifted the travel ban for U.S. citizens that had existed regarding Lebanon since 1985. In September, the Secretary made an official visit to Lebanon and in November, President Clinton removed Lebanon from the list of drug trafficking nations due in large part to the eradication program instituted by the government that took 3400 acres of land in the Bekaa Valley out of drug cultivation.

In addition and as a further result of American diplomacy, the 12 year old siege of the south Lebanon city of Jezzine, with a population of 30,000 people, was lifted on December 19 as the crossing at Kfar Falous was opened which reconnected the city with Sidon on Lebanon’s coast for the first time since 1985.

Emboldened by this show of support by the United States and earlier by Pope John Paul II’s pilgrimage, Lebanese students for the first time since public demonstrations against the government were banned in 1992, openly protested the repressive policies of the Syrian supported government in Beirut. In response to government censorship of a televised interview with nationalist leader Michel Aoun, thousands of students poured into the streets. Though 60 were arrested, the students did not desist but pressed their demands for a restoration of civil liberties to daily Lebanese life, including free elections.

Encouraged by such acts, 14 Opposition members to the Lebanese Parliament challenged, in the Constitutional Court, the Syrian backed election law to cancel or delay for 2 more years the scheduled municipal elections which had been set for 1997. The appeal was reviewed and the Syrian backed law was overturned. Elections have been ordered for mid-1998. These elections had not been held since 1963.

This is the good news. The irrepressible Lebanese have challenged the iron will of the Syrian occupation as it is being executed by the Syrian backed government in Beirut. Though stiff resistance to freedom persists, the Lebanese, having found allies in the international community, particularly in the United States, have built some momentum toward achieving greater freedom for themselves. NALA joins with Lebanese everywhere to express its gratitude to the United States for its efforts in this regard to restore to Lebanon her "rightful sovereignty".

Negative Developments. On the down side of the ledger, Lebanon continues to labor under the burden of Syrian occupation of its national territory resulting in control of its political and economic life and continued conflict in southern Lebanon.

A Poor Human Rights Report. On October 9, 1997, Amnesty International released its report on human rights violations against the Lebanese committed by the Syrian backed government. Cited most prominently in the report was the occurrence of mass arbitrary political arrests and violations of basic individual rights in the name of state security. Lebanese Security Forces, increasingly under the direction and control of their Syrian counterparts, are increasingly conducting themselves as the enforcement arm of a totalitarian state in the Syrian model.

Fourteen thousand Lebanese remain missing as a consequence of the war. According to the Amnesty International Report on Lebanon, the Lebanese government has shown no interest in assisting family members to determine the fate or whereabouts of their relatives who fell into the hands of militia bands, and in some cases, to Lebanese security forces. The Syrian backed government enacted a law in 1995 to expedite the declaration of missing family members as being deceased. The statute does not provide for any investigation into the true fate of the person prior to declaring the person dead. The problem, as noted by Amnesty International, is that the "leaders of some of the militias responsible for the abductions during the war are currently serving as government ministers." Many of the abductees were taken because of their political or religious beliefs.

Melding of Lebanese & Syrian Economies. Economically, Syria continues to exert undue influence over the Lebanese economy. In February of this year, Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri and Syrian Vice President Khaddam announced an agreement to end all customs duties on each other’s products to be phased in over a 4 year period. This effectively merges the two economies together. Syria currently has a permanent customs house at the Port of Beirut and the Beirut International Airport exercising its economic sovereignty on Lebanese soil to the derogation of Lebanese sovereignty.

In addition, Lebanon’s rebuilding economy is progressing in a manner that is creating social tensions that can lead to renewed political instability. The Lebanese government released economic statistics in February 1998 that revealed the following:

Regarding incomes:

Regarding living conditions:

Regarding Health Care:

Income Disparities Lead to Civil Strife. The statistics bear out the fact that there is a growing disparity between rich and poor which the government is not addressing. That this creates instability was born out by the "hunger strike" declared on July 4, 1997 and staged against the government by Sheikh Tufaili, a leader of the pro-Iranian break away Hezbollah group in the Bekaa Valley city of Baalbek. Tufaili took the position in November that the Districts of the Bekaa and Hermal in the Bekaa Valley were off limits to the Lebanese Government. This prompted a deployment of the Lebanese Army into the districts and civil unrest. There were more clashes between the Army and Tufaili’s forces in late January of this year that resulted in 50 casualties. Tufaili escaped from the district of Baalbek over the border toward Syria.

The Tufaili uprising had support not only from Shiite Hezbollah partisans but from non Hezbollah elements who likewise are suffering from government policies that concentrate government spending on construction projects in Beirut while ignoring the plight of the people who lost everything to the war.

Syrian Political Hegemony in Lebanon - Rejection of Israel’s Offer to Withdraw.. The Syrian government persists in exercising hegemony over the Lebanese government to the detriment of the Lebanese. The most flagrant manifestation of this exertion of undue influence is occurring as this committee meets.

Beginning in earnest earlier this year, the Israeli government has proposes that, in compliance with the 1978 UN Resolution 425, it withdraw its 1,000 man force from its self declared Security Zone in southern Lebanon. This is a 9 mile strip of land along the Lebanese side of its border with Israel.

Incredibly, in the face of the Israeli offer to unilaterally withdraw from Lebanese territory, the Lebanese government is resisting the proposal. The official government position is that the 1978 resolution called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. Since the Israeli proposal comes 21 years later, it is not in compliance with the resolution’s requirement of "immediacy". Since the Israeli proposal contains a condition that the Lebanese government exert its authority over its own national territory, the Lebanese have said the Israeli proposal for compliance is conditional and therefore not in compliance with the Resolution.

Lebanon’s Seeming Irrational Position. The Lebanese government position is that the Israeli government can not comply with UN Resolution 425 unless its withdrawal is tied to and conditioned upon an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. This position is inconsistent with the exact language of Resolution 425, which calls upon Israel, "immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory." The official Lebanese position on the Israeli proposal, itself, imposes a condition on Israeli compliance that is in no way a part of 425, namely the condition that Israel and Syria settle the issue of the Golan as a condition for implementation of 425. The Israeli condition, such as it is, calls upon the Lebanese government to do that which every other nation-state is obligated to do, namely, to exert its authority over all of its territory. The Hezbollah militia is not a part of the command structure of the Lebanese Armed Forces nor the Lebanese Internal Security Forces. It is not subject to political control exerted by the Lebanese Government. If the Lebanese Government is not willing to exert its authority over the southern border area, implicit in its refusal to disarm the extrajudicial militia force which operates there, then the government is providing Israel with justification for its continued presence in southern Lebanon as a measure taken in self defense.

Syrian Usurpation. Such action on the part of the Lebanese Government is not taken with Lebanese national interests in mind. Rather, it is to neighboring Syria’s national interest that Hezbollah remain active in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah as a military force is justified in Lebanon by the presence of Israeli forces and its allied militia, the South Lebanon Army. An Israeli withdrawal would remove the justification of Hezbollah military activity in Lebanon against Israel; it would lead to the disbanding of the Hezbollah militia, and thus adversely affect the ability of Syria to maintain the political and diplomatic leverage that Hezbollah activities in Lebanon provide it in its conflict with Israel over the Golan Heights; its dealings with the Arab world; and with the international community at large.

The usurpation of Lebanese sovereignty in this matter is being committed not by Israel which seeks to withdraw from Lebanon, but by Syria, which by its veto, is insisting that Israel remain in occupation of Lebanese territory. Syria is using Lebanese national territory as a surrogate or alternate means to advance its own national interests, vis a vis Israel, to the derogation of Lebanese sovereignty and national interests.

NALA welcomes the Israeli willingness to finally comply with UN Res. 425 by withdrawing from Lebanon and expects the Lebanese government to conduct itself as any other sovereign state by assuming and exerting its national authority over all of its national territory. This is no more than is required by the 1978 UN Res. 425, the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon and the 1989 Taif Accord under which the current government in Lebanon was organized in 1991.

Because the current Lebanese government can not find it within its power to even accept the return of sovereign Lebanese territory from an occupying force in deference to the demands and requirements of

the Syrian government, NALA continues to recommend to this committee that the Lebanese Government be bypassed as an instrument for delivering American aid to Lebanon. Lebanon remains a party to a number of interlocking treaty obligations with the Syrian government so that the United States could not know whether any aid entrusted to the Lebanese government would actually be used for its intended purpose in Lebanon, or would be simply funneled to Damascus.

Though Lebanon and Syria were taken off of the list of drug trafficking nations by the President, Syria remains on the State Department list of Terrorist Sponsoring States. There is a legislative prohibition against any appropriated funds destined for Syria. This has been the case for several years. 1999 will be no different from any other year since 1990 when Syria finally captured Beirut and assumed control of the Lebanese government.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AID

Despite the political and economic realities in Lebanon today, but rather, because of them, NALA recommends to the Committee that the United States Government sustain and expand its aid to Lebanon. Lebanon is a key to American interests in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. A strong American presence is needed in Lebanon to counter the Iranian/Syrian efforts to subvert American diplomacy and interests in the region.

The litany of ills which beset Lebanon today are recited herein not as a rationale for the United States to abandon Lebanon, but rather to define and measure the challenge that we face to wrest Lebanon from the Syrian/Iranian orbit into which it has fallen and to restore it as a stable moderate Arabic republic. Past efforts by the Administration to encourage the evolution of a more independent political leadership in Lebanon are beginning to take root. The effort needs to be continued and sustained. Lebanon did not become a vassal state overnight and it will not emerge from its subservient status over night. NALA recommends the following areas to be addressed in the Foreign Operations budget for Lebanon:

  1. Humanitarian Relief

  2. The Lebanese Armed Forces

  3. Lebanese Educational Institutions

  4. Infrastructure Repair

Consistent with the analysis given herein, the United States can provide needed assistance to the Lebanese people in each of these areas without entrusting appropriated funds to the suspect Lebanese Government.

Humanitarian Relief. NALA requests that the Congress give serious consideration to address the growing chasm between rich and poor in Lebanon which is going unaddressed by the Lebanese government. Private and Voluntary Organizations (PVO’s) which qualify under the provisions of Title II of the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1985 [Public Law 98-473] are on the ground and

operational in Lebanon performing excellent work among Lebanon’s poor. Only due to the good work of such private charities has some form of safety net been provided to the poorest among the Lebanese. Lest we forget, it is from among these desperately poor who feel abandoned by the Lebanese government and who therefore have no stake in maintaining peace and stability that "martyrs" are recruited, trained and sent forth to spread death and destruction beyond Lebanon’s borders. By meeting the needs of these charitable organizations who are already on the ground servicing these needs, the United States can fill a vital humanitarian gap while at the same time addressing a significant factor impacting the security of the country. NALA recommends that the Congress continue to fund programs of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association, operated through the offices of John Cardinal O'Connor of New York as a worthy PVO to receive and disburse U.S. Aid. This Association, through the Pontifical Mission office in Lebanon is performing immeasurable work through major programs to bring medical and housing reconstruction assistance to Lebanon's new class of people living in poverty. Though this is a charity of the Catholic Church, it serves anyone in need regardless of their confessional affiliation.

If we in the West do not act in this regard, Hezbollah will continue to be the main source for this type of assistance. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is more than a militia. It is also the provider of hospitals, schools, community homes and many other forms of social institutions and aid. With the material comfort that their money buys for the people of southern Lebanon, the Iranians are also purchasing converts to their cause. Hezbollah will not be eliminated from southern Lebanon with laser guided rockets and artillery shells. We must become engaged in Lebanon to improve the economic lot of the desperately impoverished people who are currently serving as recruits to join the "martyr brigades" that strap on bombs and walk into Tel Aviv restaurants or drive bomb laden trucks into buildings that house American service men and women. American humanitarian aid, therefore, has an ideological component to it.

NALA also recommends to the Committee that Lebanon participate in the Sustainable Development Assistance Program. This Program is to be funded with $298 million as the regional allocation for Asia and the Near East, and totally funded with $1,769 million. The 5 goals of this program address the needs of income inequity which is outlined above.

The Lebanese Armed Forces. The Army in Lebanon remains as the most respected national institution among the Lebanese people. Under the Military Assistance and Voluntary Peacekeeping section of the budget proposal for FY 1999, the Administration proposes to spend $50,000,000 on the International Military Education & Training (IMET) program. The officers of the Lebanese Armed Forces have been a traditional component beneficiary of that program over the years and NALA strongly recommends that its participation continue and expand.

The United States already has a substantial investment in this force. It is a very professional force. Through officer participation in the IMET program, its upper echelons are schooled in Western ideology of respect for civilian authority and democratic processes. If and when Lebanese independence re-emerges, a strong national army will be a requisite. It is an investment in the future.

If the United States does not provide this officer training, these officers will receive their training in Syria. This process has already begun. To the extent that it persists, then this vital institution to the re-emergence of Lebanese democracy will have been infected with an ideology that is alien to the concept of civilian control of the military.

American Supported Lebanese Educational Facilities. There is no better way to show U.S. support for the country than by investing in American based institutions of higher learning in Lebanon. The American University of Beirut (AUB) and the Lebanese American University (LAU) are two distinct examples where American based education combines with student initiative to produce a long lasting and effective American influence in the country. U.S. support for these two universities also demonstrates to all in the region that the U.S. Government views its commitment to American based education in the region seriously.

AUB and LAU believe in promoting the Western liberal arts tradition which helps advance the cause of peace in the Middle East by teaching tolerance and dialogue in the American tradition as an alternative to extremism and confrontation. LAU and AUB also contribute to the economic, social and political viability of Lebanon by teaching the next generation of Lebanese leaders to think in an open, democratic and tolerant fashion. In addition, AUB houses one of the finest medical facilities in the country.

The United States Congress has given steadfast support to these institutions of higher learning in the past. Current events in Lebanon underscore the need for a continuing commitment from the United States to promote learning and tolerance through these institutions.

The American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) Program, from which these American schools in Lebanon have applied to obtain their funding was cut by 50% in the FY 1998 budget and is projected to be eliminated in the FY 1999 estimated budget figures. As NALA has requested in the past, competition for unearmarked USAID funds by these educational institutions in Lebanon will effectively dry up this vital source of funding. NALA requests the Committee to sustain funding for this program, at least at the level appropriated for FY 1998 of $3 million.

Infrastructure Repair. Lebanon is well on its way toward rebuilding the elements of its economic infrastructure such as electric generating plants, water purification plants, telephone and other communication and transportation facilities.

NALA recommends to the Committee that the Congress appropriate funds which were committed by the Administration within the context of the Friends of Lebanon Conference mentioned above. Supposedly, this commitment is reflected in the allocation for Lebanon in the Economic Support Fund (ESF) section of the Bilateral Economic Assistance section of the Administration’s Budget proposal for FY 1999. NALA supports the Administration’s budget request. However, we strongly recommend that severe restrictions be placed on such an appropriation by the Congress in order to immunize it from the institutional corruption that exists in Lebanon and to assure that the entire appropriation is spent in Lebanon for the stated purpose of rebuilding the infrastructural damage done by the war.

AID TO LEBANON WITHIN THE REGIONAL CONTEXT

American - Iranian Confrontation. The United States confrontation with Iran took an interesting turn over the past year with the election of a moderate to the Iranian Presidency. He has indicated a desire to thaw relations with the United States. This has come at a time when the Caspian Sea basin oil and gas fields are at the threshold of production and the site of the pipelines to carry these commodities to market is being negotiated. Several prominent former members of the American foreign policy establishment have encouraged a "rethinking" of the American attitude toward Iran. Despite this lobby effort, the United States condemned the $2 billion natural gas deal signed by the French company Total, SA with the Iranian government. Members of Congress sought to enforce a boycott of France under the terms of the 1996 Iran-Libya sanctions act, though sanctions were not imposed.

In another significant development with regard to this competition, the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) economic conference scheduled for November 16, 1997 in Qatar was almost totally scuttled. Led by Syria and Iran, there was heavy lobbying among the MENA states to boycott the conference in order to embarrass Israel and the United States. This was to be the third such conference since the start of

the Madrid Conference Peace Talks. It had provided a forum for Israel to meet with regional states to plan projects of economic cooperation. Though Secretary Albright personally went to the region to lobby against a boycott, Iran and Syria were able to attract Saudi Arabia, the members of the Persian Gulf Emirates and Egypt, among others into the boycott. In the end, neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian Authority foreign ministers attended. It was a blow to American prestige in the region. The United States was exposed to this failure due to the lack of progress in the Middle East Peace Talks.

The American Co-Sponsored Peace Talks Jeopardized. Since the Israeli decision to move forward in March of 1997 with the Har Homa settlement project in the eastern sectors of Jerusalem, there has been no progress on the Israeli - Palestinian track. Since the end of the Wye Plantation round of talks between Israel and Syria, there has been no progress on that track either. With the election of Benjamin Netanyahu in May 1996 and his announced policy of no compromise on the Golan, the Israeli-Syrian track has been at a dead end as well.

During the past year, Ambassador Dennis Ross’ attempts to move the talks along by pressing Israel on the settlements issue have been proceeded by some horrible terrorist incident. A terrorist attack was staged in Israel on the eve of his July 31 trip to the area. Another terrorist incident occurred in Jerusalem in September on the eve of Secretary Albright’s maiden voyage into the Middle Eastern arena. In October, it was announced that the Hamas suicide bombers received their training from Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

The year also saw a botched Mossad attempt to assassinate Hamas leader Khalid Meshal in Jordan. This incident was seen as a betrayal of King Hussein who has been Israel’s greatest friend among the Arab leaders. In order to mend fences, Netanyahu ordered the release of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, who immediately demanded the dismantling of the Israeli state.

The intransigence of the Netanyahu government on the issue of the peace talks has created divisions within Israel and within Netanyahu’s government. In January of this year, David Levy, the Foreign Minister resigned from the cabinet and led his 5 man Gesher faction out of the Likud coalition leaving Netanyahu with a slim 1 vote margin in the Israeli Knesseth. Defense Minister Mordechai has also threatened to resign over the issue.

The United States is in need of a breakthrough in the Talks before our prestige in the region is further bled. Without any prospects on either the Syrian or the Palestinian tracks, the United States and Israel have turned to Lebanon. The Mordechai proposal to withdraw from Lebanon under the provisions of UN Resolution 425, rather than as part of the peace talks is the only opportunity available to break the impasse.

The March diplomatic offensive launched by Israel in Europe to secure support for the initiative met success in France where commitments were made of French troops to step in to augment their UNIFL contingent to assist in the Israeli withdrawal.

Syria, however, has been able to mount an effective diplomatic counter offensive. Syria has the support of Russia to link any Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon to a similar withdrawal from the Golan. This was made by Russian Foreign Minister Primakov on March 7. British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, traveling in Beirut on March 18 followed the same position when he stated, "We would also like to see it (425) implemented in the context of a comprehensive settlement which would enable progress on the peace process for all the tracks, not just one track."

Following a meeting between the Syrian and Iranian Foreign Ministers in Damascus on March 23, Hezbollah launched its largest series of attacks in over a year in southern Lebanon on March 24 as shelling

attacks were launched in all sectors of the Security Zone. This came on the eve of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s trip to Israel, where he, too stated that the Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon could take place only with the involvement of Syria.

An Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo held on March 25 went even further. They issued a statement that Israel hand back "other occupied Arab lands" as a condition for Israel withdrawing from Lebanon.

It is clear that Syria is blocking an initiative that will move the peace talks out of the dead end at which it has set for almost 2 years. It is clear, especially in light of the

It is clear that Syria is blocking an initiative that will move the peace talks out of the dead end at which it has set for almost 2 years. It is clear, especially in light of the failed MENA conference in Qatar, and the relative ease by which Syrian diplomacy wins allies to Syrian strategic maneuvers, that American prestige is suffering greatly.

Clear also is that Lebanon is the key that unlocks progress in these talks. NALA has advocated from the start that "Lebanon First" is the only way this diplomatic initiative can succeed. An Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon triggers a domino effect. With proper security guarantees for Israel that can be made by a transitory force, preferably an EU beefed up UNIFIL Force, Hezbollah will lose its justification to exist and disband. Without the diplomatic leverage that this surrogate force has made available to him, Syrian President Hafez al Assad will be forced to settle on the Golan sooner rather than later. This will open the door to an Israeli-Lebanese Accord and thus bring 2 more Arab states into the circle of peace, leaving only an accommodation with the Palestinian Authority in order to close the circle.

The Syrian veto to the Israeli withdrawal must be met and over come. Syria can veto direct talks between Israel and Lebanon, but it can do nothing about negotiations between Israel and the UN or France. The transitory force, after overseeing the withdrawal of Israeli forces would then deal with the Lebanese government in order to establish terms for its departure and the turning over of its positions to the Lebanese authorities. This can be accomplished without the Lebanese ever directly negotiating with the Israelis at all. American success in this diplomatic effort, which is the political payoff for our military victory in the 1991 Gulf War, is dependent upon this move being made.

Should the United States fail in its mission to mediate a comprehensive peace, the resultant Iranian political victory will have reverberations far beyond Israel. All of our friends in the region will be placed in jeopardy and strategic American economic interests could be adversely affected.

Lebanon, we believe, is the lynch pin to this struggle. It is only through American aid and involvement in Lebanon that this platform can be denied to Syria and its ally Iran and the circle of peace can finally be closed.

CONCLUSION

The areas to which we recommend the application of U.S. foreign aid:

  1. Humanitarian Relief;

  2. Lebanese Armed Forces

  3. Lebanese Educational Institutions; and

  4. Infrastructural Repairwere not randomly selected.

Rather, it is NALA's recommendation to this Committee that each of these areas be addressed in order for the United States to become more engaged in Lebanon and the critical struggle that is now taking place there. NALA recommends the adoption of its program for Lebanon not only because it will benefit the Lebanese; not only because by doing so American interests will be preserved; and not only to blunt the Iranian challenge to American power in the region. But, because it is the right thing to do.

Thank you.