The National Alliance of Lebanese Americans

President Obama nominates Maura Connelly Ambassador to Lebanon

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:00:00 GMT

WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts:

• Maura Connelly, Ambassador to the Republic of Lebanon, Department of State

Syria accused of arming Hezbollah

Toufic Baaklini — Fri, 28 May 2010 14:48:00 GMT

Hezbollah is running weapons, including surface-to-surface missiles, from secret arms depots in Syria to its bases in Lebanon, according to security sources.

The Times has been shown satellite images of one of the sites, a compound near the town of Adra, northeast of Damascus, where militants have their own living quarters, an arms storage site and a fleet of lorries reportedly used to ferry weapons into Lebanon.

Readout of President Obama's meeting with PM Saad Hariri

Toufic Baaklini — Mon, 24 May 2010 14:54:00 GMT

The President met today with Prime Minister Saad Hariri of Lebanon. The President commended the Prime Minister for his leadership and for carrying on his father’s legacy, and congratulated him on Lebanon’s term as President of the U.N. Security Council, where Lebanon is contributing to upholding international peace and security.

Hezballah's Coalition Partner Meets President Obama

Toufic Baaklini — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:59:00 GMT

On Monday, Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri will visit Washington for a meeting with President Obama. In announcing the meeting, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called it "a symbol of the close and historic relationship between Lebanon and the United States." Indeed, between 2005 and 2009, bilateral ties were never closer or more consequential, with the Cedar Revolution ending nearly three decades of Syrian suzerainty in the country. Over the past year, however, Hariri has had to govern in coalition with Hizballah. The Iranian-Syrian backed Shiite militia will be the elephant in the Oval Office during Monday's meeting.

Missed Engagement by Congressman Gary Acherman

Toufic Baaklini — Mon, 10 May 2010 15:05:00 GMT

Almost five years to the day after George W. Bush's administration withdrew America's ambassador to Syria in response to the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, President Barack Obama this February announced the appointment of Robert Ford as his envoy to Damascus. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a confirmation hearing for Ford, a respected former deputy chief of mission in Iraq, in March. On Friday, Senate Republicans blocked a motion to confirm Ford by unanimous consent.

S&P Upgrades Lebanon on Bank System

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:28:00 GMT

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised Lebanon's sovereign-credit
ratings and gave them a positive outlook because of banking resilience and the
expectation of political stability in the medium term.

The Murdered Fathers Club (David Schenker) Weekly Standard

Toufic Baaklini — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:16:00 GMT

On Saturday, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri traveled to Damascus for a meeting with Syrian president Bashar Asad, the man widely believed to have ordered the assassination of his father, former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri. The 2005 murder sparked the Cedar Revolution, a mass protest movement that resulted in the end of the thirty-year Syrian military occupation of Lebanon, and swept the pro-West March 14th coalition to power. Although March 14 again triumphed over the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hizballah-led opposition in elections this past June, Washington's allies in Beirut are now facing a crisis. Hariri's trip to Damascus represents the return of Syrian influence to Lebanon, and perhaps, the end of the Cedar Revolution.

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW REPORT Reshuffling the Cards? (II): Syria’s New Hand

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:10:00 GMT

Damascus/Brussels, 16 December 2009: U.S. diplomatic engagement with Syria risks losing momentum if it fails to build upon several potentially promising changes in Damascus’s policy.

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW REPORT Reshuffling the Cards? (I): Syria’s Evolving Strategy

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:35:00 GMT

Damascus/Washington/Brussels, 14 December 2009: Syria’s foreign policy has long been a contradictory mix of militancy and pragmatism, but new dynamics create opportunities for the U.S. if it does more to deepen its engagement.

Readout of Vice President Biden's Meeting with President Sleiman of Lebanon

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:34:00 GMT

Earlier today, Vice President Biden met with Lebanese President Michel Sleiman at the White House. During the meeting, Vice President Biden expressed his appreciation for President Sleiman’s efforts during the formation of the new Lebanese government and welcomed the opportunity to work with the new government on a broad range of security, economic, and political issues.

Remarks by President Obama and President Sleiman of Lebanon after Meeting

Toufic Baaklini — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:49:00 GMT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much, everybody. I want to welcome President Sleiman and his delegation for the excellent visit that we've had.

I thought that this meeting was critical because the relationship between the United States and Lebanon is critical. We have a strong friendship between the two countries. Part of that results from the fact that we have 2 million Lebanese Americans who have made extraordinary contributions to the life of the United States, and continue to do so. Obviously Lebanon is a critical country in a critical region, and we want to do everything that we can to encourage a strong, independent, and democratic Lebanon.

New Ambassador could be on the road to Damascus

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:13:00 GMT

It's been half a year since the Obama administration pledged to send an ambassador to Damascus after four years' absence and now we are seeing movement.

REMARKS FOR THE RECORD AMBASSADOR JEFFREY D. FELTMAN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA OCTOBER 28, 2009

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:28:00 GMT

Chief among our goals in the Middle East is to bring about peace in a region

that has faced decades of conflict. While cognizant of the challenges ahead, this

Administration believes that comprehensive peace – peace not only between Israel

and the Palestinians, but also between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon,

and the full normalization of relations between Israel and its neighbors – is not

only in the interests of the parties to these conflicts; it is in America’s interest, and

it is in the world’s interest. Achievement of this goal will require collective action

and we are working closely with countries across the region to create an

environment that supports peaceful resolution. At the same time, we are

addressing the security needs of our friends and allies.

The resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the two-state

solution is central to our goal of comprehensive peace: two states living side by

side in peace and security – a strong, Jewish state of Israel, with true security for

all Israelis; and an independent, viable, and contiguous Palestinian state that ends

the occupation that began in 1967 and unleashes the full potential of the Palestinian

people. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are deeply and personally

committed to realizing this goal. On behalf of the President and Secretary of State,

Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell has been working closely

with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, regional leaders and allies, our partners in the

Quartet, and others.

This is a challenging issue with a tangled history. We all know that no one

high-level meeting will resolve this conflict. But progress is steadily and quietly

being made, and the President and his team will continue to approach this effort

with perseverance and determination.

Both in public and in private, President Obama has made clear that the

negotiations should cover all permanent status issues – borders, security,

Jerusalem, and refugees – and result in the establishment of an independent, viable,

and contiguous Palestinian state, alongside a secure Israel.

While there are differences in the parties’ positions on the core issues, that is

true of every negotiation. If we accepted that such differences would remain

3

unbridgeable, no conflict would ever be resolved. And there is a firm basis for

discussions to resume based on the terms of reference of earlier negotiations and

the parties’ previous agreements.

We seek to create a dialogue that facilitates the compromises necessary to

ensure the long-term interests of both sides. While it is critical that neither side

hold out for the perfect formula, it is also important that both sides have a stake in

the framework for the negotiations. The issues at hand can only be resolved

through direct talks.

We remain steadfast in our commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship,

which is based not only on our common interests in the region, but on our common

values. The Administration’s commitment to Israel’s security and well being is

unshakable. We continue to consult closely with Israel to ensure its continued

Qualitative Military Edge throughout the region. In FY09, with your help and

leadership, the Administration disbursed $2.55 billion in FMF to Israel and our

FY10 commitment stands at $2.775 billon. Additionally, our assistance and our

diplomatic engagement region-wide help ensure Israel’s security. We have also

consistently worked to ensure that Israel is treated fairly at the UN and other

international organizations.

This Administration is also vigorously pursuing comprehensive peace in the

region, which we fundamentally believe is in our interests, as well as Israel’s longterm

interest. As the President said, the United States does Israel no favors when

we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security and well-being with an

insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of Palestinians.

Resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict will not automatically resolve other

challenges in the region, such as those posed by Iran, just as neutralizing those

concerns will not automatically resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But efforts

on these fronts and others are mutually reinforcing.

Making peace between Israelis and Palestinians – and between Israel and its

Arab neighbors – strengthens the U.S. in responding to other foreign policy

imperatives in the region. It serves U.S. national security interests and strengthens

regional security and stability.

Among the other vital issues we must address in the region, nuclear nonproliferation

is key to our long-term security and the stability of the region. We

4

continue to advance our non-proliferation aims internationally by seeking to

prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, as well as

weapon-usable nuclear and radiological materials and expertise, while ensuring

that states that do seek civil nuclear power are able to exercise that right while they

uphold their commitment to exclusively peaceful applications.

We are actively engaged in countering extremism by working with our

partners to pursue terrorists and by discrediting extremist ideologies through

promotion of social and economic development, good governance, rule of law, and

resolution of regional conflicts.

We are also building constructive partnerships between the people of the

United States and the Middle East that support entrepreneurism, science,

education, health, and other shared goals.

While we must continue to strive for energy security by developing

renewable sources and alternatives to fossil fuel use at home, we also must ensure

international markets have access to affordable energy resources. Air and sea lanes

must be protected and lines of communication to and from the region kept open.

The United States must be ready to support and work with the governments

and people in the region, promoting reform and liberalization to increase

representativeness, inclusiveness, and respect for the rights of all people, including

women and religious minorities.

Regional Challenges and Threats

A range of serious challenges confront the Middle East and North Africa –

among them, acute demographic challenges, notably a youth bulge that will

necessitate the creation of millions of new jobs over the next decade. Conflicts,

including continued attacks in Iraq and violence and separatism in Yemen, among

others, continue to destabilize the region and detract resources from other

priorities. Human trafficking, inadequate human rights protections, and absent or

weak democratic institutions persist across much of the Near East. Other crossborder

threats – from public health epidemics to terrorist organizations, including

Al-Qaeda affiliates – are aggravated by emerging demographic trends that

undermine human security and progress in the region.

5

These issues not only confront the people and governments of the region, but

also affect our own policies and national security interests. Development and

government capacity deficits can contribute to radicalization, inhibit the emergence

of a robust civil society, and hinder opportunities for economic growth and trade.

Conflicts fuel extremism and interfere with our ability to crystallize positive

changes in the way the United States is viewed in the region. We will continue to

bolster our strategic relationships in the region and the capacity of stakeholders at

all levels to work together to overcome these challenges.

New Opportunities

President Obama has created a genuine opening and opportunity for a new

beginning to our relationship with Muslims in the Middle East and around the

world.

The President said, in both Ankara and in Cairo, that, where in the past we

may have focused in this region more narrowly, through a lens of defeating

extremists or securing oil and gas supplies, we now seek a broader engagement, on

the basis of common interests and mutual respect. The President’s vision includes

new and reinvigorated partnerships in the fields of business, science and

technology, education, public health, and with civil society across the region.

Following the President’s speech, we initiated hundreds of conversations

with community, civil society, and political leaders around the world. We have

listened carefully. The expectations in the region are very high for U.S. action to

follow up on the speech. With heightened expectations come certain risks, but also

important opportunities.

The Department of State and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs play an

important role in helping to fulfill that vision and ensure the President’s words are

backed by deeds. We will continue important ongoing public diplomacy efforts,

including educational and cultural exchanges, which in FY 2008 totaled over $100

million and involved thousands of youth and professionals. We remain active in

our outreach efforts to regional news outlets, encompassing traditional and new

media. Since 2007, the U.S. has issued more than 71,400 student and exchange

visitor visas to applicants from the Middle East. We are particularly interested in

supporting employment-focused approaches to education and partnerships with the

private sector to tackle comprehensively the obstacles that hinder economic growth

and development in the region. Coordination through international fora, such as

6

the G8’s Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative (BMENA), enhances our

reach and effectiveness in these and other areas. Secretary Clinton will be leading

the U.S. delegation, of which I will be a part, to the annual BMENA Forum for the

Future in order to demonstrate our enduring commitment to creating sustainable

partnerships that lead to reform, progress, and prosperity in the region.

A principal vehicle for achieving our objectives is the Middle East

Partnership Initiative (MEPI). Through MEPI, we are answering the President’s

call to intensify and deepen our engagement in the region. MEPI is directly

engaging with and investing in the people of the Middle East and North Africa

through programs focused on strengthening civil society and the rule of law,

empowering women and youth, creating educational opportunities, and fostering

economic development and entrepreneurship.

MEPI’s Local Grants Program directly supports the efforts of NGOs, the

private sector, and academic institutions that are working to advance educational

and professional opportunities for people in the region. Through this unique, fastdelivery

program, MEPI fuels initiatives and ideas developed by organizations and

civil society leaders working to advance positive change and reform in the Middle

East and North Africa.

MEPI’s support strengthens the capacity of those who serve as the region’s

most dedicated and successful agents of change – the people themselves. We’ve

seen progress in the region through our efforts. For example, MEPI funds

provided for the training for more than 6,000 women candidates in preparation for

Morocco’s June 2009 municipal elections, in which the government had set aside

12 percent of the seats for women. Women won 13 percent of the seats, surpassing

the quota and marking a dramatic increase from only 0.5 percent of seats they held

previously. This type of activity responds to the President’s call to employ foreign

assistance to catalyze local action that will ultimately help to build sustainable

democracies.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) provides another

key vehicle for furthering regional goals that are vital to U.S. foreign policy.

Through programs in the region – that totaled more than $2 billion in FY 2009 –

USAID helps local governments to deliver services; supports private sector-led

economic growth; delivers humanitarian aid; and works with governments to

strengthen their capacity to respond to the needs of the people of the region.

7

Principled Engagement

Let me turn to our strategy of engagement, which the President first laid out

in his inaugural address and has since repeated in interviews and speeches across

the United States and around the world.

Through our strategy of principled engagement we are greatly strengthening

our position and advancing our objectives, vis-à-vis both our friends and our

adversaries. With our allies we are reinvigorating more comprehensive

partnerships – reaching beyond governments to touch the lives of individuals

through economic, educational, and scientific cooperation. We are demonstrating

our desire to work with our allies and engage in full cooperation across a wide

range of issues.

Our engagement, based on mutual respect and mutual interests, increases our

power, our influence, our options, and ultimately our chances for success in

achieving our objectives. Even in the cases of adversaries or nations with which

we disagree, a strategy of engagement pays important dividends. When we lead

with diplomacy we gain insight into others’ intentions and calculations. As

Secretary Clinton has said, we also gain the possibility, however remote, that

governments will ultimately alter their policies on issues where we disagree.

By pursuing the option for dialogue and proving our openness to a

negotiated resolution of differences, we bolster the willingness of our allies to join

us in exerting pressure should those negotiations fail. Our efforts in the context of

international fora are met with greater readiness and receptivity by other countries,

opening new channels to mitigate conflicts and encourage international actors to

adhere to their international responsibilities.

Iran

Our strategy of engagement in general takes us to the specific case of Iran.

Our primary goal is clear: to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons

capability. In coordination with our friends and allies, we are using a range of

diplomatic tools including direct, principled engagement and continued pressure to

change Iran’s strategic calculus so that it meets its international obligations on its

nuclear program and can enjoy the rights that come with being a responsible

member of the international community.

8

While we remain committed to reaching a diplomatic solution through

meaningful engagement with Iran, we know that pressure plays a role in

persuading Iran of the costs of its destabilizing activities. In case negotiations do

not produce the necessary results, we are also developing our planning for

international action to pressure Iran to change its policies. This is the rationale

behind the P5+1 dual-track policy, a balance between engagement and pressure, to

persuade the Iranian government that its current approach is not in its best interest.

As the President has said, the P5+1 meeting with Iran on October 1 was a

constructive beginning, but determination of whether Iran is serious about

addressing international concerns will depend on Iran’s follow-through on its

commitments. The recent revelation of a previously-undisclosed enrichment

facility at Qom contributed to the deep concerns and unity of the international

community. Tangible steps by Iran are needed to demonstrate that its nuclear

program is exclusively peaceful. In Vienna last week, the IAEA, Russia, the U.S.,

France, and Iran met to finalize the implementation terms of the IAEA’s proposal,

based on the Geneva agreement in principle, to respond to Iran’s request to acquire

fuel for its IAEA-safe-guarded Tehran Research Reactor. Russia, France and the

United States have accepted the draft IAEA agreement, which if implemented by

Iran, would be an important step to build confidence. We hope that Iran will

respond positively to the agreement developed by the IAEA as a confidence

building measure. Turning to the IAEA investigation of the Iranian nuclear

program, IAEA inspectors have inspected the Qom facility this week and we

expect Iran to provide the IAEA with full and unfettered access for its investigation

and we await the IAEA’s report.

The Tehran Research Reactor project and the IAEA’s inspection of the

Qom facility occur in the context of the international community’s broader

concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, which will remain the focus of the P5+1

process.

International concerns about Iran are also broader than the nuclear file. Iran

remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its support for groups such as

Hamas, Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, members of the Taliban, and

insurgents in Iraq continue to destabilize the region. Iran’s support for terrorist

groups has a direct impact on international efforts to promote peace and threatens

regional economic stability. Moreover, it undermines the trust of the international

9

community and weakens its confidence in Iran’s ability to play a positive role in

the region.

We encourage Iran to maintain constructive and peaceful relations with its

neighbors. We also continue to appeal to countries in the region, whose territory

and air space Iran has used to re-supply terrorist groups, to help stop the flow of

materiel and other support to terrorist groups.

When we talk about Iran meeting its international responsibilities, we are not

just talking about its nuclear program or support for terrorism; we are also talking

about human rights. Much like Iran’s failure to adhere to its international

obligations on the nuclear front, Iran has failed to adhere to its international

obligations to protect and advance human rights and universal principles and

freedoms - freedoms provided for in its own constitution, reflected in the Universal

Declaration on Human Rights, and codified in the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party.

We remain deeply concerned about the brutal manner in which the Iranian

government handled peaceful post-election protests. We call on Iran to live up to

its international obligations to advance universal principles, including freedom of

expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, and the right to due process

for all those seeking justice. The Iranian government’s flagrant disregard of its

international human rights commitments has never been clearer than in the weeks

and months following the June 12

th election.

Iraqis continue to make political progress. Recent provincial and regional

elections were conducted peacefully and successfully. Upcoming national

parliamentary elections in early 2010 are expected to be a watershed event in Iraq’s

young democracy. Of critical importance for Iraq’s democracy is passage of an

election law to govern the upcoming national elections. Iraq’s political leaders are

seriously working on such a law, but have already exceeded their self-imposed

deadline. We are actively urging all parties to seek compromise language on the

issues that divide them, so that Iraq may hold timely and democratic polls this

coming January.

Progress in Iraq is significant and hopeful, but not without challenges,

including Arab-Kurd disagreements that continue to cause tensions. To address

those issues we are actively supporting efforts to settle boundary disputes and

develop the vital oil sector. We urge all sides to abstain from violence and to work

through peaceful channels to resolve differences.

The Strategic Framework Agreement serves as the basis for our relationship

with Iraq as we move forward. In July, Secretary Clinton and Iraqi Prime Minister

Maliki co-chaired the Higher Coordinating Committee of the SFA and reaffirmed

our mutual commitment to the civilian partnership it envisions. We will direct

U.S. assistance to help re-build the capacity of the Iraqi government in many

critical areas, including better delivery of public services, economic reform,

decreasing sectarian violence and strengthening the rule of law and respect for

human rights. We will continue to work with the Iraqi government and the

international community to assist displaced Iraqis and create conditions that

support their voluntary and sustainable return.

U.S. combat forces withdrew from cities and villages on June 30. We will

honor our commitment under the Security Agreement to remove all U.S. forces by

December 31, 2011, and the President has made clear his intent to remove combat

troops by August 2010. He reiterated this pledge when he met with Prime Minister

Maliki in the Oval Office on October 20. The Department of State and Embassy

Baghdad are actively engaged in the important transition from a military focus

toward a civilian and capacity-building focus. We are working closely with

General Odierno and our military colleagues and other U.S. government agencies

to ensure the transition is smooth and successful. The support of Congress will be

vital in the effort to obtain the resources our men and women on the ground need

to do their jobs and build a strong foundation for our new relationship with Iraq.

12

Syria and Lebanon

The President has endorsed a sustained, principled dialogue with Syria to

advance the interests of the United States and our allies. We believe that Syria and

the United States share some common interests, including a comprehensive peace

in the region, and that Syria can potentially play a constructive role in realizing our

common goals, provided Syria addresses a number of key concerns.

As part of our policy of engagement, I have visited Syria on several

occasions and Special Envoy Mitchell has twice met with Syrian President Bashar

al-Asad. Our initial meetings were essential to underscore the U.S. commitment

toward advancing regional peace and establishing a constructive atmosphere for

dialogue. Having laid this groundwork, we now want to move beyond dialogue

and toward action in the areas of cooperation and concern that we have identified.

While we have made some modest headway with the Syrians in this regard and we

believe that there is further potential for a positive, constructive U.S.-Syrian

relationship. For that potential to be fully realized, however, we will need to see

Syria address our concerns about some of its regional policies, such as support for

terrorist organizations like Hizballah and Hamas.

In Lebanon, we hope to see a quick resolution to the challenges that have

impeded the government-formation process. This is a process for the Lebanese to

carry out in accordance with their constitution and without outside interference. In

their June elections, the Lebanese sent a clear message in favor of Lebanon’s

independence. Expectations are currently high that a cabinet could be announced

within the coming days. We certainly hope this is the case. The Lebanese people

have waited too long for their government to return to the work of ensuring

security, economic development, and political dialogue for all Lebanese citizens.

We commend Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri and President Michel Sleiman

for their stewardship during the government formation process. We look forward

to working with the next Lebanese government and reiterate that our support for

Lebanese sovereignty will not be compromised by our engagement with any other

party.

We remain extremely troubled about Hizballah’s role in Lebanon, especially

its maintenance of a vast arsenal of increasingly sophisticated weaponry. We are

also gravely concerned by Hizballah’s operations outside Lebanon, including their

activities inside Egypt, and in Azerbaijan where two Hizballah operatives were

recently sentenced to 15 years in prison. Hizballah’s actions in Lebanon and

13

abroad contravene Security Council Resolution 1559 and 1701, are inconsistent

with Lebanon’s democratic processes, stoke sectarian tensions, and threaten to

spark renewed conflict in the region. We reiterate our calls, echoed by the UN

Secretary-General in his most recent report on Lebanon, for Hizballah to lay down

its arms and respect the Lebanese constitution, the Taif Agreement, and relevant

Security Council resolutions. All other parties in the region, particularly Syria and

Lebanon, should also help ensure the implementation of relevant Security Council

Resolutions.

Regional Partners

We continue to develop our strategic relationships in the Gulf and

throughout the region. Through our engagement with regional partners, and with

other governmental and non-governmental actors around the world, the U.S. is

gaining the political and material support to deal effectively with the challenges we

face.

We share a common vision of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Middle East

with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. We are committed to

working with our Gulf partners to seek an end to persistent conflict in the region,

in particular achieving a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. We

continue to support military, law enforcement, and regulatory mechanisms and

promote robust anti-terrorism cooperation with our Gulf partners to stem

extremism and deny safe haven for terrorists throughout the broader region.

With our important allies Egypt and Jordan, the only two Arab countries that

currently have peace treaties with Israel, we are working on a broad range of

shared initiatives, including promoting a comprehensive Middle East peace,

countering terrorism, promoting good governance, respect for human rights, and

economic prosperity.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton have acknowledged the contribution

of Saudi Arabia as the author of the Arab Peace Initiative. It is important, though,

that Arab states recognize this initiative as an important beginning, and not an end,

to their responsibilities to help create the conditions for peace.

The U.S. must also engage with our partners to address the troubling

developments in Yemen and ensure that critical stabilization, development, and

humanitarian assistance objectives are met. We are seriously concerned by the

14

violence and unrest of recent weeks and months. We will follow a two-pronged

approach, involving security as well as humanitarian and stabilization assistance,

to improve the government of Yemen’s ability to maintain stability and prevent the

country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. A weak central government in

Yemen, as well as the increased presence of Al-Qaeda, are two significant

challenges that the United States must continue to address.

In conclusion, even a quick survey of the Near East region reveals the

magnitude of the issues and challenges we face there: the search for peace in a

region riven by decades of conflict; the security of our friends and allies; the

protection of our nation’s energy supply; the moral imperative to confront global

climate change; the promotion of democracy, women’s empowerment, human

rights, and social and political progress; the fight against human trafficking; the

cultivation of new markets for American commerce; and the expansion of

education and economic opportunity. Our foreign policy in the Near East will

affect the future security and well-being of the American people, the people of the

region, and indeed, of the world. Our diplomats serving in this region, often in

combat zones alongside the brave men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces, are

pursuing these goals vigorously every day. As Assistant Secretary, I am deeply

grateful for the support this committee has shown them.

Thank you for that support, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for giving me the

opportunity to lay out the pressing issues, and our vital goals in the region. I look

forward to addressing any questions the Committee may have.

Of particular concern is the Iranian government’s use of public show trials to

deal with the aftermath of the June elections and designed to extract forced

confessions from hundreds of its citizens. Iran’s sentencing of Iranian-American

scholar, Kian Tajbakhsh to 15 years in prison is just one recent example of Iran’s

failure to ensure due process safeguards as guaranteed in its own constitution, as

well as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In discussing Iran today, I must reiterate our concern about the fate of

American citizens currently detained or missing there. We continue to urge the

Iranian government to release Mr. Tajbakhsh, and the three American hikers,

Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd, and Josh Fattal, who have been held without charges

for more than 80 days. We also continue to call for the immediate release of Reza

Taghavi, a 71 years-old Iranian American who has been held in detention without

charges since May 2008 despite his failing health. We also continue to press Iran

to use all means to determine the whereabouts and ensure the safe return of Robert

Levinson. Our goal is to ensure the safe return of all these individuals to the

United States as quickly as possible so that they can be reunited with their families.

REMARKS FOR THE RECORD

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY D. FELTMAN

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS

BEFORE THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE

MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

OCTOBER 28, 2009

Chairman Ackerman, Ranking Member Burton, Distinguished Members of the

Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. My colleagues in the

Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and I appreciate the Committee’s abiding interest

in and attention to our nation’s priorities and goals in the region. I am pleased to

present the Committee with an overview of the Administration’s policies and our

relations with the countries of the Middle East.

Events in the Middle East and U.S. involvement there often have significant

policy and security implications that reach far beyond the region. International

peace and stability, nuclear proliferation, energy security, economic growth, and

human rights all are affected greatly by developments in the region. President

Obama and Secretary Clinton are implementing a foreign policy that best enables

us to respond to the clear imperatives, seize new opportunities, and address the

serious challenges that we face in the Middle East and around the world.

Partnership has been a watchword of this Administration’s foreign policy.

President Obama’s call for greater openness and partnership in our relations with

other nations reflects a belief deeply held by this Administration: to face the

complicated challenges confronting us today, we need to work together with others

more than ever before.

And just as that holds for our foreign relations – reaching out to traditional

and non-traditional partners in our diplomatic efforts – it could not be truer within

our own government: teamwork, across our departments, agencies, offices, and

branches of government, is essential. The State Department’s Bureau of Near

Eastern Affairs collaborates intensively with other regional and functional bureaus

in the Department, with distinguished Special Envoys, Representatives and

Advisors appointed by the President and the Secretary of State, with USAID and

other civilian agencies and the Department of Defense, and with the Congress,

Iraq

The United States remains committed to bolstering Iraq as a sovereign

nation and supporting its progress on a path to self-reliance, peace, and prosperity.

Iraqis themselves are making efforts to promote domestic peace, national unity,

and regional integration. We continue to support those efforts of our Iraqi partners.

An example of our commitment to a better future for Iraq is the U.S.-Iraq

Business and Investment Conference held on October 20-21 that attracted over

1,000 participants. It was an opportunity to mark the progress that has been made

and a chance for the American and international business communities to take

advantage of significant business opportunities in Iraq. Secretary Clinton and

Prime Minister Maliki opened the event. They highlighted the exciting potential in

Iraq and the desire of Iraqis to build a more prosperous, peaceful future for

themselves. Secretary Clinton commended Iraqi officials for recent steps to

improve the investment climate and urged additional steps so that Iraq could

compete successfully for global investment funds. She stressed that the conference

was a tangible outcome of U.S. commitments under the Strategic Framework

Agreement (SFA) to move toward the goal of a stable, sovereign, and self-reliant

Iraq. We have made other commitments to Iraq as well. As you may recall, the

President announced in February that we would continue to help Iraq train its

Security Forces and develop its government and economy.

We have expressed our condolences to the victims of Sunday’s brutal attacks

in Baghdad and for the tragic loss of so many lives. The United States strongly

condemns the bombings at the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and other government

offices and the horrific bombings of August 19. These bombings and some of the

recent attacks on the U.S. military and Iraqi civilians demonstrate that Iraq is not

yet secure and there will be difficult days ahead. We stand by all Iraqis, at this

crucial time leading up to national elections, and we pledge to join them in

working together to combat all forms of violence and attempts at intimidation. It is

worth noting that violence in Iraq remains substantially reduced from 2006-2007

levels, and the capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces is improving.

particularly with members of this Subcommittee, to ensure a comprehensive,

coordinated approach to fulfilling our strategic goals.

Strategic Imperatives in the Region and Middle East Peace

Statement by the President on the anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:20:00 GMT

We remember today the 241 American Marines, soldiers, and sailors who lost their lives 26 years ago as the result of a horrific terrorist attack that destroyed the Marine

The Regional Challenge in Lebanon

Antonio Chagoury — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:23:00 GMT

The American initiative in the Middle East, commenced as the Greater Middle Eastern Initiative, and adopted as the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative by the G-8 at the Sea Island Summit of June 8-10, 2004, serves as the context and cornerstone for the democratic movements fostered by the United States in the region ever since.[1] International efforts in Afghanistan which resulted in an elected president; efforts in Iraq which have resulted in a popularly adopted constitution and a popularly elected Parliament; elections Lebanon in May-June 2005 for a new Parliament and election

Status of the Other Middle Eastern Experiment in Self Government

Antonio Chagoury — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:09:00 GMT

In the past year, Lebanon has undergone a major transformation of the basic operating assumptions, which have underpinned the establishment of order in the country. However, this transformation is not yet complete. Much work remains to be done to completely undo the Iranian-Syrian infrastructure left behind in Lebanon.

Significant Progress

The change has nevertheless been significant. As of April 27, 2005, the Syrian Occupation Army and intelligence officers have evacuated Lebanon and Rustom Ghazali no longer operates Lebanon from Anjar. Syrian tanks no longer sit on the ridges overlooking Beirut nor in the central mountain ranges straddling the country. There are no Syrian Army checkpoints along the roads.

The Lebanese people once divided by religion through a long war and then through an equally long occupation have found common cause in their common Lebanese national identity regardless of their confessional orientation. The historic coming together of the people (Christians and Moslems) on March 14, 2005 cannot be underestimated as a genuine expression by a majority of the people to live in an independent Lebanon which makes and acts on decisions of their own, not decisions made for them in some distant or near foreign capital.

Democratic life has resumed and political institutions are attempting to resume their functions. Peaceful elections took place in May and June 2005, and were accepted by all in spite of the numerous objections to the electoral law and the conditions under which they took place. And, true open debates of the issues are taking place.

The Occupation Has Not Ended

These changes, however, do not mark the end of Lebanon’s long period of lost independence and occupation. Optimistically, these events of 2005 may have only marked the beginning of the end of the occupation.

Lebanon effectively lost the ability to maintain order within its own borders in the mid-1970’s. The Lebanese lost that ability in the mid-1970’s when they became overwhelmed by the PLO and then the cure for the PLO, the Syrian contingent of the Arab Deterrent Force, which was deployed in 1976.

From that time to this, the center of power, which has created order in Lebanon, has not been in Lebanon, but in Damascus Syria, and later in Tehran Iran, as well. The removal of the Syrian Army and intelligence officers in 2005 has not worked a power shift from Damascus and Tehran back to Beirut, yet. In addition, there continues to exist in Lebanon a paid network of informants and intelligence operatives which have served as the infrastructure for the planning and execution of the various bombings and assassinations which have taken place in Lebanon over the course of the past year.

The lifting of the physical occupation of the country has found Lebanese political parties, particularly the Christian parties, in disarray. An objective of the Syrian Occupation, a measure taken to insure its longevity, was to disperse and dismantle political organizations, particularly Christian political parties, which were at the heart of Lebanese independence, and this Syria did in a rather relentless way. Through assassinations of its leadership, outlawing of its political parties, separation of the Maronites from their natural allies within Lebanon and the fostering of the rise of an alternative center of power in a Syrian-Iranian protégé, Hezbollah, secular political power in Lebanon was scattered, to say the least.

The State of the Pro-Democracy Movement

Now that the Lebanese have been afforded an opportunity to re-establishself government, there are two distinct trends within the pro-democracy camp, vying for leadership; sorting out their true political weight. After 30 years of war and occupation where pro-democracy movements were suppressed and attacked, Lebanon’s political leadership lacks a national agenda beyond the expressed collective goal of sovereignty and independence.

The first trend is represented by the largest bloc in Parliament, led by the Future Movement headed by Saad Hariri, and the PSP headed by Walid Jumblatt. Included in this Parliamentary bloc are various Christian parties, such as the Lebanese Forces, the Kataeb, and members of the Qurnet Shahwan. This block effectively represents the majority of Sunni Lebanese and Druze Lebanese respectively, as well as the Lebanese Christian constituencies. These parties have expressed an interest in building a governing coalition with the Christian political parties operating within the context of this multi-confessional trend, rather than the Christian parties taking a dominate leading role in the multi-confessional coalition.

The second trend is led by the Free Patriotic Movement, also a multi-confessional bloc, headed by former General Michel Aoun, and its allies inside and outside Parliament, which aspires to expand its influence in the country, particularly within Parliament and the Government and which seeks to serve in the leadership role for the pro-democracy coalition.

It is important to note that within the pro-democracy camp, there are numerous Shiite members of the various political parties, such as the Future Movement and the Free Patriotic Movement, as well as political figures of a yet forming Third Way movement among the Shiite population. This movement has been struggling under overwhelming pressure from Hezbollah and Amal.

These elements of the pro-democracy movement have not yet congealed into the critical mass necessary to govern Lebanon. The two trends have yet to reconcile on issues of establishment of a governing agenda and leadership issues. As of this time, the pro-democracy movement is not monolithic, but more of a coalition of different parties which share a common desire to break free of Syrian and Iranian hegemony. These cross-confessional coalitions, unseen since the independence of Lebanon from the French mandate back in 1943, deserve the full backing of the American administration and the West as they attempt to come together to form a coalition capable of controlling the government and bringing internal order to Lebanon.

Pro-Syrian-Iranian Forces Have Remained in Place

On the other side of the divide are the pro-Syrian-Iranian parties. Some of them have been disenfranchised from political power such as Omar Karami, Suleiman Frangieh, and their political followers who did not win seats in the last Parliamentary election. Others remain in power, particularly Hezbollah that is highly organized, focused, and agenda-driven, has a number of seats in Parliament as well as Ministerial portfolios. In addition, the Lebanese President, Emil Lahoud remains responsive to Syrian interests in Lebanon and uses the power of the Presidency to aid and assist Syria in keeping its foothold in Lebanon. And finally there is the Amal Party led by Nabih Berri, which is closely allied with Hezbollah under current circumstances.

Through the pro-Syrian and Iranian parties, Syria and Iran continue to meddle in Lebanese affairs and exploit the differences, which persist within the pro-democracy camp in order to undo it and thus keep Lebanon within the Syria-Iran sphere of influence. Thus, Lebanon remains very much in the balance as to whether it will re-emerge as a self governing state, or whether it will be re-submerged into the Syrian-Iranian realm. Syria and Iran are strategically at work attempting to undo the progress of the last year and resubmit Lebanon as a place where their regional strategies can be played out.

Faced with the multi-confessional nature of both parts of the independence movement, Syria and Iran, through their proxies, are sparing no effort in their attempt to re-ignite sectarian conflicts to weaken Lebanon and re-establish their control over it. The incessant arming of fundamentalist movements and the wave of bombings against Christian targets all fall within this strategy, which has so far been successfully resisted.

Regional Dimension of the Crisis in Lebanon

Iran has regional ambitions and this fact is not lost on anyone. In the last parliamentary elections in Iraq, Iranian Fundamentalists parties gave a great deal of assistance to Iraqi Shiites, which won an overwhelming majority in the new Iraqi Parliament. Thus the political infrastructure is now being placed for the expansion of Iranian power from the eastern Gulf region into the very center of the Middle East, threatening further American interests in the region.

The United States is in Iraq and must remain there for the foreseeable future as a check on the burgeoning growth of Iranian power. Their attempt to gain a nuclear capability and thus create a hostile nuclear power in the major oil production fields and shipping lanes is a development that is diametrically opposed to vital US interests in the region.

To the west, Iran is firming its regional alliance with Syria and undertaking a much more dangerous and destructive strategy. At a time when Hezbollah was under pressure to re-evaluate its position in Lebanon as to whether it would become a genuine Lebanese political party and disarm, or remain an armed force, Iran stepped in and gave Hezbollah a carte blanche in terms of financial and logistical support, thus reinforcing that entity as an instrument of power projection into the Eastern Mediterranean.

Such a move would leave the US in a very precarious position that we may not be able to politically survive, as we try to balance our commitment to an ally, Israel, in the face of growing public discontent and by all probabilities wide ranging attacks against US interests.

The events in Lebanon, particularly the crisis that has been created in the Council of Ministers, must be viewed from the perspective of this regional power play that is ongoing. Hezbollah, now as a full-fledged policy instrument of Iran, is demanding that the Lebanese government act only by consensus vote, rather than majority vote, which means unanimous consent on every issue that comes before it. This indirect recognition of being a minority in the overall scheme of political powers in Lebanon, gives Hezbollah, a distinct minority in the Council, a veto over any measure and the ability to paralyze government in Lebanon. Karami served this purpose earlier in the year, also at the behest of the regional Syrian-Iranian alliance. The strategy has been that if Syria and Iran could not control the actions of the Lebanese government in a direct manner, then they would act to put a stick in the wheel and paralyze the government from taking any action at all, indirectly by such positions taken by their political allies in Lebanon. So far they have been successful in inflicting governmental paralysis through this indirect means.

The recent resolution of the Council of Ministers to seek an international tribunal to investigate and try the assassins of Rafic Hariri and Gebran Tueni was the catalyst for the most recent governmental crisis. Now Hezbollah is setting, as the price of its return to the Cabinet, the execution of a letter by Prime Minister Siniora to the effect that the Lebanese have fully complied with all provisions of UNRES 1559, a very dangerous move, which if taken, would put the pro-democracy alliance in direct conflict with the West. It is a patent falsehood that such compliance has occurred when, in fact, the subject has not even been discussed. Yet the pressure is on the cabinet and the ultimatum is that if the letter is not issued to the UN, then Hezbollah will try to force the dissolution of the Siniora Government and thus set the country back to where it was in February 2005 when then Prime Minister Karami was forced to dissolve his government and none could be formed for weeks.

Adding to the pressure coming from Iran through Hezbollah, is pressure on the government from the Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun. Aoun, having been sidelined by the Siniora Government and having campaigned against its alliance with Hizbullah, is adding to the pressure on the Government by attempting to force actions from it while the state of paralysis persists as induced by the demands of Hezbollah that it act only by consensus. Thus, the pressure on the government is two-fold – pressure to act driven by the FPM, and the pressures being built by the Hezbollah induced paralysis.

Necessity of Countervailing American Support

The nascent Lebanese pro-democracy movement is thus in great danger and is facing regional pressure at a time when it has not yet organized itself so as to be able to fend off the pressures which are being applied to it. It is therefore imperative that the United States, facing such great stakes in the Syria-Iran counter-offensive to undo all that has been accomplished in the region, to stand with the democracy movement in Lebanon and to back it against the regional forces arrayed against it. We in the United States must recognize that we are not writing this history on a blank slate. Rather, our transformational effort in the region is being resisted by a competing ideology advanced by an adversarial regional state. The competing ideology is Islamic fundamentalism and the regional state is Iran. Under this ideology, Iran is seeking to steer an independent course for itself and its resources outside of the American led international system and to bring as many regional states as possible under its tutelage. If the United States is not as diligent as its regional adversary in pushing its agenda; supporting its friends; opposing its enemies; then we stand to lose greatly in a very strategic part of the world.

In Lebanon, the United States has strategic friends. The success of their pro-democracy movement and the defeat of the Iranian sponsored counter effort in Lebanon will have positive repercussions not just in Lebanon but across the region. It is in Lebanon that the United States can begin the process of putting Iran back into its box.

Conversely, it is also in Lebanon, that if we fail, the gateway will have been opened to Europe for the same sort of Fundamentalist inspired instability that so far has been contained primarily in the Middle East. The riots in France during the past year, the presence of Fundamentalist cells in Germany and the UK are precursors to what awaits if we grant Iranian styled fundamentalism a foothold in the Eastern Mediterranean.

NALA’s Recommendations

Therefore, we in the National Alliance of Lebanese Americans (NALA) call upon the United States to fully acknowledge the stakes and the consequences of current events in Lebanon. There are regional actors at play in Lebanon, which the pro-democracy forces, alone, are currently unable to manage. Events demand an American political, diplomatic and economic involvement to protect American interests in the pro-democracy movement in Lebanon. They need our support, not just to fend off this Iranian power play, but they need an umbrella, sort out their differences, get their legs underneath themselves and pull the elements together necessary to form the critical mass needed to govern themselves again. In the short term, NALA recommends the following:

· Timely response and statements from the Administration. The recentstatements from the Administration threatening sanctions against Lebanon if the Hezbollah position regarding compliance with UNRES 1559 is adopted by the cabinet have been effective thus far in reinforcing the position of the pro-democracy elements vis a vis Hezbollah’s demands and should be expanded. NALA calls for greater coordination between the US Administration and the pro-democracy forces in Lebanon such that Iran and Syria will understand that any move taken in Lebanon to marginalize the pro-democracy movement will trigger a countervailing American response.

· The continued presence of a large highly mobile American military forcein Iraq can serve as a regional deterrent force to give credibility to American diplomatic and political moves with countries such as Syria and Iran, which understand only the language of military force to alter their conduct.

· The US and its allies should persist in their efforts to introduce and passthe UN Resolution against Hizbullah and its illegal military activity in Lebanon.

· The US and its allies must push for the formation of an international court to try those indicted in the assassination of Hariri and Tuini and expand the investigation into the other assassinations in Lebanon.

· Finally, the continued active involvement of the American Ambassador to Lebanon with the various elements of the pro-democracy movement as they work through their differences and seek to find accommodations with each other is essential.

Prepared and distributed by the National Alliance of Lebanese Americans Policy Committee, Toufic P. Nassif, President, Houston TX, Ziad Nassar, Atlanta GA, Ramzi Rihani, Washington D.C., Toufic Baaklini, Washington, D.C., Joseph L. Boohaker, Birmingham, AL Copywrite © 2006

Past, Present and Future

Antonio Chagoury — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:46:00 GMT

We all take enormous pride in our glorious past. We go out of our way to talk about the accomplishments of our great ancestors, detailing their contributions to civilization, their innovations and ingenious inventions, etc.

We also tend speak very highly of ourselves as a nation. Adamant in pointing out our magnificent attributes, which set us apart from those around us. Persistent in establishing beyond a shadow of a doubt our unique national identity.

The proof for all we say was in seeing how Lebanon rose so quickly from its colonial post WWII ruins to a first class, ultra-modern society in less than two decades, greatly distinguishing us from all others.

The Truth About Lebanon

Antonio Chagoury — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:45:00 GMT

Lebanese Americans realize that the tragic events in Lebanon have been confusing to everyone. Misinformation, bias reporting and narrow political interests have left most Americans at a loss as to the reality of the Lebanese Tragedy and whether they should even care.

The purpose of this pamphlet is to clarify the events surrounding Lebanon in digest form. It presents the facts pertaining to the major milestone events from 1943 to the current date.

One of the basic misconceptions surrounding Lebanon is that it is a French creation, which did not exist prior to 1920. The truth is that the Lebanese have one of the oldest continuous histories in the world, having existed in an independent or autonomous form for thousands of years, since the beginning of documented history. In fact Western Civilization had its roots in Lebanon long before the Greeks and Romans adopted it. Ever since and throughout the centuries the Lebanese have been constant contributors to Western Civilization and Culture.

Who are the Lebabese?

Antonio Chagoury — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:44:00 GMT

Lebanese. What does it mean? Who are they? Where do they come from? What makes them a Nation?

Every Lebanese will staunchly assert with absolute certainty that the Lebanese are a unique identifiable nation. However, ask a Lebanese to specify that identity, and you would find yourself asking the "million dollar" question.

The answers vary from region to region, religion to religion, even person to person. Most will probably define the term Lebanese the way they tend to view themselves. Some, however, will attempt to be more objective, they will define the people around them. Not quit as objective as they would like to be, since they neither know all the Lebanese, nor can they truly be objective when dealing with such a subjective like defining themselves.

The definition of a Lebanese has become the closest thing to the "chicken and egg" debate. It has been debated for ever and a day, and continues to produce more questions than answers.

The most commonly debated issue is absolutely the Arab-Phoenician question. It has been the subject of intense debates, and often the cause of serious conflicts. But is that truly a valid question, and does it have an answer? NOT QUITE.

Why is it not a valid question?

To Be or Not To Be

Antonio Chagoury — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:43:00 GMT

"To be or not to be," so eloquently stated by William Shakespeare, is precisely the existential question facing the Lebanese today.

As Lebanon slips further down the road of political non-existence, we find ourselves pondering our future and wondering what will become of us. Will our national identity survive? Will our children and grand children be Lebanese? Or, will their identity be so distant from ours that they will not even comprehend our present dilemma?

In pondering our national survival we find ourselves tackling a more fundamental tenet of life. Namely, what does it take for a nation to survive?

As for all nations a distinctive cultural identity lies at the core of Lebanon. This melange of history, traditions, descendency and social character serves as the beating heart which sustains our national existence.

Our national character is a result of a multitude of historical events and developments, which over the millennia shaped our national psych into what it is today. Our social characteristics, values and beliefs all derive directly from the experiences of our forefathers through the ages.

Hariri: Lebanon's Trojan Horse

Antonio Chagoury — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:42:00 GMT

In ancient Troy, when repetitive military assaults failed to bring the city to submission, the invading armies faked a truce and made a peace offering. The large wooden horse made from the invaders’ ships was supposed to signify and solidify the peace treaty. Instead, as we all know, it was filled with hidden soldiers who brought Troy down. The peace offering proved to be nothing more than a ploy to circumvent Troy’s defenses and defeat it from within.

Even though city walls and wooden horses filled with armed men have long been relegated to the annals of history, the analogy remains as valid today as it ever was. When resistance proves too resilient to break from the outside, the enemy will try to find a way to circumvent the defenses and undo it from within.

Rafic Hariri, dubbed by his supporters as the “savior of Lebanon”, who was supposed to deliver the country from its war torn state and rebuild it into a twenty first century miracle with support from the Arab and international communities has done just the opposite. In the past six years the Hariri regime has managed to do more damage to Lebanon and its long term prospects than the previous sixteen years of brutal bombardment. His economic miracle is in finding ways to rob Lebanon’s current and future generations of their wealth, destroy the very essence of Lebanese society and deprive the Lebanese of the basic capacity to rise from the ashes of war.

The war in Lebanon is often blamed on internal sectarian conflicts drawing external support into the fray, often unwittingly. Superficially, one may buy into this theory, A convenient escape theory, blaming the Lebanese for their misery and absolving all others, even holding the Lebanese responsible for the suffering of others. The operative word being Superficially. Upon the first peek below this glossy surface, the realities quickly dispel all such statements, making them sound ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence.

Tens of billions of dollars - some estimate over $100 billion - and more than 100,000 lives have been, and continue to be, spent by non-Lebanese in this conflict. Many a political career has been destroyed, governments fell and bilateral relations irreparably damaged across the globe due to involvement in Lebanon. Neither the few seats in parliament nor the constitutional changes made by the Taif Accord can possibly justify all this.

What then was at the core of the conflict, which justifies such enormous sacrifices and expenses? Economics. Not the Lebanese economy, but control of the region’s economy with its vast petroleum reserves and the money and power that stems from them. Those who control and guard the gates to the Middle East petrodollars yield tremendous global power.

In 1975, Beirut was the main gate through which the world gained access to the region’s wealth. Lebanon’s cultural and educational connections to both East and West, along with the extensive Lebanese business network, free economic environment and enterprising spirit made it the ideal business hub and, thus, the main business broker in the region, through which almost all petrodollars and derivative business passed. In the early 1970’s, financial analysts in London and New York were fretting over the massive wealth Lebanese banks and businesses would control - some estimated it to be 25% of the world’s cash flow by the Early 1990’s - if events continued to develop along the same path. A mighty sum that translates into substantial global leverage for such a small country.

Thereby lies the true cause of the protracted war that was to befall Lebanon. No, this is not a conspiracy theory. In fact, had there been a true conspiratorial effort, the war would have never started. A point clearly illustrated by the protracted and turbulent nature of the events that followed clearly illustrate the contradictory objectives of the various players. Simply put, economic converged and were served by political movements and aspirations.

The Arabs, specially the Syrians, ever loath of Lebanon’s existence as a non-Islamic state suspect of being a Western beachhead controlling the regions wealth, were eager to assert control over the country. The Palestinians were to pave the way for this offensive and gain an operational base that would not endanger any of the other Arab countries and expose them to direct warfare. The Soviets also viewing Lebanon as a Western style threat to its allies and ideology, whole heartedly supported the move.

On the other hand, the West and the US in particular the petrodollars residing in the middle east with suspicion. It was too close to the other side for comfort. The war would bring Lebanese talent and wealth westwards, and with it the ultimate control of the economic process. Without local residence of the petrodollars, the Middle East would never be capable of fully resisting Western influence. The Israelis, with an eye towards prospective economic integration into the region stood to benefit tremendously from the destruction of its main competitor and the regions main economic engine.

Almost every one had an interest in either initiating or allowing the initiation of hostilities. The internal squabble was nothing more than a thin vale for the events.

Of course the biggest mistake, often fatal, committed by anyone is underestimating their foes. The war was never meant to last this long or take this many twists and turns. It was envisioned as a swift execution. Outnumbered and out gunned, the Lebanese Christians, were not expected to stand a chance, fleeing and taking the Moslem upper class with them, signaling the end of Lebanon as we knew it. Many Western countries opened their borders to anyone willing to relocate, with immediate citizenship being granted.

But, the Lebanese proved more resilient than anyone could have imagined and sixteen years later, in 1990, and in spite of the massive losses and extreme circumstances they had to endure, they remained a viable nation with the potential of rising quickly from the ashes of war to reclaim their place in the sun and reestablish Lebanon as the main economic center in the region. The vain attempts at separating the people and creating internal schisms had minimal effect. The Lebanese were more committed to their national identity than ever, Western businesses were re converging to Beirut, after failing to find a true alternative, Western sponsorship had disappeared and the Palestinian tool was no longer viable with the peace process in full swing. Lebanon had survived and was once again reinventing itself like the legendary Phoenix, defying all expectations.

Lebanon's rebirth would have meant that the massive amounts of money and blood sacrificed over the years would have been in vain. Unable to destroy Lebanon through conventional warfare and external pressure, an alternative had to be found. If the Lebanese would flee in the face of adversity and abandon their country, then the country must be dismantled while they reside in it making it impossible to live in. After which, even if they remained, there would not be much they could do.

Enter Hariri, the “butcher” of Lebanon. The Saudi money man, who helped finance and perpetuate the conflict through Billions of dollars distributed to all sides, with extra bonuses handed out to those going beyond the call of duty in their destructive behavior, was now suddenly transformed into an angel of mercy. The man who had long ago denounced his Lebanese citizenship and affiliations and became a Saudi loyal subject was now reclaiming his roots. The same sources of “death funds” were now trying to convince the Lebanese that they had a sudden change of heart and wanted to help Lebanon rebuild the damage they themselves helped bring upon it.

Under the pretext of reconstruction needs and in the name of law and order the Hariri cartel is destroying Lebanon’s future and its prospects for reemergence. In the past years Hariri’s government has, through policies and regulations, intensified sectarian divisions, eliminated most freedoms, economic, political and social and straddled the country with more debt than the previous 100 years, and channeling every available and future cent into the pockets of the Hariri cartel. The Syrians were entrusted to insure submission. Anyone opposed to the plan would suffer grave consequences, while those participating in Lebanon’s slaughter would share the loot.

It is often claimed that without Hariri and his international credibility there would be no reconstruction. He is credited with bring loads of money into the country to finance infrastructure work and rejuvenate the economy. He, as some would state it is indispensable. Nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Anyone familiar with investors in Lebanon and related opinions knows that the only driver is the belief in Lebanon and the capabilities of the Lebanese people. No one invests in a country based on one man’s credibility, as we are all mortal and will not be their forever. In fact the Hariri policies and government decisions have dramatically slowed done the inflow of funds and resulted in massive misappropriations.

The Lebanon Factor

Antonio Chagoury — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:42:00 GMT

Within the historical context of the region, Lebanon had maintained a precarious balance between membership in the Arab league with a pro-Soviet policy and a pro-Western leaning which contradicted the Arab Leagues policy. The balancing act collapsed in the early 1970's when Syria gaining enough strength and capitalizing on a strong Palestinian presence in Lebanon, moved to eliminate the potential strengthening of Western influence in the region through Lebanon.

The world did not seem too concerned with such a move. The Arab League at that time supported such a move, using the Lebanese anti-Western minority as cover for its policy. Israel, America's regional ally, which had initiated its efforts to integrate into the Middle Eastern mainstream through its peace with Egypt saw a benefit in Lebanon's destruction, since it eliminated a potential strong competitor to its economic prowess.

As such, Lebanon received enough support in its struggle to prevent a Syrian take over, which would have strengthened the Soviet camp in the region, but not enough support to actually regain independence.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the preparations for the peace process in the early 1990's eliminated the need to prevent a Syrian take over of Lebanon. Lebanon was considered irrelevant to the success of the process and Syria, no longer a Soviet client, was to be lured into the process through acquiescence to its role in Lebanon. The resultant Syrian strangulation of Lebanon was not deemed worthy of any concern by the U.S. Government.

However, the results of this decision is far from irrelevant. Control of Lebanon has provided the main stay of the Syrian economic independence and allowed for unnecessary delays in the peace process. Illegal operations, mainly in the Bekaa valley provide the Syrian economy with several billion dollars a year from the narcotics trade and the massive counterfeiting of U.S. currency. In addition control of Lebanese territory have allowed Syria to circumvent many of the international trade limitations imposed upon it by operating through Lebanon. Finally the terrorist and fundamentalist groups trained and operating in Lebanon provide Syria with a vital tool in its struggle against the U.S. lead peace process.

More importantly the status quo supported by the U.S. is leading to a fundamental change in the Lebanese view of the situation. The past five years of relative lull on the Lebanese scene, have lead the Lebanese opposition to re-evaluate their situation and conduct some serious sole searching.

The Lebanese have paid a heavy price for their pro-Western, pro-U.S. stance and continue to do so. They remain opposed to cooperating with Syrians in keeping with their commitment to the U.S. lead process for peace in the region. They believe that cooperation would only strengthen the anti-U.S. camp and provided with additional leverage against it. The Lebanese have in effect refrained from reconstructing their own country and its economy and are risking loosing everything in the process.

Yet, this commitment does not seem to be reciprocal. The U.S. whose efforts the Lebanese are committed to, has repeatedly repudiated them. On several occasions, when concerns about the future of Lebanon or its ability to sustain the present conditions were brought to attention, U.S. officials have clearly stated that the issue is not one of concern and even eluded to the fact that Lebanon's survival in the post-war era may not be deemed important.

In this light, Lebanese leaders and the public at large have begun to re-evaluate their commitment to a policy that does deem their mere survival as a priority. The Lebanese are thus, re-evaluating their relationship to Syria, which has been shaped by Syria's perception that the Lebanese would turn against and weaken its bargaining position.

The Lebanese renowned for their survival skills are now viewing the subject in a different light. They believe that since the U.S. and its allies are not concerned with their survival, then any commitment to weakening their enemies, namely Syria is not worth their losses. The primary concern for the Lebanese is becoming the ability to lead a normal life and guarantee the nation's survival.

As such, they have begun considering cooperation with the Syrian presence. It is believed that if the Syrians no longer perceive them as a threat they may unstrangle Lebanon and allow a full recovery, which would in turn benefit the Syrians. This will allow Lebanon to rebuild and allow the Lebanese to survive and wait out the regional developments. That this would strengthen the Syrian position and may threaten the peace process is becoming less of a concern since most see the process coming at their expense.

If the U.S. Government officials still consider this not worthy of their concern, they should reflect on the implications of such a shift.

Primarily it would imply the repatriation of tens of billions of dollars to Lebanon along with several hundred thousand highly skilled and highly trained professionals, coupled with a strong European involvement and some U.S. corporate participation, would quickly transform Lebanon into a vibrant economy. Under the circumstances, no longer leery of the Lebanese intentions Syria would allow for freer operations and would through its political control reap a great benefit from the process, primarily through its massive labor force participation and as a conduit to the rest of the region. This would further strengthen the Syrian intransigence against the peace process and the U.S. plan.

Secondarily, a vibrant Lebanese economy would provide the Arab states, many of whom are leery of Israel's economic intentions with an alternative to the services and know-how of the Israelis, which would weaken their commitment to further integration of Israel into the region.

Booth of these developments do not bode well for the U.S., which is counting on a successful implementation of the peace process to reap the economic benefits of a region in which it has substantial influence. The development of an alternate economic structure opposed to growing U.S. influence would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the U.S. efforts and minimize the resultant benefits.

Democracy, Freedom, Human Rights...

Antonio Chagoury — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:41:00 GMT

We are all proud to be AMERICANS. We are proud, not because of the geographical location of our country. Not because we ethnically superior to others - we are no different than others. We are proud of what America stands for, Democracy, Freedom and Human rights.

President Bush, in his election speech and elsewhere, has repeatedly said that we shall defend democracy and freedom where ever and when ever it is threatened.

Rhetoric aside, let us reflect on the deeds of our president rather than "read his lips."

The Chinese government demolishes its democratic movement by exterminating six thousand student. Bush gives China a most favored status as a reward.

The Baltic states demand their independence from the Soviet Union - a long standing US request. Bush denies them that right, and claims that they are disrupting the peace.

However Bush's most notable offence on freedom came in the Middle East.

This is not a defence of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Personally I condemn any usurpation of one peoples rights by another, simply because the later cannot defend itself.

However when president Bush places more value on the wealth and prestige of the Kuwaiti ruling family than the collective lives of the population of the Middle East, something is not right. This is evident to anybody keeping up with the Mideast developments over the last two years. Specially in Lebanon.

For those who are not familiar with Lebanon, it is the only country in the Middle East in which all people are equal under the law. In fact the Lebanese constitution is so similar to ours that some think it was a modified adoption. What the Lebanese are accused of, as inequality, is no more than the Lebanese version of our own affirmative action laws.

After fifteen years of occupation and brutal invasions that took more than two hundred thousand lives, injured more than half a million, displaced more than two thirds of the population and caused tens of billions of dollars in damage; the Lebanese were accused of madness for even requesting the withdrawal of foreign forces.

The Bush administration has collaborated with monarchs and dictators in an attempt to enforce Syrian and Israeli occupation in Lebanon. He requested the Saudi government to spend two billion dollars to help install a government in Lebanon made up of notorious drug dealers and gangsters. More than ninety per cent of the Lebanese publicly denounced and protested the legitimacy of that government.

When more than a quarter of the population formed a human shield around the presidential palace to prevent the Syrian army from occupying it - an unprecedented, historic act of patriotism, where the civilian population faces tanks and heavy artillery to defend its army - president Bush put his agents to work again. He solicited Saudi funds again, but this time to pay forty million dollars to a drug dealer, who happens to be a Christian, and get the Israelis to arm his men so he can attack the people from within. This tactic, despite of direct Israeli intervention, still failed to eliminate Lebanese quest for Freedom.

President Bush threatened to veto any UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon, or a resolution calling for UN sponsored free elections.

Today he sends our troops to defend an absolute monarchy and the demand the re-establishment of another. He risks the lives of our boys and the lives of the citizens of those countries whose oppressors he aims to protect.

He forms alliances with the Iranian and Syrian governments. The same people responsible for killing our Marines in Beirut and the downing of PANAM flight 103. The same people who have killed thousands of Americans and continue to hold our hostages in the areas they occupy in Lebanon.

Is it the brutality of the Iraqi invasion? Hardly. If we reflect back at the scenes of devastation resulting from the acts of aggression on Lebanon, and compare them to what we see today, we find there is no comparison.

Is it the acclaimed Syrian military power that we could not handle? Again, hardly. The Iraqi armed forces are much more formidable than the Syrians.

We certainly are able to exert pressure on the Israelis to withdraw from Lebanon if we wanted to. We fund their operations.

Why does president Bush do this? The reasons are many. The interests of the United States is not among them.

I have not yet meet a single person in this country, who supports monarchies, or advocates helping dictators in their efforts to dissolve a democratic society. Yet, our president categorically rejects even discussing any solutions that involve elections in Kuwait - the country he claims to be defending.

My understanding of Democracy, is a government elected by the people for the people. This means the government should execute the will of the people, not forgo all popular considerations. I do not believe that any American wishes to shed the blood of our brave soldiers to perpetuate the oppression of others.

The day the freely elected president of the greatest democracy ignores the wishes and well being of his own people and sets out to oppress other nations is a sad day in history. Let us not make it permanent.

Division or Unity

Antonio Chagoury — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:41:00 GMT

In the past NALA has addressed the issue of the dual nature of Lebanon, cultural diversity, its relation to the present situation and Taif's effects on this cultural mix.

We did so based on the belief that if we are to build a pluralistic state that incorporates all facets of Lebanese heritage, we must be clear as to the nature of our descendency. We also believe that equity must be perceived as such by all concerned to truly be equitable. If one group perceives itself denied, it does not help to defend the acts that lead to such perception. Nor will it help to deny that groups legitimate identity to avoid blame.

If we are to unite, we must face the hard task of addressing our differences and work to overcome them. We must be clear as to what it is we are uniting. If we are to build a common future, we must ask the hard question. What is our future? And, on what will it be based?

Ignoring our differences does not eliminate them. Ignoring the existence of the others in our midst will not facilitate our coexistence with them. Ignorance will only worsen the tenuous situation and further the distrust that has divided us.

Some would argue that addressing those issues is divisive. We beg to differ. The acts themselves are divisive. And the perception of denial and dejection is divisive. The longer it remains unaddressed the wider the divide grows. If the twenty years of war taught us anything, it taught us that ignorance is the most fertile ground for growing the seeds of division. Addressing those issues to find a solution and a way out of our present condition is not divisive. In fact it is the only way out.

However, we must address these issues together. If we remain silent about the acts of radicals, our silence will be construed as acceptance. As such, we will solidify the fears of those who perceive themselves wronged. This would widen the divide and lead us further down the road of fragmentation.

The real issue is not whether differences exist, or whether problems exist that divide our people. The real issue is whether we as Lebanese have the courage to face these problems, address our differences and chart a future that would accommodate all in an equitable and just society.

Those who do not have this courage, are better off abandoning their slogans of unity. For, those who refuse to acknowledge the legitimate identity, aspirations and concerns of others are not seeking coexistence and unity. What those are seeking is dominance and subjugation.

We in NALA are principally opposed to such a solution. We solidly believe in the rights of all people to their own identity and their right to be accepted and respected as such. We also believe that the majority of the Lebanese people from all religious and ethnic backgrounds will welcome the long awaited equitable society that would recognize the place of all cultural descendencies in Lebanon and respect their role in its future.

For long we have heard the slogans of unity. Unfortunately, they have always been uttered unilaterally by one group or another, based on that groups perception of what the others should be. None, however, has had the courage to define such a unity or to hold open, frank and constructive discussions on the subject. Thus, systematically feeding on public fears and concerns and widening the divide.

Again we state that we address this issue to find a solution. As any other problem, this one requires a clear definition before an adequate and lasting solution can be found.

Anything short of a thorough analysis of the situation and a comprehensive solution that addresses the concerns and aspirations of all communities is pointless. A partial and superficial solution would prolong the existing divisions and continue to aggravate the situation leading us further apart.

NALA remains committed to the principle of open discussions among Lebanese regarding a permanent solution for their problem, provided they are based on the premise of pluralism, equity and justice for all, and are conducted with respect and acceptance to all communities.

Without a clear vision of our destination, based on a definite knowledge of our origins, we will never reach it.

A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL

Antonio Chagoury — Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:39:00 GMT

It is always rewarding to know that one's work is bearing fruit. It is even more rewarding when the fruit of our labor may usher in a new era for our people in which they may once again enjoy peace, freedom and prosperity.

Over the years NALA has presented the U.S. Government with analysis and recommendations regarding the Middle East and the need to restore peace, independence and democracy to Lebanon as a prelude to any meaningful settlement in the region. We have emphasized the U.S. interests effected by the situation in Lebanon and the benefits that would result from returning Lebanon to its pre-war regional status as meeting ground for the region and an economic and cultural hub.

At times it seemed like our words fell on deaf ears. No one seemed to be listening. The U.S. continued to delude itself into believing that peace can be brought to the region without settling the Lebanese question first. U.S. officials continued to court their enemies at the expense of their Lebanese friends in hopes that they would become more friendly and cooperative.

Recently, however, U.S. officials began to realize the legitimacy of our arguments and recognize their policy as flowed. The latest battles in South Lebanon in particular helped convince many that the situation in Lebanon must be resolved before any meaningful progress can be achieved in attaining a comprehensive peace. The school of thought pushing for freeing Lebanon of occupation and helping the Lebanese rid their country of the narc-terrorist scourge is gaining momentum.

NALA cannot claim all the credit in this change of policy, but we played a major part in bringing it about, and are rightfully proud to have done so. We kept the torch of freedom lit for Lebanon and kept the cause of an independent Lebanon alive. We helped sustain the hopes of Lebanese people that better days lay ahead. There were times, when the situation seemed almost hopeless and the darkness seemed endless, when few could muster the courage to go forward. But we kept the faith and believed that it could be done.

Today, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. It may not be very bright but it is there nonetheless. The Lebanese people, having been disappointed by many who claimed to help them are looking to NALA as the prime voice to articulate their wishes and desires and guide them out of the horrors of war. With the ability of resident Lebanese to act almost no-existent, they look to us to keep the torch lit.

The formula is simple, the harder we push towards the light , the faster we will make it out of the dark tunnel and the sooner we would begin to enjoy the true rewards of our efforts. PEACE, FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE and PROSPERITY for the Lebanese is within our reach.