[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S3236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN LEBANON

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to address some of the human 
rights violations that the Lebanese government is guilty of committing. 
In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a 
representative of the Independent Communications Network (ICN) explains 
the repeated limitations that the Lebanese Government places on the 
freedoms of speech and press. While I disagree with ICN's 
recommendation concerning the lifting of the State Department's travel 
ban to the country, I believe that ICN raises some valid points.
  ICN's testimony details some of the measures taken by the government 
to repress any political opposition. They are unwilling to allow any 
form of free and open political debate, and they are vigilant about 
ensuring that radio and TV airwaves are strictly limited and under 
their control. The example of the hardships that ICN has had to endure 
show the oppressive policies of the Lebanese government.
  As a country that firmly believes in the freedoms of speech and 
press, we can not sit idly by and tolerate these gross injustices. We 
must do what is possible to restore a sense of freedom to the country. 
It is in this spirit that I ask that ICN's testimony to the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee be entered into the Congressional Record in 
its entirety. The testimony follows:

 Testimony Submitted for the Record by the Independent Communications 
                       Network, February 27, 1996

       Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to testify to 
     this distinguished committee. The Independent Communications 
     Network [ICN] is an independent television broadcaster in 
     Beirut committed to an independent Lebanon.
       We are philosophically as well as professionally committed 
     to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, two 
     fundamental rights which we believe are threatened in our 
     country.
       We know you have no jurisdiction in Lebanon, but what you 
     say and do here in Washington and in this respected and 
     influential committee has an impact in Beirut and beyond.
       The immediate issue before you today is United States ban 
     on travel to Lebanon. We understand the Department of State 
     will announce its decision tomorrow. Such decisions are not 
     and cannot be made in a vacuum. It is with that in mind that 
     we urge you to replace the lifting the travel ban with a 
     strong advisory that not only warns travelers but also makes 
     it clear to the Lebanese government that the United States 
     government expects it to make a concerted effort to improve 
     its efforts to assure the personal security of visitors to 
     Lebanon as well as to secure human rights and freedom of 
     speech for all Lebanese.
       Lebanon is a unique country in the Middle East, and it has 
     historically chosen a unique mission: spreading the liberty 
     and freedom of speech in our part of the world. This mission, 
     which we share with America, is threatened by a government 
     which seems intent on turning Lebanon into a police state.
       Before 1990, the Muslims in Lebanon were demanding a fair 
     share of power. Lebanon has been governed since 1943 by a 
     National Pact dividing power between Christians and Muslims 
     on a six-to-five basis in favor of Christians. In 1990, 
     Lebanese parliamentarians met in the Saudi summer resort town 
     of Taif, and under American, Saudi and Syrian auspices 
     developed a ``peace plan'' that shifted the imbalance to the 
     favor of the Muslims this time.
       This situation has led to an unbalanced government. General 
     elections were boycotted by most Lebanese, leading to a 
     parliament representing no more than 13 percent of the 
     country. We are sliding more and more towards dictatorship 
     and a ``savage ownership'' of the country and the media by 
     the multi-billionaire who is currently prime minister, 
     Sheikh Rafiq Hariri.
       Today the fundamentalists are gaining influence in our 
     country, taking advantage of a collapsing economy and the 
     government's efforts to gag the media.
       The government is seeking to stifle dissent by limiting the 
     number of radio and television stations permitted to operate 
     in Lebanon. Those that remain are becoming little more than 
     political booty for the prime minister and his friends and a 
     club to silence the opposition. The government already has 
     approved legislation permitting only six television and 12 
     radio stations for the entire country.
       Of those six permitted television stations, one belongs to 
     the Speaker of the Parliament, Nabih Berri; another to the 
     Minister of the Interior, Michel Murr and a third to Prime 
     Minister Hariri.
       ICN, as its name implies, is an independent voice not 
     beholden to the government or any political party. It is no 
     coincidence that it is not among the six stations sanctioned 
     by Mr. Hariri and his government.
       The government has ignored the petition of more than 40 
     members of Parliament asking to review and restudy this 
     unjust law. It also has ignored demonstrations in the streets 
     of Beirut protesting the law and more are scheduled later 
     this week.
       Mr. Chairman, we wish to share with you an example of the 
     current state of freedom and democracy and respect for human 
     rights in a country that is slaughtering freedom.
       Earlier this month, ICN was broadcasting live a roundtable 
     discussion with several parliamentary deputies from the 
     opposition who were critical of the government's attempt to 
     parcel out television channels to its supporters. State 
     security forces sealed off the ICN building in Beirut, and 
     the host of the show and some participants were threatened by 
     plainclothes security men about what they were doing and 
     saying.
       The State Department Report on Human Rights, the Middle 
     East Watch report on human rights and other groups have been 
     critical of the policies of the Lebanese government regarding 
     human rights and freedom of speech.
       In 1993 the government banned ICN for nine months until a 
     resolution passed by the United States Congress urged that it 
     be allowed to reopen. But the government did not cease its 
     efforts to silence INC, even after the courts found ICN 
     innocent of the trumped up charges made by the government. 
     The Hariri government continues attempting to promulgate what 
     can only be called unconscionable efforts to silence all 
     opposition and criticism.
       This unbearable political and economic situation has led 
     the Lebanese Workers Union to call for a national strike and 
     demonstrations on February 29. It is no coincidence that 
     threat came from Interior Minister Murr, the owner of one of 
     the six sanctioned television puppet stations.
       It is important to note that the basis of the Lebanese 
     government's demand that the United States lift the travel 
     ban is its repeated claim that it is in full control of 
     national security. It is also asking the United State and the 
     United Nations to force Israel to withdraw from South 
     Lebanon; President Elias Hraoui contends that the Lebanese 
     Army is ready to deploy and maintain security there.
       If the government is as strong as it claims, how can it 
     turn around and say it is banning the constitutional right of 
     demonstration to the workers because security is still 
     fragile and that such demonstrations could jeopardize the 
     national security.
       They can't have it both ways.
       We urge the Congress to see for itself by dispatching a 
     fact finding mission to Lebanon to look into what the 
     government is doing to protect human rights and freedom of 
     speech.
       The first stop for that delegation should be the U.S. 
     Embassy, where you and your colleagues can ask America's new 
     ambassador, Mr. Richard Jones, why, if the government has the 
     security control it contends, he had to secretly land in 
     Beirut and clandestinely head to the Embassy earler this 
     month to take up his new post. And ask why it is American 
     officials can only use the ``helicopter bridge'' into Beirut, 
     not their automobiles.
       In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we support replacing the 
     travel ban with an advisory, but its continuation should be 
     linked not only to the government's ability to protect public 
     safety and the security of American visitors but also to the 
     government respect for the fundamental rights of its 
     citizens.
       Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to testify 
     before you and this distinguished committee. Thank 
     you.

                          ____________________