[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1166-E1167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DAVID R. OBEY

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 25, 1996

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, July 6 is recognized around the world as 
International Cooperative Day. This 74-year-old tradition presents an 
opportunity to people from all corners of the earth to recognize the 
important difference that cooperatives make in their lives.
  The potential role of cooperative enterprises in promoting economic 
development in areas of most critical need, in many cases businesses, 
has been recognized by the United Nations. Last year, the U.N. declared 
that the International Day of Cooperatives should be celebrated every 
year by governments in collaboration with their national cooperative 
movements.
  Next Monday, July 1, cooperative leaders from the United States and 
from around the world will meet at U.N. Headquarters in New York to 
celebrate in International Day of Cooperatives at an event organized by 
the United Nations, International Day of Cooperative Alliance, and the 
Committee for the Promotion and Advancement of Cooperatives. This event 
will provide an opportunity to discuss and to demonstrate the actual 
and potential contribution of cooperative business enterprise to the 
achievement of economic goals, including:
  The potential of the cooperative movement to participate as a 
distinct stakeholder and full partner with the United Nations and 
institutional procedures and structures hereby such participation may 
be most effective.
  The contribution of cooperative business enterprise to the 
achievement of the goals of the International Year and Decade for the 
Eradication of Poverty and the realization of the goals of the World 
Food Summit.
  The potential of the cooperative movement to develop human resources 
and institutional capabilities.
  The cooperative movement as a means for the economic, social, and 
political empowerment of women.
  The contribution of cooperative business to the provision of 
appropriate and affordable social services.
  The capacity of the cooperative movement to undertake appropriate 
technical assistance as a complement to governmental multilateral and 
bilateral assistance.
  The ways and mean whereby partnerships may be strengthened between 
cooperatively organized business enterprises and the U.N. development 
system.
  I have believed for many years that cooperatives provide people with 
an economic alternative that empowers them economically to help 
themselves. Throughout this century, this body has passed legislation 
that created the spark for cooperative development and opened the door 
for cooperatives in this country.
  The result has been the creation of our rural electric and telephone 
cooperative systems, the farm credit banking system, the National 
Cooperative Bank, and credit unions and community development credit 
unions. All of those have been tools that allow people to accomplish 
together things they could not accomplish alone. All are owned by the 
members who benefit from them, and are controlled through the election 
of boards of directors by that membership.
  It is fitting that the international community should recognize that 
power and the possibilities that cooperatives represent in developing 
countries. Today, over 760 million people around the world are members 
of cooperatives. And that fact has made all of their lives a little 
brighter.
  I encourage my colleagues to look to their own districts and 
recognize the existence of cooperatives there that meet their 
constituents needs. What you will find is over 100 million Americans 
and 45,000 businesses ranging in size from small buying clubs to 
businesses included in the Fortune 500. Today, we have cooperative 
businesses in the fields of housing, health care, finance, insurance, 
child care, agricultural marketing and supply, rural utilities and 
consumer goods and services.
  Cooperatives have helped to make this country the economic powerhouse 
of the world. It's a legacy we should share with the rest of the world.

[[Page E1167]]



        PROPOSED: THAT ISRAEL UNILATERALLY WITHDRAW FROM LEBANON

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 25, 1996

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in praise of Stephen S. 
Rosenfeld, the author of an op-ed piece which appeared in the 
Washington Post, on June 21, entitled: ``For Israel in Lebanon--a 
Unilateral Withdrawal.''
  Mr. Rosenfeld's article breathes new life into what I have been 
saying now for many years--get Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon, and the 
guerrilla Hezbollah will disappear as well--making it safe for both 
Israeli citizens in north Israel, and for Lebanese civilians who live 
in or near the southern border.
  The Rosenfeld column is extremely timely given two recent and related 
events in the Middle East. First of all, the totally inappropriate and 
devastating attack on Lebanon civilians by the Israelis during 
operation Grapes of Wrath. In that operation 170 innocent Lebanese 
civilians were killed, and more than 400,000 men, women and children 
were left homeless, grievously injured, and suffering from the grave 
loss of their loved ones and of destroyed infrastructure on which they 
relied for life's daily necessities.
  Second, what Rosenfeld has to say is timely because we have just 
witnessed the election--the first direct election--in Israel which 
replaced the Labor party with the more conservative Likud party--
leaving most of us wondering about the future--if any--of the Middle 
East peace process.
  Third, in the contest of a continuation of the Middle East peace 
process, where does it leave the innocent bystander nation known to the 
world as Lebanon, as it struggles with Syrian soldiers on the one side, 
and Israeli soldiers on the other.
  In that context, I bring to the attention of my colleagues the column 
by Stephen Rosenfeld for the Post, in which he says what I and the 
Lebanese have been saying for years: get Israel to withdraw from 
southern Lebanon--and the rest will take care of itself.
  Mr. Rosenfeld states at the outset: ``Here is a good way for Benyamin 
Netanyahu to start off his foreign policy on the right foot. Remove 
Israeli troops from southern Lebanon and its larger occupier, Syria, 
but without negotiation. Just do it.''
  Rosenfeld also notes that ``southern Lebanon, after all, is not part 
of the `Land of Israel,' and no Jewish settlers live there.'' I agree 
completely with that observation and urge my colleagues to understand 
its deeper meaning in the context of Middle East peace. And I also 
agree that to rid Lebanon of Israeli soldiers would also rid southern 
Lebanon of the Syria-sponsored Hezbollah guerrilla infestation--because 
with Israeli troops gone, the guerrillas would have to go too. Syria's 
credibility would definitely be on the line.
  I could not agree more. Just do it. And please, for the sake of 
humanity, do it without another operation first, which undoubtedly will 
only cause further civilian casualties.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the above-referenced 
newspaper article be printed in the Record at this point.

               [From the Washington Post, June 21, 1996]

             For Israel in Lebanon--A Unilateral Withdrawal

                       (By Stephen S. Rosenfeld)

       Here is a good way for Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's new 
     prime minister, to start off his foreign policy on the right 
     foot. Remove Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. Right 
     away. With notice to Lebanon and its larger occupier, Syria, 
     but without negotiation. Just do it.
       The advantages for Lebanon are obvious. It would be rid of 
     the Israeli occupation. More important, Lebanon could 
     reasonably anticipate being rid of the provocative presence 
     of the Syria-sponsored Hezbollah guerrilla infestation. For 
     without Israeli troops to attack on Lebanese soil, Syria 
     loses the last pretext to keep Hezbollah in Lebanon. With 
     Israeli troops gone, the guerrillas would have to go too.
       There, of course, lies the advantage for Israel. The 
     Israelis are dreadfully cynical about Lebanon, alternately 
     bemoaning, exploiting and aggravating its weakness. But 
     surely Netanyahu's Likud, newly validated as the party of 
     security, is capable of serving the goal it professes. What 
     greater interest does Israel have in Lebanon than to stop the 
     relentless drain of its soldiers' blood in the Israeli-
     occupied border zone and to safeguard its own now-threatened 
     northern villages? These results would flow from calming the 
     Lebanon-Israel border.
       Perhaps Prime Minister Netanyahu is more interested in 
     flexing Israel's military power. In that case, he would want 
     to wait for suitable Hezbollah provocation--they come along 
     regularly--and conduct a bash. This is the traditional 
     Israeli way to try to intimidate the guerrillas and reassure 
     folks at home.
       But set aside, as Israelis do, the repeated disasters this 
     policy of reprisals has bought upon Lebanon. Netanyahu must 
     know the policy has been an utter failure for Israel. Israeli 
     soldiers are still being ambushed, Israeli towns still 
     rocketed. This record and this prospect have to be the 
     starting line of any serious Israeli effort to deal with 
     Lebanon.
       I hear you out there saying, wait a minute, if the Israelis 
     pull back, Syria and Hezbollah may simply conclude that 
     Israel has lost its nerve, that Netanyahu and his Likud have 
     gone squishy, and stay in place. This fear of having one's 
     resolve underestimated is the defining anxiety of Likudniks, 
     especially those in America.
       My answer is that Hezbollah's withdrawal is integral and 
     implicit in the politics of the Middle East. In an Israeli 
     pullback, Hezbollah and its patrons would be able to claim 
     victory: to say they had driven Israel from Lebanon. They 
     would have no reason to stay. Lebanon's residual nationalism 
     and self-respect and Hafez Assad's care for his own 
     credibility would propel the guerrillas out.
       But Israel too could claim victory--the safety of its 
     soldiers and civilians alike. An Israeli government devoted 
     to security that did not explore this option would have its 
     own problems of credibility. Southern Lebanon, after all, is 
     not part of the ``Land of Israel,'' and no Jewish settlers 
     live there: key factors in easing any possible Likud doubts 
     about a pullback.
       Netanyahu campaigned on a claim that only his Likud Party 
     could make the tough decisions necessary for peace. Here is a 
     tough decision, one perhaps that the left-leaning Labor could 
     not have made but that the right-leaning Likud can.
       The prime minister has been saying he wants to move away 
     from his predecessor's attempt to find a ``comprehensive'' 
     approach to Syria and adopt an ``incremental'' one. Okay, 
     here is an increment, a nice bite-sized one; there aren't so 
     many others.
       Netanyahu has been making public the ``guidelines'' for his 
     foreign policy. For most of them, he would seem to have no 
     Arab partner, not soon, anyway. But for this one he could 
     very well have a partner, Syria, which is in a position to 
     bring along poor Lebanon and the killers of Hezbollah.
       As for doing it unilaterally, the case for it is that this 
     is how to get the thing done quickly and cleanly. Israel 
     would simply announce its plans, reserving, of course, a 
     ``right of return'' for the Israeli army if the Syrians don't 
     deliver. The worst that could happen would be to go back to 
     the unsatisfactory but manageable status quo.
       In the early 1970s, I asked the Israeli prime minister, 
     Labor's Golda Meir, if she had considered a unilateral 
     withdrawal of Israeli forces from their positions on the Suez 
     Canal back to the Sinai passes,with both sides free to police 
     the evacuated territory to keep it demilitarized. She drew 
     herself up in executive unanswerability and thundered: ``I 
     suppose you want the entire Egyptian army directly on our 
     frontier!'' Soon came the 1973 war, leaving the Israeli army 
     at the passes.
       In 1992 some in Likud thought the reason Yitzhak Shamir 
     lost to Shimon Peres was that Shamir had not acted on Likud 
     suggestions to withdraw unilaterally from troubled Gaza. Then 
     as now the argument rested on Israel's security needs. Most 
     foreign policy fixes take two. Here is one in Netanyahu's 
     hands.

                          ____________________