[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1548-S1549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE MIDDLE EAST

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, last week, in the middle of a 10-day trip 
to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel, I read a story in the 
International Herald Tribune about a discovery made by a joint Chinese-
United States paleontology team in China. The team found 45-million-
year-old fossil remnants of an animal the size of a thumb they believe 
is a key evolutionary link between pre-simian mammals and human beings. 
From an analysis of the fossils, the team speculated that the animal 
met an unfortunate fate: He became the regurgitated meal of a hungry 
owl.
  Misery loves company and there are times in the Middle East when one 
feels like that unfortunate animal trying to figure out and understand 
what our policy ought to be to pursue peace in that turbulent, 
difficult region.
  In the Middle East the search for peace can seem as slow to develop 
and the politics can be as brutal as the rules of natural selection 
where survival is the most important virtue. For most of the modern era 
survival in the Middle East has been defined in military terms. 
However, because the Middle East is not immune from the competitive 
demands of the global economy, increasingly survival's definition has 
been modified with economic strategies and analysis.
  That is among the most important reasons for improved chances of 
peace between Israel and Syria. To that end President Clinton's 
decision to fly to Geneva, Switzerland to meet with Syrian President 
Hafez al-Assad is a very hopeful sign. The President has a high degree 
of respect from both President Assad and Israeli Prime Minister Barak. 
As such, he may be able to convince Mr. Assad to make some gesture to 
the Israeli people which will make possible the eventual surrender of 
the all-important Golan Heights. The Golan Heights were captured from 
Syria on June 10, 1967, at the end of the Six Day War, and have been a 
part of Israel for 33 years; no Israeli leader can surrender this land 
unless legitimate security concerns are thoroughly satisfied.
  If the President's discussions with President Assad do help produce a 
peace agreement between Israel and Syria, it will add momentum to the 
successful completion of final status talks between Israel and the 
Palestinians. It will decrease the potential for tragedy in southern 
Lebanon following Israel's unilateral withdrawal by July 1. And 
finally, it will increase the chances that Lebanon could become more 
independent from Syria.
  Syria's 15 million people are facing a very uncertain future. This 
uncertainty begins with the nature of their government--a dictatorship 
with President Assad in absolute control. Mr. Assad has held power 
since 1970 and has tried to give the impression of popular support with 
coerced referendums; in 1991 he received a ``vote of confidence'' from 
99.9 percent of Syrians. However, Mr. Assad's age and health make it 
likely that power will be transferred in the next few years. The 
current leading candidate is the President's son, Bashar, a thirty year 
old ophthalmologist.
  Peace with Israel would make it much more likely that President 
Assad's son would survive in power. A peace agreement would mean 
normalized relations with Israel and an end to Syria's support of 
terrorism. It would make it more likely that badly needed investment 
would enter the country and it would allow Syria to divert much needed 
resources from defense into health and education. The resulting 
economic growth would bring new-found opportunities to the Syrian 
people though not nearly as great as the opportunities they would have 
if they would begin a transition away from a dictatorship to democracy.
  From the Israeli point of view, a peace agreement with Syria would 
bring benefits that could lead to solving regional economic problems as 
well as contributing to a more favorable agreement with the 
Palestinians. Peace would mean that all three nations--Jordan, Egypt 
and Syria--with whom Israel has fought three wars would recognize 
Israel's right to exist as an independent nation.

  In theory it would seem like peace is possible, but the Middle East 
is a place where life is always standing theory on its head. Not only 
is a U.S. Presidential election coming to a theater near all of us in 8 
months, but the political scene in both Syria--a dictatorship with 
transition difficulties--and Israel--a democracy divided into smaller 
and less effective political groups than at an time in its 50-year 
history--makes it most likely that defeat will once more be snatched 
from the jaws of victory.
  I would say the chances of success are comparable to making a three-
ball

[[Page S1549]]

pool shot on a pool table littered with debris. However, given the 
benefits of peace it is a shot work taking.
  The benefits for the United States of an agreement between Israel and 
Syria are considerable. They include:
  Improved security for Israel, our closest ally in the region;
  Increased openness and opportunity for regional cooperation since 
Israel would then have peace agreements with Syria, Jordan, and Egypt;
  Decreased threat of terrorism directed at Israel or the United 
States;
  Increased chances that Lebanon can become a fully independent and 
democratic nation; and,
  Greatly decreased threat of catastrophic use of weapons of mass 
destruction in this fragile region.
  The benefits to the United States must be quickly understood by 
Congress because when an agreement is reached, there is no doubt that 
the United States will be asked to spend money in order to give both 
sides the confidence that peace will make them more secure. The figure 
of $17 billion over a 10-year period has been raised in the press, 
specifically directed at funding means to give Israel the security 
which it currently enjoys from being present on the Golan Heights. The 
dollar costs are important, but I would like to focus less on the 
amounts than on what will be needed to make an agreement successful.
  First, Israel needs the assurance of early warning. It needs to be 
warned about potential missile attacks--or other use of weapons of mass 
destruction--so it can deter or intercept such attacks. It needs to be 
warned of potential ground attacks so it has time to mobilize its 
ground defenses. Without the assurance of early warning, the Israeli 
people will not feel secure. To emphasize, Israel is a real democracy. 
They do not have a dictator making the decision. The people have to 
feel secure in order for a peace agreement to work. Without real 
security, the Israeli people, quite rightly, will not support any peace 
agreement.
  In my view, monitoring from the high ground overlooking the Golan 
Heights is essential to achieving any agreement and to maintaining 
Israel's security. A largely automated equipment set should suffice, 
but if personnel are required on site, I think American contractors, 
not soldiers, can and should do the job. Operating on an isolated 
mountainside, they would be in more danger than are our peacekeepers in 
the Sinai Multilateral Force of Observers. This is an appropriate task 
for us.
  Another potential cost, and one that is rarely mentioned, is economic 
assistance to Syria. The poverty and lack of economic dynamism in Syria 
is the fault of the Syrian regime, whose mania for control has largely 
smothered the entrepreneurial instinct of Syria's talented people. And, 
unsurprisingly in a regime which has ruled  unchallenged for 30 years, 
there is corruption. But if Syria will agree to a timetable of economic 
opening and a transition to democracy, U.S. economic aid for Syria 
would be appropriate. Syrians need to see a peace dividend. Given the 
business skills and ambition of Syrians, I expect a free-market, 
democratic Syria to move up quickly in global economic standings and to 
be a partner with Israel in trade as well as in security arrangements.

  Lebanon poses perhaps the biggest challenge to a comprehensive peace. 
If Lebanon is to play a positive role in the peace process, and if 
Lebanon is to become independent of Syrian domination, many Lebanese 
are going to have to act with both courage and generosity. As Israel 
withdraws from southern Lebanon, Lebanese leaders should send their own 
rebuilt and united army to the south to disarm Hezbollah and the South 
Lebanese Army and to prevent future attacks on Israel. Lebanon should 
do this even if Syria objects. It is Lebanon's duty to be sovereign in 
all its territory, and to prevent attacks on other countries that 
emanate from Lebanese territory. I am sympathetic to all Lebanon has 
undergone over the past 25 years, but I am describing only the minimal 
duties of an independent state.
  Occupying the south will take courage. Two other big problems--the 
future of the South Army and the future of Palestinian refugees in 
Lebanon--will require generosity. The Lebanese Army should integrate 
the SLA fighters into its own ranks and make them welcome. It should 
similarly integrate those Hezbollah combatants who request it. 
Regarding the Palestinians, some of whom have resided in camps in 
Lebanon since 1948, Lebanon should likewise be generous. Those 
Palestinians who request it should be accorded citizenship and Lebanon 
should make a special effort to integrate them fully into its national 
life. It seems presumptuous of me to advise a country which fought a 
long civil war over just such issues to now take bold action to 
integrate its marginalized groups. But if Lebanon fails to do so it 
will be neither peaceful nor independent, and its weakness will lessen 
the chances of peace in the region.
  Let us suppose that this extraordinary long shot works, that all 
three balls go in their respective holes, and that Israel, Syria, and 
Lebanon, with American help, make a real peace. There will still be 
dangers emanating from the Middle East. The weapons of mass destruction 
now in the arsenals of Iran and Iraq, and the weapons those two states 
are still developing, present a lethal danger. The Iranian regime seems 
more rational and more amendable to democratic change than does 
Saddam's regime in Baghdad, but there won't be true security in the 
region until Iran and Iraq are free-market democracies and are fully 
integrated into the family of nations.
  Furthermore, looming overall these security challenges is the biggest 
problem of the Middle East: The lack of water. Water is not a respecter 
of political boundaries; water shortages can only be solved on a 
regional basis, and if they are not solved diplomatically these 
shortages will be a longstanding source of military conflict.
  Despite all of these challenges, it is still worthwhile for us to 
maintain our patience for peace. The peace we are helping build today 
will have enormous benefits. Perhaps the greatest benefit is that the 
burden of fear which overhangs the whole region will be lifted. I am 
thinking of the fear of a mother whose son has been drafted, the fear 
of a child in a bomb shelter, the fear that large crowds at a market or 
sports event might attract a terrorist bomb, the fear with which a 
family fits and adjust their gas masks, the fear of war that keeps 
investors away, the fear of the unknown alien race that lives in very 
similar circumstances just 30 miles away.
  As many of my colleagues know, the people who deal with these fears 
are wonderful people. They are our friends, our actual relatives in 
many cases. For many of us they are our spiritual cousins as well, they 
are at home in a region many of us call holy, and they have lived with 
fear for too long. That is why one of our Government's noblest efforts 
right now is the effort to help the pragmatism, good sense, and good 
will of the region's leaders bring peace to the Middle East.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is it my understanding, under the order, we are to be in 
morning business until 12:30; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________