[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2443-S2447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE MIDEAST
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment
briefly about a trip I made to the Mideast and to the efforts being
made at getting a cease-fire and a truce.
Two weeks ago yesterday, I arrived in Jerusalem and met with General
Zinni, and then with Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and then
with the Palestinian Authority's Chairman, Yasser Arafat.
On that day, I was told by all three of those men that they were very
close to finding agreement on security arrangements under the so-called
Tenet Plan put forward by CIA Director George Tenet.
Then the next day there was the massacre, the suicide bomber at the
Passover Seder where 22 people were killed and several hundred were
wounded. Then the whole situation in the Mideast exploded.
The Israelis then undertook a military operation to try to root out
the suicide bombers. And following the initiation of that military
operation, the suicide bombers stopped for a few days. Then they
started again yesterday.
I am glad to say that Secretary of State Colin Powell has gone to the
Mideast at the President's direction. I know the Secretary would have
preferred to have gone after all of the arrangements had been worked
out and it could be a triumphant tour, but I do believe it is necessary
to make an effort even where success is not assured. Nobody hits a home
run, we can't expect someone to hit a home run every time they go to
bat.
The risks for the United States of doing nothing are much greater
than the risks if we try, even if there is not immediate success.
On the wave of the suicide bombings, it is very difficult to ask the
Israelis to stop their efforts in self-defense to root out the
terrorists and to stop the suicide bombers. It is very hard to do. We
cannot allow, the world cannot allow suicide bombings to become an
epidemic. What happened to the United States on 9-11 involved suicide
bombers, just a little bit more sophisticated. They hijacked airplanes
that they crashed into the trade towers. One was headed to the White
House which hit the Pentagon, and another was headed to the Capitol
which went down in Somerset County, PA.
If suicide bombers are not stopped, they are going to become an
epidemic and a way of life; no one is going to be safe. It is very
difficult to expect Israel not to act in its own self-defense in
rooting out the suicide bombers.
The evidence came to light last week, or the purported evidence, that
documents were found which bore the signature of Chairman Arafat on
paying money to terrorists who were involved against the State of
Israel. It seemed to me that when that evidence came to light, we had
to check it out thoroughly to see if in fact it was true. There has not
been conclusive authentication, although from all appearances it seems
to be accurate.
The Palestinian Authority did not directly deny the accuracy but
said, somewhat tangentially, that Israel sometimes concocted the
documents and said further that Israel was using this issue for
propaganda purposes. Both of those responses are really beside the
point. The point is, are those documents authentic?
There yet ought to be a determination, perhaps made by a U.S.
official, perhaps by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or perhaps by
the CIA or some impartial agency, to see for sure if that is in fact
Chairman Arafat's signature and his handwriting.
When I saw him 2 weeks ago yesterday, I asked him a great many
questions. One of the questions I asked him involved the Iranian
shipment of arms to the Palestinian Authority which was documented. At
that time, there was not conclusive proof linking Arafat personally,
but there was conclusive proof that it went to the Palestinian
Authority. When I talked to Chairman Arafat and his advisers in the
face of their denials that it ever happened, it seemed to me not
credible and not worthy of belief.
When I saw Chairman Arafat, I conveyed General Zinni's message that
Chairman Arafat ought to make an emphatic, unequivocal statement in
Arabic to stop the suicide bombings. Chairman Arafat refused to do
that.
If it turns out that these documents do in fact bear Arafat's
handwriting and if it is conclusive that Arafat has paid off
terrorists, then it seems to me very difficult to deal with Arafat or
to ask Israel to deal with Arafat.
I am not unmindful of the grave difficulty as to how we negotiate
with the Palestinian Authority if we do not negotiate with Arafat. But
the ultimate question is, what is an arrangement, what is an agreement
with Arafat,
[[Page S2444]]
worth if in fact he has been paying off terrorists? You have a sequence
of events that would be most damning. The Iranian arms deal is very
problematic. His refusal to make an unequivocal statement in Arabic to
stop the suicide bombings is also obviously very problematic.
I am glad to see Secretary of State Powell talking to moderate Arab
leaders first. The reports were that when he met with Mohamed VI, the
leader in Morocco, Mohamed VI challenged the Secretary on why he had
waited so long to come to the Mideast and why he had gone to Morocco
instead of going to Jerusalem where the war problem existed. I think
Secretary of State Powell was correct in going to Morocco first and
then talking to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia who happened to be in
Morocco as well, then proceeding to Egypt, and then to talk to King
Abdullah of Jordan--to go to the moderate Arabs first.
I frankly like King Mohamed VI's spunk in challenging the United
States. I think that kind of independence and that kind of directness
is very refreshing, even though I believe Secretary of State Powell is
correct and had a good answer for Mohamed VI. I have had a chance to
meet him on prior trips to the Mideast. He is a man in his late
thirties. I think it shows great promise of leadership in the moderate
Arab world. He follows his father who had good relations with Israel
and had an open mind. He has the real potential for leadership.
On the trip to the Mideast a week ago last Thursday, I had a chance
to talk to King Abdullah of Jordan. There is another young moderate
leader of the Arab world who has real potential.
I have been a little disappointed lately in what President Mubarak
has had to say and a little surprised to see in the morning's press
that it is the Egyptian Foreign Minister who had a press conference
with Secretary of State Powell as opposed to President Mubarak.
When President Mubarak was visiting here a few weeks ago and a number
of Senators met with him in the Foreign Relations Room downstairs in
the Capitol, the question was raised about an editor of a newspaper
reportedly very close to President Mubarak who had spread false rumors
or printed a false report that the United States was engaged in
providing tainted food in Afghanistan which is totally untrue. The
question arises as to why that is going on. It may be that it can't be
controlled by President Mubarak. But when that question was posed,
there was not a satisfactory answer given to it.
President Mubarak has been a strong moderate leader for many years.
The United States has responded with $2 billion a year since the late
1970s, or in the range of $50 billion in United States aid to Egypt in
recognition of their leadership.
It may be that what we will have to look for ultimately is some other
representative, if Chairman Arafat is disqualified because of what he
has done, it may be that the moderate leaders such as Mohamed, or
Abdullah, or Mubarak, will have to step forward. It is very troublesome
as to what may be accomplished. I am hopeful that Secretary of State
Powell will be able to broker a truce. As I said, 2 weeks ago yesterday
they were very close to security arrangements and to an agreement among
Chairman Arafat, General Zinni, and Prime Minister Sharon. But beyond
the truce, I think Secretary of State Powell is correct. As he
commented yesterday, there has to be an immediate action toward a
political settlement.
There has been agreement that there will be a Palestinian State.
Prime Minister Sharon has acknowledged that, and that is understood in
Israel. Those are the terms of the Oslo agreement President Bush talked
about. I do think there are ways to move ahead to see to it that the
issues of boundaries, the issues of settlements, and all the other
issues in the political mixture can be worked out.
During our trip, we also had an opportunity to meet with President
Bashar al-Asad of Syria, another young man--a new generation--in his
thirties. He is 36 years of age. I had occasion to get to know his
father, Hafez al-Asad. I have been traveling to Syria almost every year
since 1984 and had many meetings--more than a dozen--with President
Hafez al-Asad, and I had an opportunity to meet President Bashar al-
Asad when I attended the funeral in June of 2000.
In a meeting I had with President Asad a week ago Saturday, we talked
about a great many subjects. It is my hope, as matters evolve, that
President Bashar Asad will present a new image for Syria. I know in
today's press it is reported that Vice President Cheney has contacted
President Bashar Asad about not opening up a second front in Lebanon.
It is my hope that Syria will be cooperative in that respect.
When I talked to President Asad a week ago Saturday, I raised a
number of issues with him. He had been quoted at the Arab summit,
saying it was acceptable to target civilians. I commented to him that I
thought that was not appropriate, that you simply cannot target
civilians. Civilians might be injured and they might be casualties, as
civilians were injured when the United States bombed Yugoslavia, but to
target civilians is unacceptable. We had a discussion about that. He
responded there were thousands of settlers in the Golan who were armed,
and I replied that if that situation was unsatisfactory to Syria,
President Asad should pick up what his father did and try to negotiate
a settlement on an arrangement brokered by President Clinton back in
the mid-1990s, when Syria and Israel were very close to agreement, with
Prime Minister Rabin and President Hafez al-Asad.
I commented about President Asad's speech last summer where he
equated Naziism with Zionism. I told him that that not only was
unacceptable and problematic for the international Jewish community,
but for the international community generally. President Asad responded
that if you talked to the man in the street in Damascus, he or she
would not know very much about Naziism, but they would be very unhappy
with Israel. I said equating Zionism and Naziism is very repugnant,
that the principal reason for the Jewish nation in Israel was the
Holocaust and the incineration of 6 million Jews, and that kind of
equation is unacceptable.
In conclusion, I see colleagues coming to the floor, so I will not
take up any more floor time. I think we have to pursue new avenues. I
think we have to look to moderate Arabs such as Mohamed of Morocco,
Abdullah of Jordan, and Mubarak of Egypt to lead the way. And if we
find this evidence as to Yasser Arafat's complicity in paying
terrorists, we have to face up to that head on.
President Bush has been very emphatic that you can't deal with
terrorists, you can't deal with anybody who harbors terrorists. In
moving forward with negotiations, before there is a truce, there is a
real problem there on the appearance of rewarding terrorism by having
negotiations before there is a truce. Prime Minister Sharon had
insisted on 7 days of quiet before he would negotiate, and in the
interest of trying to move the process forward, he has abandoned that
precondition. But we have to be very careful in our dealings here that
we do not reward terrorists, which will only encourage more terrorism.
I ask unanimous consent that my trip report be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senator Arlen Specter, Report on Foreign Travel, England, Netherlands,
Greece, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Syria, March 22-April 1, 2002
england
We arrived in London on the evening of Friday, March 22,
2002. On Saturday morning, Glyn Davies, Deputy Chief of
Mission (Charge d' Affairs), and Mr. Ethan Goldrich, First
Secretary, of the U. S. Embassy staff provided a briefing. We
discussed the British reaction to a host of issues, including
Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, steel, anti-terrorism coalitions,
NATO, England's Jewish population, and embassy security.
The U.S. decision imposing tariffs on steel imports has
been of great concern to British officials. The issue appears
to be less of a bilateral one between the U.S. and the U.K.,
and more of a concern about increased dumping of steel from
countries excluded from U.S. markets that could affect the
British steel industry.
Domestically, Mr. Davies noted that the political landscape
is dominated by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Tory power is low
currently. Domestic problems such as crime and health care
remain unsolved. England's bureaucratic structure is very
powerful, and is about equal to the political establishment.
Mr. Davies shared a story about the bureaucratic heads
preparing separate memos immediately before the election
outlining different initiatives depending on who won.
[[Page S2445]]
I asked about the solidity of the U.S.-led coalition. The
embassy staff noted that five nations have troops on the
ground in support of the Afghanistan action and that fourteen
countries are members of the assistance force. There is a
general feeling that even Great Britain's support for the
U.S. has somewhat diminished. Immediately after the September
11, 2001 attacks, the British people showed an outpouring of
support through letters, telephone calls and acts of
kindness. Many people drove to Heathrow Airport to take home
stranded Americans. Further, over 50,000 people came to the
Embassy to sign condolence books in the rain. Despite this
overwhelming support, the British people and officials are
often concerned about the use of their troops. They fear an
``overstretch problem'' with commitments around Europe and
elsewhere and are skeptical of further military actions,
including one against Iraq.
On the issue of Iran, there appears to be a real divergence
between the U.S. and U.K. positions. England opened an
Embassy in the hopes of improving communication between the
two nations. They are appealing to the moderates in Iran, who
are known to exist, but are not in positions of power yet.
President Bush's inclusion of Iran in the `` Axis of Evil''
is reportedly viewed as inappropriate and the British are
treading lightly with regard to Iranian issues.
We discussed the security of the U.S. Embassy. Protective
actions have been taken, but more work is reportedly
warranted.
That evening, we had dinner with the Rt. Ron. Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, a former Member of Parliament who recently
retired. Geoffrey and I debated in November 1949 when he
represented Oxford and I was on the University of
Pennsylvania team. We discussed the wide range of U.S./
British relations, including our 1949 debate topic:
``Resolved that the British Empire is Decadent.''
netherlands
From London, we traveled to The Hague, Netherlands, and
met, dined and stayed with U.S. Ambassador Clifford M. Sobel
and his wife Barbara with whom we discussed a wide range of
issues.
On Monday, March 25th, we met at the headquarters of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY). The attendees at the meeting were Carla Del Ponte,
Chief Prosecutor; Mark Ierace, Senior Trial Attorney; Gavin
Ruxton, Senior Legal Advisor; Mark B. Harmon, Senior Trial
Attorney; Michael Johnson, Chief of Prosecutions; Anton
Nikifozov, Special Advisor; Jean Jacques Joris, Diplomatic
Advisor; and Graham Blewitt, Deputy Prosecutor.
The Tribunal has six ongoing trials in two types of cases:
leadership and criminal. There are three courtrooms with
morning and afternoon sessions. The U.N. has provided a
budget of $200 million for two years, which forced the ICTY
to eliminate two full trial teams. The ICTY now has six trial
teams. Efficiency has been reportedly questions by the U.N.,
but Ms. Del Ponte and her staff feel that these criticisms
are unfounded. The workload for the ICTY is immense, with one
case producing a quarter of a million documents, which
require translation into three languages. Overall, twenty-
five cases have been completed.
We had planned to view the Slobodan Milosevic trial;
however, it was postponed due to Milosevic' s having the flu.
That trial has attracted much international attention, and
the ICTY staff is concerned that the trial is an opportunity
for Milosevic to make political statements. The prosecutors
are confident that another view will be taken by the public
once the prosecution has a chance to expose Milosevic's
weaknesses.
Former Ambassador Holbrooke has been called to testify. We
were told that the U.S. Government has invoked Rule 70 for
any Americans testifying, which would require a closed
session. Ms. Del Ponte fears that this may provide Milosevic
an opportunity to announce through the media his version of
the closed sessions. Ms. Del Ponte said she discussed the
likelihood of the U.S. waiving the rule with Secretary of
State Colin Powell who said he would consider it.
I asked about the status of the Radovan Karadzic and Ratko
Mladic cases. Karadzic has been sought for six years with
reports that he travels with impunity. Two raids have been
made recently related to his case. Similarly, Mladic is not
the type of person who is able to hide in his country. There
are reports that Mladic has been seen in a Belgrade Park with
60 guards. The Tribunal's work is hampered by the fugitive
status of these two men.
I asked for an update on the Rwanda prosecutions. On the
cases, the Tribunal has 53 detainees, including 17 on trial
and 32 awaiting trial. Ms. Del Ponte frequently visits Rwanda
as a part of her oversight duties. Each Tribunal--for the
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda--has roughly the same staff of
70 attorneys each, although the vacancy rate is high in the
Rwanda office.
greece
En route to Saudi Arabia, we stopped briefly in Souda Bay,
Crete in Greece. We met with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Miller
and discussed many issues. First, we spoke about Greek
support of the U.S.-led war on terrorism, as well as threats
in Greece by a group known as November 17th. They have
reportedly killed twenty-two U.S. and other foreign personnel
in Greece since 1975. We also discussed trade, which balances
fairly heavily in favor of the U.S., primarily through
military equipment sales.
We touched on the Cypress issue, which the Ambassador
thinks is close to being resolved. On U.S. action in Iraq,
the Greeks urge diplomacy over military action. The
Ambassador recommends the U.N. as the best forum to discuss
Iraq with Greece and other hesitant nations. Moving onto the
Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the Greeks appear to be
supportive of the Saudi plan. Further, the Greeks see
potential in Iran as part of the solution to tensions in the
Middle East, as evidenced by the Greeks hosting Iranian
President Khatemi recently.
saudi arabia
From Greece, we continued on to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Before leaving Washington, D.C., we were told we would meet
with Crown Prince Abdullah Monday night or Tuesday morning.
Upon arriving there, we were told to await a call setting the
meeting time on Monday evening. Shortly thereafter, we were
advised there would be no meeting because the Crown Prince
was preparing for the Beirut summit and would be departing
for Beirut early the next morning.
israel
We left Saudi Arabia on the morning of Tuesday, March 26th
and stopped briefly in Amman, Jordan, as required by Saudi
regulations, on our way to Tel Aviv, Israel.
That afternoon, we met with General Anthony Zinni, U.S.
envoy to the Middle East. General Zinni said the Israelis and
Palestinians were very close to an agreement on the Tenet
plan. He had been in negotiations with the leaders of both
sides and reported progress at every meeting. The plan
proposed by Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet in
June 2001 was Zinni's working draft. That plan is focused on
security issues. The process would then lead directly into
the George Mitchell plan on political matters and end with
resolving final status issues.
General Zinni stressed that a plan would have to be given
time to work on the ground. He believes Israelis will be
satisfied if they believe Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian
Authority are making a 100% effort to end the violence. He
suggests the use of outside monitors, including some U.S.
personnel, to evaluate the situation after an agreement is
reached. Under the Tenet plan, they would monitor arrests,
including the use of proper procedures; weapons confiscation,
including disposal; and actions of incitement of violence.
When I asked about his reaction to the Saudi proposal, the
General said it was a remarkable plan, because of the mere
fact that it was offered and that it appears to have strong
Arab support from around the region. He said the Saudi plan
could further political discussions.
There is a great deal of speculation as to whether Yasser
Arafat can control the violence. His forces have been
weakened by Israeli attacks. Upon learning of my meeting
later that evening with Arafat, General Zinni asked me to
make a few points. First, Arafat needs to sign and follow the
Tenet agreement. Second, Arafat must make a clear declaration
to end the violence in Arabic and English. Chairman Arafat
has been accused of saying one thing in Arabic and the
opposite in English.
General Zinni told me that the Israelis are very concerned
about the Syrian connection to Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon,
which reportedly has about 8,000 rockets that could be used
against Israel. We discussed the need for more pressure on
countries to stop funding terrorism. These countries allow
organizations to operate, exploit children as suicide
bombers, and funnel cash for arms. The General suggested that
an Arab non-governmental organization or cooperation with the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other
humanitarian groups from around the world could help address
the poverty from which terrorist groups recruit young
terrorists.
Late that afternoon, I met with Prime Minister Sharon and
U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer. Prime Minister Sharon was
generally upbeat and in a good mood notwithstanding the
pressures and problems. He asked our Ambassador what had
happened on his (Sharon's) request to attend the Beirut Arab
summit. The Ambassador replied that the inquiry had, not
unexpectedly, been turned down. Prime Minister Sharon
expressed appreciation that an effort had been made.
There was then an extended discussion over the U.S. request
to let Chairman Arafat attend the Beirut summit. Sharon said
Arafat shall not be rewarded since he had done nothing to
stop the violence. At least, Sharon said, Arafat should have
made some statement about ending the violence.
Sharon then asked the U.S. Ambassador if the U.S. would
back up Israel in refusing to allow Arafat back in if
violence occurred in his absence. As events developed, Arafat
was not permitted to leave Ramallah and nothing came of the
issue.
I asked Sharon what would occur if the suicide bombings
continued after Arafat made an adequate statement for
terrorists to end the violence. Sharon replied that all
Arafat could do was give 100% of his best efforts. It was
apparent from Sharon's tone that he did not trust or expect
anything positive or productive to come from Arafat.
At 7:00 p.m., Joan and I had a pre-Passover Seder dinner
with my sister and brother-in-law Hilda and Arthur
Morgenstern who live in Jerusalem.
At 8:30 p.m., we embarked in an armored car for the 40-
minute drive to Ramallah. Our security officer advised that
many weapons
[[Page S2446]]
commonly used by Palestinian terrorists could destroy our
vehicle. To say the least, it was an uneasy ride.
When we came to the line of demarcation between Israeli and
Palestinian territory, we noted a tall cement barrier to
shield Israeli soldiers from Palestinian snipers. We were
advised that there were Israeli snipers a block away in a
high-rise abandoned hotel.
Starting at 9:30 p.m., we spent about an hour and a half
with Chairman Arafat at his compound in Ramallah. Also
attending were Sa'eb Erekat, Minister of Local Government;
Nabil Abu Rudeinch, Chief de Cabinet; and Jeff Feltman from
the U.S. Consulate.
Chairman Arafat said he thought General Zinni was correct
that a deal was close. He said the most recent meeting was
very positive. Mr. Erekat stated that they are one-hundred
percent committed to the Tenet plan. Generally, we were told
that the deal is acceptable, with some specific items still
in negotiation.
I told Arafat that General Zinni is asking for his public
denouncement to end the violence to be in English and Arabic.
Arafat said he has made these statements in the past,
sometimes at the request of American officials like Secretary
of State Colin Powell, and that he will agree to do it again.
Arafat said, confirmed by Erekat, that he will follow the
precise script agreed to with Zinni and Israeli officials in
Arabic as well as English.
Regarding Arafat's control of terrorist groups, he said he
could control them if he has help to rebuild his forces,
buildings, and infrastructure. He said that with every
Israeli strike, his power to stop the violence is diminished.
I brought up the subject of the Iranian arms shipment
destined for Palestinian groups that was seized recently.
Chairman Arafat became very animated, denied that the
Palestinian Authority had received arms from Iran, claimed he
did not need weapons and said the Iranians have called for
his death, so he questions why anyone would think he would be
dealing with them. His denials of dealing for Iranian arms
were totally unpersuasive in view of the conclusive evidence
to the contrary.
I also asked his opinion on possible action against Iraq.
He urged extreme caution, arguing that it would greatly
strengthen Iran. He warns that the Shiite Muslim areas,
accounting for as much as half of Iraq' s total population,
would be taken over by Iran, and that Iran's borders would
expand. Further, he claimed that Iran and Turkey would argue
over control of the Kurds.
On Wednesday, March 27th, we met with Israeli Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres. He said the Tenet plan must be
expanded to deal with political issues. He is not convinced
that a solution is close. He stated there are a number of
items that he feels are necessary for a successful peace
proposal, including: recognition of a Palestinian state;
determining borders; no ``right of return'' for Palestinian
refugees; Jewish settlements; Jerusalem as a holy place
without sovereignty; and security.
He has urged General Zinni not to ask Arafat for things he
cannot do and recommends making private requests of Arafat,
instead of open demands. It is Peres' sense that Arafat feels
he is winning and wants to be seen as a moderate ruler to the
world and as a popular leader with his people. He reiterated
concerns that Arafat delivers different messages for
different audiences and is careful not to issue orders, so as
to protect himself. He thinks the Saudi plan is
psychologically significant, because it recognizes the
Israeli state and pulls the whole Arab world together.
On potential U.S. action against Saddam Hussein, it is
Peres' opinion that the Arab leaders would publicly condemn
the action, but be relieved privately.
We spoke of the future of the region and Mr. Peres believes
that Arab nations must realize that poverty does not create
terror; terror creates poverty. They must also realize that
nobody can help them transition into modern states but
themselves. Scientific and technological research and
advances provide the key to a stable, prosperous future.
However, a major impediment to these activities is a closed
society. He said there are no more excuses for backward
societies now that empires and foreign rule are over. Only an
open, free society will allow for this innovation.
Threatening the future of the region is the close
association with religion and terrorism. He said that so many
people in the Arab world consider attacks on civilians a
religious obligation to attain justice. This Machiavellian
idea that the end justifies the means, is very difficult to
reverse and leaves no room for compromise. Groups such as
Hezbollah threaten Israel, but they also threaten countries
like Lebanon, which has been a supporter of the group.
jordan
On the afternoon of Wednesday, March 27th, we traveled from
Tel Aviv, Israel, to Amman, Jordan. On Thursday morning,
March 28th, we met with U.S. Ambassador Edward ``Skip'' Gnehm
and his staff who briefed us on the regional issues.
The U.S. provides annual foreign aid to Jordan in the
amount of $150 million for water, health care, and economic
assistance, as well as $75 million in military assistance.
The Ambassador was pleased that the President's Fiscal Year
2002 supplemental appropriations request includes $100
million for economic assistance and funds to help Jordan
purchase a $60.5 million radar system.
The Ambassador noted that Jordan has a ``warm peace''
relationship with Israel. Many Jordanians visited Israel
regularly before the violence erupted 18 months ago. Many
businesses also participate in the Qualifying Industrial Zone
program, which provides exports to the U.S. of products
produced by Jordan with Israeli input. The U.S. is Jordan's
top importer.
Further, Jordanian intelligence is seen as a partner with
the Israelis and has helped foil many terrorist attacks.
There is a geographical interest for Jordan, because Israel
provides an outlet to the Mediterranean. However, there is an
internal Jordanian effort to end the relationship with
Israel.
We next met with Jordan's King Abdullah bin Hussein at his
residence. We talked about the ongoing Arab summit and he
confirmed that there were security concerns for himself and
President Mubarak. They have many enemies, including
Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. He stated that the Lebanese were
making things difficult at the summit. He expressed surprise
at Syrian President Asad's speech that called on Arab nations
to sever ties with Israel.
The King has been working closely with Saudi Crown Prince
Abdullah on the peace plan and emphasized the importance of a
general proposal that would offer peace from the Arabs to
Israel and send a message to Arab populations on the street
that it is time to change. He expected the peace plan to be
passed at the summit.
He expressed concern about Arafat's not attending the
summit. The King did express optimism that General Zinni will
get something accomplished, but did note that Arafat's
control on the ground has diminished.
With regard to Iraq, the King was much more hesitant and
argues that the timing is important. He feels the region is
too unstable to handle the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and a
move against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. However, he could not
give a timetable for such an action and questioned the
ability of the U.S. to form a coalition. He does believe that
Saddam is pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
syria
On Thursday, March 28th, we left Amman, Jordan, and arrived
in Damascus, Syria, where we were briefed by U.S. Ambassador
Theodore Kattouf, a native of Altoona, Pennsylvania, and his
staff.
We discussed Syrian President Asad's statement at the Arab
summit, in which he justified attacks against civilians. The
Ambassador said the Syrians charge the U.S. with using a
double standard on U.N. Resolutions by urging strict
enforcement on Arabs and being lax on Israelis. He also said
the Syrians feel they have no hope for leverage against
Israel and its military might without Arab cooperation.
Further, Syrian leaders do not see any U.S. action to resolve
the issue of most concern to them, the Golan Heights. Vice
President Cheney did not visit Syria, which was seen as a
slight.
On March 30th, we met with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad
and Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara. I
had previously met President Bashar al-Asad at his father's
funeral.
President Asad told me that dialogue with Americans is very
important to him. He said he met with the American media in
Beirut two days prior. I thanked him for condemning the
September 11th attacks by al-Qaeda.
He said the war in Afghanistan will not solve the problem,
rather a need for moderation is called for. Terrorism is
built on ideological extremism. He was sharply critical of
U.S. support for Israel and claimed that the terrorism
experienced by Israel is merely a reaction to terrorism
inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians.
After praising President Asad's support for the Saudi
proposal to normalize relations with Israel, I expressed
disagreement with his speech at the Beirut summit where he
condoned terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. He
sought to justify that approach saying there are thousands of
armed settlers holding Syrian territory in the Golan.
I responded that he should resume negotiations with Israel
over the Golan Heights issue, which his father had pursued
and had come very close to resolving in negotiations brokered
by President Clinton. I said I thought President Bush might
well be willing to help on that matter.
I urged President Asad to come to visit the U.S. with his
wife who has received significant public acclaim. I noted
King Abdullah's successful visit to the U.S. where the King
and his wife had made a public impact with their views.
In the course of our one hour fifteen minute meeting, I
told President Asad that his 2001 speech at the Arab summit
equating Zionism with Nazism was offensive to a much larger
audience than the international Jewish community. I
emphasized that reference to Nazism was especially repugnant
since the Nazis had murdered six million Jews in crematoria
during World War II, which has been a major factor in world
Jewry's determination to establish Israel as a Jewish state
and homeland.
President Asad replied that if the average citizen in
Damascus was asked about ``Nazism'' he would not know much
about it, but if asked about Israel, he would be very
opposed.
Moving to Iraq, I told him of my concerns about Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction and his refusal to comply with UN
inspections. He said that it would be impossible for
[[Page S2447]]
Iraq to obtain nuclear weapons. He said Arabs would strongly
oppose U.S. action against Iraq and believes the matter
should be handled by the UN.
He said that President Bush's inclusion of Iran in the
``Axis of Evil'' was a mistake and was not acceptable to the
region.
I told President Asad that I would like to see Syria take
action to warrant removal from the U.S. terrorism list. He
defended Hezbollah and other terrorist groups in Damascus and
was clearly disinclined to take any action against them. He
expressed the hope that the U.S. would deal with Syria on
matters other than only Israel. I replied that I would
explore the possibility of more U.S. trade and Syrian
membership in the World Trade Organization to the extent that
was not precluded by Syria's being on the U.S. terrorist
list.
I brought to the President's attention the case of a U.S.
woman who had married a man from Lebanon who abducted their
two children to Syria after their divorce. President Asad
expressed his concern and advised that he would personally
look into the matter to try to determine the whereabouts of
the children.
Following our meeting with President Asad, we departed for
Rome, Italy on the afternoon of March 30th where we were
hosted and met by Ambassador Mel Sembler and his wife Betty.
At each stop, we were greeted, briefed, and taken care of by
very competent and hospitable Ambassadors and their staffs.
We remained in Rome on March 31st for an interview on
``Face the Nation'' and departed Rome on April 1, 2002, for
the U.S.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania
for his usual erudition which spans many topics. I enjoyed listening to
him on this subject, and on Syria in particular, which remains quite an
enigma to many of us. Bashar Assad, as he said, is untested at this
point.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for his kind comments. He and I
have worked on many subjects together.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I want to speak for a brief time about
the Middle East as well. I guess I am addressing my speech, in a
certain sense, to the President and the Secretary of State because many
of us--certainly I and many of my constituents in New York and many
colleagues in the Senate--are confused. I believe that in making this
war on terrorism the No. 1 goal America faces, our President has done a
great job. I support not only his concept but the execution. He has
just been fabulous in this regard.
My enthusiasm was not simply limited to the area of Afghanistan,
southern Asia, and central Asia, but also to the Middle East because I
have spent time talking to the President on numerous occasions about
the Middle East. I have carefully followed his statements. What he has
stated has been crystal clear, and that is that terrorism is terrorism
is terrorism--whether it be in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or directed at
Israel.
The President has stated unequivocally that Yasser Arafat is engaged
in terrorism and that until he is able to curb terrorism, we are not
going to have peace in the Middle East. This administration even had
the courage to put the Al Aqsa Brigade, a part of Fatah controlled by
Yasser Arafat, on our Nation's terrorism list. Documents that were
subsequently made public showed that Al Aqsa was engaging in terrorism
and Yasser Arafat was fully aware.
So the last few days have come as a shock, and so many of us are just
totally perplexed. So this is an open question to both Colin Powell and
the President because sending Colin Powell to the Middle East I don't
have a problem with, if someone can help make peace. I think it is
difficult, and I think the tone in the Palestinian territories is
decidedly against peace. I think the nihilism is enormous. I think the
failure to deal with truth throughout the Arab world, with no free
press, is incredible when an American Ambassador is vilified for asking
that people stand up and remember it is not only Palestinian victims
but also Israelis. For Colin Powell to come into the area and to try to
bring the sides together, I do not have a problem with that.
What is totally perplexing is this: Given the President's strong
stands against terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head, given his
view--and I say this as someone who, as you know, Madam President, has
been pretty much up and down the line a supporter of the President's
policies thus far, in Afghanistan, in the war against terrorism, and in
the Middle East; I have said some very laudatory things--all of a
sudden it seems the President's previous statements are being ignored.
For instance, we are doing two things at once: Yasser Arafat, whom we
acknowledge as an aider and abettor of terrorism--I believe he
perpetrates terrorism--is going to meet with Colin Powell. Despite the
fact that both the President and the Secretary of State have said
repeatedly that they will not meet with Yasser Arafat until he
renounces terrorism and takes some steps to end the violence, now we
are meeting with him without any preconditions and, at the same time,
Israel, which is acting defensively to prevent the kind of suicide
bombings which no society can endure, is being restrained. Arafat, the
terrorist, the perpetrator of terrorism, is given a pat on the back and
a green light--``We will meet with him''--which is a reversal of
administration policy because they were not going to meet with him
until he did something--not just words but did something.
Secretary Powell himself asked him to say things in English and
Arabic which is a basic statement saying: You do not tell the truth;
you talk with forked tongue. At the same time, we are telling Israel,
which is simply trying to defend herself: Pull back.
It seems as if the policy in the Middle East has had a 180-degree
turn without any explanation, without understanding its inconsistency
with even the President's speech last week, which I thought was a tour
de force, without letting us understand as Americans who support the
war on terrorism how we can sit down with someone who perpetrates
terrorism, and at the same time chastise and put handcuffs around the
country trying to defend itself against terrorism. It is very
perplexing.
I would like the administration to explain itself. What has brought
about the 180-degree turn? Why is Colin Powell now meeting with Yasser
Arafat without any preconditions? Why isn't America giving Israel the
chance to get these suicide bombers, to take their weapons away? We all
know we are not going to have peace if in a democracy its leaders can
do nothing when a bomb goes off every day in a hotel or a pizza parlor
or on the street or in a bus.
The policy seems to be muddled, confused, and inconsistent with what
seemed to be a crystal clear direction which I think the vast majority
of Americans, whatever one's views are on other issues, supported.
I fail to understand how we can reverse policy so quickly and so
dramatically without any change. Has Yasser Arafat renounced terrorism?
Has he arrested any of the suicide bombers in the last few days? What
has changed? Is the word of what we say not to be believed, that we
will change our views on a dime?
This speech pains me because I was so enthusiastic about the
President's policy in the Middle East until this past week. I would
like to be enthusiastic again. I would like to believe there is
something that none of us knows that justifies this reversal, but so
far silence.
I urge the Secretary of State and I urge our President to reconsider
what they are doing. Make Yasser Arafat come clean; make him renounce
the violence--the very same violence that we are fighting in
Afghanistan and that we must fight in America has to be fought in
Israel as well--and give Israel a little bit of the space that it
needs--a week--to get after these engineers--terrorist if there ever
was one--who make these evil bombs filled with explosives, nails, and
ball bearings that are exploded amid innocent men, women, and
children--civilians. Give them a chance to curb them. Then Colin Powell
should come into the area and cause the sides to sit down and create
peace. Maybe we will have a chance to succeed.
I yield the floor.
____________________