[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 3, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1111-E1113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




REAFFIRMING SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF LEBANON UNDER PRIME MINISTER 
                             FOUAD SINIORA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. GWEN MOORE

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 20, 2008

  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the concerns 
of the proponents of this resolution regarding the need to bring peace 
to Lebanon. I also add my voice in opposition to the use of violence 
against innocent civilians for any reason. It is wrong. I have always 
condemned such acts and certainly want to express my condolences to 
those killed, injured, or otherwise affected by the recent fighting.
  I have been to Lebanon. I have talked to Parliamentarians in that 
country about the needs of that country. I have also supported a series 
of resolutions since coming to Congress expressing strong support for 
restoring and respecting Lebanon's sovereignty, disarming militias, and 
allowing the Lebanese people and their representatives to direct the 
affairs of the country without outside influence from any quarter.
  My concern with this resolution is that it does nothing to bring the 
fighting to an end or to achieve any of its goals that it intends to 
advance, especially in light of recent events. Instead of writing 
resolutions that make Congress feel good, at this time the U.S. should 
be supporting and cooperating with countries in the region working to 
actually bring an end to the violence and putting Lebanon on track to 
resolve the political paralysis that has gripped the country.
  I did not vote for this measure because I believe it does not move us 
forward in helping to bring peace to the region, especially in light of 
recent events that saw the Arab League and Qatar in particular take 
leading roles in actively working diplomatically to end the violence. 
While this resolution was pending a vote before the House, the Lebanese 
parties including the Lebanese government and its Arab neighbors were 
hammering out an agreement to resolve the political crisis fueling the 
recent violence which has crippled the country.
  I have included a copy of New York Times articles on these regional 
efforts well as another article outlining the announcement by Israel of 
its negotiations with Syria using Turkey as a mediator. Nothing 
guarantees that these talks will succeed but it certainly shows that 
some of the parties most affected by violence in the region are tired 
of empty rhetoric and are willing to sit down and engage in diplomacy 
to prevent there country from returning to civil war.
  Now is an opportunity to encourage the Lebanese and others in the 
region to build on these efforts to defuse tensions and begin to take a 
positive way forward. According to the reports, the Lebanon agreement 
was reached--not because of the Congressional resolution--but because 
the Lebanese parties, with the help of their neighbors in the region, 
sat down at the negotiating table to try and save their country from 
civil war.
  According to these reports, the agreement addresses some of the 
issues that have polarized and paralyzed Lebanon and also makes clear 
that all parties ``commit themselves not to use weapons or violence in 
order to achieve political gains under any circumstances.''
  While the agreement is not perfect and it remains to be seen whether 
it will change the situation on the ground, it has received the 
endorsement of all parties, Saudi Arabia, the U.N, and even the Bush 
Administration. The agreement will not resolve all the pressing 
problems in Lebanon but it helped check the most pressing of the 
moment: a slow march back to civil war.
  While many Lebanese were expressing relief at this news and returning 
to deserted streets in Beirut, the House was voting on a resolution 
which had been eclipsed by events

[[Page E1112]]

on the ground. Rather than amending the resolution to reflect new 
developments in the region and to support diplomatic to put an end to 
the violence, the only option presented to the House was a vote on a 
resolution that proposed no new solutions. Given the opportunity to 
vote on an amended resolution supporting the work of regional actors 
and the Lebanese government to find a solution, I would have gladly 
joined my colleagues.
  Because of the diplomatic intervention by Qatar and others, we now 
have a ``ceasefire'' and a possible way out of the cycle of violence 
that has torn this nation apart.
  The U.S. should continue to support the democratically elected 
government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and can do so by supporting 
diplomatic efforts by all parties to end the political crisis 
underlying the violence.
  The head of Lebanon's U.S.-backed Army is Michel Suleiman--who 
oversaw the Army's deployment in the south under the U.N. resolution 
which halted the Hezbollah-Israel war in 2006. Suleiman, who will 
become the country's President under the agreement, recently stated 
that ``I cannot save the country alone. This mission requires the 
efforts of all.'' I hope rather than passing outdated resolutions, the 
Administration and Congress will rally along with others to provide the 
diplomatic and other support needed by President Suleiman and the 
Lebanese people to make the most of this opportunity.
  Now Lebanon has another chance to repair itself. Let's not waste it.

                [From the New York Times, May 22, 2008]

                  Israel Holds Peace Talks With Syria

                           (By Ethan Bronner)

       Jerusalem.--Israel and Syria announced on Wednesday that 
     they were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive peace 
     treaty through Turkish mediators, a sign that Israel is 
     hoping to halt the growing influence of Iran, Syria's most 
     important ally, which sponsors the anti-Israel groups 
     Hezbollah and Hamas.
       Senior Israeli officials from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's 
     office and their Syrian counterparts were in Istanbul on 
     Wednesday, where both groups had been staying separately, at 
     undisclosed locations, since Monday. The mediators shuttled 
     between the two. Syria and Israel have not negotiated this 
     seriously in eight years.
       Syria's motives are clear: it wants to regain the Golan 
     Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war, and to re-
     establish a relationship with the United States, something it 
     figures it can do through talks with Jerusalem.
       For Israel--which has watched the Palestinian group Hamas 
     take over Gaza and gain ground in the West Bank, and the 
     Lebanese group Hezbollah display raw power in Beirut--an 
     effort to pull Syria away from Iran could produce enormous 
     benefits. An announcement on Wednesday of a peace deal that 
     gives Hezbollah the upper hand in Lebanon's government 
     probably added to Israel's sense of urgency.
       The American government opposed Israeli-Syrian negotiations 
     because they feared that such a negotiation would reward 
     Syria at a time when the United States is seeking to isolate 
     it for its backing of Hezbollah and its meddling in Lebanon, 
     Bush administration and Israeli officials said. The United 
     States yielded when it became clear that Israel was 
     determined to go ahead, they said.
       The talks come less than a week after President Bush, 
     speaking to the Israeli Parliament, created a stir by 
     criticizing those who would negotiate with ``terrorists and 
     radicals.'' Mr. Bush's remarks have become an issue in the 
     American presidential campaign because they were widely 
     perceived as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic 
     front-runner.
       Turkey, a Muslim country and member of NATO, is a close 
     ally of the United States. It is also Syria's neighbor and 
     has an interest in securing regional peace.
       The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been 
     working on convening negotiations for some time, an official 
     in his office said, including holding phone conversations 
     with leaders on both sides, and assigning a special envoy to 
     handle the diplomatic back-and-forth. The fact that messages 
     were being exchanged has been public for a couple of months, 
     because of official Syrian statements.
       The senior Israeli official said that shortly after Mr. 
     Olmert became prime minister more than a year ago, he went to 
     Turkey and held a long one-on-one meeting with Mr. Erdogan in 
     which it was decided that Turkey would mediate between Israel 
     and Syria.
       Efforts to sign a treaty with Syria have often competed 
     with those to build a comprehensive peace with the 
     Palestinians. On Wednesday, Israeli officials tried to make 
     clear that they were not seeking to upstage an important 
     conference opening in Bethlehem--an attempt to make stability 
     easier in the West Bank through economic investment--by 
     saying that both tracks remained vital to them.
       While Wednesday's announcement indicated the first real 
     progress on the Israeli-Syrian front in years, and while both 
     sides have clear goals and motivation for success, there is 
     equally good reason for skepticism about the possibility of 
     success.
       Mr. Olmert is politically weak, with a thin parliamentary 
     majority partly dependent on the right-wing religious Shas 
     party. He faces a criminal investigation that many Israelis 
     believe should lead him to step down or refrain from 
     undertaking negotiations with the country's enemies. 
     Moreover, twice before, under Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin 
     and Ehud Barak, similar efforts to sign a deal with Syria 
     failed.
       In Israel, two-thirds of the public oppose a return of the 
     Golan Heights to Syria, according to numerous opinion polls, 
     and many strategists and generals have said that giving up 
     the strategic advantage of the Heights in exchange for 
     promises or even written treaties makes no sense.
       ``In a period in which Iran is on the march and extending 
     its influence from Lebanon to Iraq, for Israel to consider 
     giving up the Golan barrier would be a strategic error of the 
     highest order,'' said Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem 
     Center for Public Affairs and a former official and adviser 
     to conservative governments under the Likud Party, which is 
     now the opposition.
       ``You have to make a cold assessment whether Israel could 
     drive a wedge between Syria and Iran,'' Mr. Gold said. 
     ``Unfortunately, in the present period, Iran has Syria within 
     its grip to a far greater extent than it did in the 1990s 
     when previous negotiations with the Syrians were held.''
       On the other hand, many other Israeli officials and 
     analysts see great benefits for Israel. Syria is a prime 
     sponsor of Hezbollah and provides it with rockets and arms, 
     many from Iran. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have headquarters in 
     Damascus, and Israel will seek, in these negotiations, to 
     have them closed.
       To pull Syria out of the orbit of Iran and return it to the 
     more pro-Western world of Egypt, Jordan and even Saudi Arabia 
     would be a major victory for Israel.
       A real peace treaty with Syria would bring Israel 
     significant advantages in Lebanon and the Palestinian 
     territories.
       After the midday announcement here of the existence of the 
     talks, the Israeli airwaves were filled with officials of the 
     right and center expressing skepticism about the outcome and 
     saying that Israel should not leave the Golan Heights. 
     Politicians of the left, though, expressed hope.
       Ran Cohen, a member of Parliament from the dovish Meretz 
     Party, told Israel Radio: ``I think this move is very 
     important, very positive. It's too bad it did not begin a 
     long time ago.''
       Others said they feared that the announcement was an 
     attempt to divert attention from Mr. Olmert's legal troubles.
       ``I very much welcome any process that can advance peace 
     between us and our neighbors, first and foremost with 
     Syria,'' said Eitan Kabel, secretary general of the Labor 
     Party, which is in the government with Mr. Olmert's Kadima 
     Party. ``I very much hope this isn't some sort of spin whose 
     goal is pull a screen over the situation that the prime 
     minister is in.''
       In the past, the sticking point in negotiations has been 
     whether yielding the Golan to the Syrians gave them 
     sovereignty all the way to the waterline of the Sea of 
     Galilee. The Syrians say yes, but the Israelis have said no, 
     fearing the loss of water rights and full access to the lake.
                                  ____


                [From the Herald Tribune, May 22, 2008]

          Agreement Struck in Lebanon To End Political Crisis

                  (By Robert F. Worth and Nada Bakri)

       Beirut, Lebanon.--The agreement reached by Lebanese 
     political factions early Wednesday amounted to a significant 
     shift of power in favor of the militant Shiite group 
     Hezbollah and its allies in the opposition, who won the power 
     to veto any cabinet decision.
       The sweeping deal to form a new government promised an end 
     to 18 months of political deadlock here, and underscored the 
     rising power of Iran and Syria, which have backed Hezbollah 
     in a proxy battle against the governing coalition and its 
     American and Saudi allies.
       Government leaders said they had given way on major 
     provisions because they felt the alternative to an agreement 
     was war. They also said they won a pledge that no faction 
     would use its weapons internally, as Hezbollah and its allies 
     did during street battles this month in the worst internal 
     fighting since Lebanon's 15-year civil war.
       ``We avoided civil war,'' said Walid Jumblatt, a leader of 
     the governing coalition. He added that the agreement called 
     for a future dialogue on weapons, a clause that he and other 
     government leaders hoped would eventually allow them to raise 
     the issue of Hezbollah's arsenal.
       The agreement was brokered by Arab mediators in Doha, 
     Qatar, and involved intensive last-minute diplomacy among the 
     major regional players in Lebanon, including Syria, Iran and 
     Saudi Arabia. Before the agreement, an Iranian adviser 
     assured Saudi officials that Iran did not want a 
     confrontation with Arab nations, said an adviser to the Saudi 
     government, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because 
     he was not authorized to comment publicly. Iran agreed to use 
     its influence to prevent Hezbollah from entering Sunni Muslim 
     areas of Lebanon, the adviser said; such incursions occurred 
     during the clashes two weeks ago.
       The agreement specifies a new government and a new election 
     law, ending an 18-month opposition sit-in that had suffocated 
     business in Beirut's downtown commercial center. It also 
     calls for the election of the army chief, General Michel 
     Suleiman, as president. The post has been vacant since 
     November.

[[Page E1113]]

       But the deal leaves unresolved the questions that provoked 
     the crisis in December 2006. Those include Hezbollah's 
     weapons and Lebanon's relations with Syria, which ended its 
     29-year military presence here in 2005 after the 
     assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
       The divisive issue of cooperation with a United Nations 
     tribunal to investigate Hariri's murder and 10 other killings 
     that followed also remains to be solved. Pro-government 
     officials accuse Syria of involvement in those 
     assassinations.
       The governing coalition hailed the new pact as a fair 
     compromise, as did officials in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, 
     and France.
       In Washington, the Bush administration portrayed the 
     agreement as a good step. C. David Welch, the assistant 
     secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said that the 
     deal could make Syria's eventual return to Lebanon 
     impossible. He contended that the fighting had so damaged the 
     images of Hezbollah and Syria as its backer that Lebanon's 
     Sunnis and Christians would not welcome Syria back.
       In the past, the United States has urged the government 
     majority to take a firm stand in its conflict with the 
     Hezbollah-led opposition.
       Many Lebanese voiced relief at the news that their 
     country's long political stalemate appeared to be over. 
     Crowds flooded happily into the usually empty downtown on a 
     warm afternoon, and many shops that had been closed for more 
     than a year were reopening. The tents where opposition 
     members had camped out for 18 months were slowly being 
     dismantled, with people packing their gear into pickup 
     trucks.
       ``We came here to celebrate; it's a dream coming true,'' 
     said Chadi Ahmadieh, 32, who works at Solidere, the company 
     that rebuilt the downtown area. But he added: ``This solution 
     is like a shot of anesthesia that will at least get us 
     through the summer. There are still differences over many 
     issues.''
       The agreement was announced as Israel acknowledged that it 
     was involved in indirect talks on a possible peace deal with 
     Syria brokered by Turkey. That fueled speculation that the 
     two developments were linked, though officials involved in 
     the Doha talks said they knew of no connection.
       But some analysts said Hezbollah's decision to assert 
     itself militarily this month might have been partly based on 
     a calculation that it could be endangered by a deal between 
     Israel, its nemesis, and Syria, its backer.
       ``Hezbollah's decision to use force might have been partly 
     motivated by a fear that Syria and Israel were going to make 
     peace, and that it had to consolidate its power in Lebanon 
     before that happened,'' said Paul Salem, the director of the 
     Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
       The agreement in Doha provides for a government of 16 
     cabinet seats for the governing majority, 11 for the 
     opposition and 3 to be nominated by the new president. That 
     will allow the opposition to veto cabinet decisions, a demand 
     the governing coalition refused to accept until now.
       Heated last-minute negotiations over how to reshape 
     Lebanon's electoral districting system which will 
     significantly influence power-sharing after the 2009 
     parliamentary elections led to a compromise that divides the 
     country into smaller districts, allowing for more equal 
     representation of its various sects.
       Several Lebanese government officials said they felt they 
     had no choice but to accept the deal. Although their side has 
     long had strong verbal support from the United States and 
     Saudi Arabia, they appeared to have overplayed their hand 
     earlier this month when they challenged Hezbollah's private 
     telecommunications network and its control over the Beirut 
     airport.
       Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, declared those 
     government decisions an act of war, and the group sent its 
     fighters and their allies into the streets on May 7. Within a 
     day, the Shiite group had seized most of west Beirut. The 
     violence continued in northern and eastern Lebanon, leaving 
     at least 62 people dead and threatening to push the country 
     into an open war.

                          ____________________