[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6396-6401]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        REPORT ON FOREIGN TRAVEL

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to make a statement on a recent 
trip I have made to the Mideast. I want to alert my colleagues to the 
fact that beyond what is available in the news media, the situation in 
the Mideast is so serious it is really hard to describe. The concern I 
have is that the violence is likely to move beyond the borders of 
Israel where Hamas and Islamic Jihad may be targeting other 
installations, perhaps even U.S. installations.
  I had an opportunity to talk with the Israeli leaders, including 
Prime Minister Sharon, who has the understandable position that he is 
not going to negotiate for peace until the violence has ended.
  I had an opportunity to talk with Palestinian Authority Chairman 
Yasser Arafat, who makes representations which simply are not true. 
Arafat makes the contention that he has issued an unequivocal edict for 
the Palestinians to cease the violence, citing as an example a speech 
he made at the Arab summit. When that speech is examined, it is so 
conditional as to be meaningless.
  We had an opportunity to travel as well to Damascus where 
conversations were held with Foreign Minister Shara.
  The situation between Israel and Syria is very tense. Israel 
retaliated against a Syrian radar installation because of the Hezbollah 
attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon Hezbollah being backed by 
Iran with the concurrence of Syria.
  The trip I made occurred during the past Easter recess, and I will 
describe it in some detail in the course of this floor statement.
  Upon coming back to the United States, I have written to the 
President urging him to appoint a special representative in the 
Mideast, just as that had been the practice going back to the days when 
Henry Kissinger shuttled for President Nixon, special envoys being 
appointed by President Jimmy Carter, President Ronald Reagan, President 
George H. W. Bush, and President Bill Clinton.
  Mr. President, from April 7 to April 21, we traveled from New York 
City to London, Florence, Ashkelon, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Cairo, 
Damascus, Beruit, Souda Bay, Crete, and Rome en route to Philadelphia.

[[Page 6397]]

  In London, we met at the British Ministry of Defense with Ian Lee, 
the Director of the NATO and European Security Policy Department, and 
Deputy Director, A. D. Richards. The meeting touched on a range of 
issues. Among those were President Bush's position on missile defense, 
the British outreach to rogue nations, the viability of NATO absent a 
Soviet threat, plans for the proposed European defense force, and the 
British thoughts on the War Crimes Tribunal and the International 
Court.
  Mr. Lee stated that the British reaction to President Bush's position 
on Missile Defense and its effect on the ABM Treaty was one of general 
support. They have an appreciation for the risks and agree with the 
United States on the threats. However, they are waiting to see what the 
actual proposal would be.
  Mr. Lee stated that the United Kingdom was at a different stage than 
the United States in regards to its relation with several rogue 
nations. Its mission in Iran is moving toward having an ambassador, 
while it continues an effort to establish diplomatic ties to Libya.
  I next met with Mr. Emry Jones Parry, the Political Director and 
Deputy Undersecretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 
Also attending was Mr. Jonathan Darby, the U.S. Desk Officer, Foreign 
and Commonwealth Office, and Mr. Mort Dworken, the Charge d'Affaires at 
the American Embassy.
  When questioned about the proposed European Defense Force, Mr. Parry 
offered insight as to why Mr. Blair, who is a strong supporter of NATO, 
had come out in favor of an European defense force. According to Mr. 
Parry, Mr. Blair apparently believes that by putting a European flag on 
the force structure, European nations will be more likely to put money 
into it as well as spend the money on what they should in a NATO 
context.
  Mr. Parry noted the idea of a European defense force has been around 
since 1952. He said it is not designed to remove the U.S. from the 
theater, but make it more likely to have the U.S. there because the 
Europeans would be pulling more of their own weight.
  On the issue of the International Criminal Court, Mr. Parry stated 
that the U.K. is generally in favor of it. It believes there is a need 
for a forum to hold those accountable who would otherwise escape 
justice because of a lack of interest in their home jurisdiction. He 
was surprised when I told him that War Crimes Tribunal Prosecutor Carla 
Del Ponte was thinking of indicting General Wesley Clarke and other 
NATO officers for targeting civilians and for recklessly endangering 
them in targeting military objectives. Mr. Parry said it was his 
understanding that British troops could not come under indictment 
because of provisions that the United Kingdom would take care of its 
own.
  When I asked why we are putting so much into NATO in light of the 
loss of the Soviet threat, Mr. Parry replied that NATO's actions in 
Kosovo show that it is still necessary.
  Our conversation then turned to the U.K.'s actions with Iran and 
Iraq. Mr. Parry noted that Britain was looking to keep a relationship 
open with the nations, and then if firm action was later required, the 
relationship could be adjusted accordingly.
  I then asked Mr. Parry if the Europeans might eventually be on board 
the idea of missile defense. He responded that the assumption in 
Britain was the United States would go ahead and deploy a missile 
defense system, if it would work. The British position is that they 
will do what is necessary to ensure its success, but would like it to 
be ``arranged in such a manner as to generate greater solidarity on the 
issue.''
  We then had substantive discussions in a working tea with the 
Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of 
State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs with ministerial duties 
including North America. Over tea at the House of Lords, we discussed 
the American/British relationship. She also described her background 
and how she came to be in the House of Lords.
  After having tea in the House of Lords, we then walked across 
Parliament to the House of Commons Central Lobby, where I was met by 
the Rt. Hon. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, MP, with whom I had a wide ranging 
discussion of issues. Smith and I had debated in November 1949 when he 
represented Oxford and I was on the Penn team.
  Later that same day, we met with the country team headed by Mort 
Dworken, Charge d'Affaires, who brief-
ed us on the latest information regarding foot and mouth disease, 
fallout from the Administration's position on the Kyoto Accords, 
European security policy and the status of US/British relations.
  In attendance were Mort Dworken,
Charge d'Affaires; Tom Hamby, Foreign Agriculture Minister-Counselor 
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Ed Kaska, Economic Affairs 
Officer; Captain Stu Barnett, USN, Defense Attache; and Sonya Tsiros, 
Political Officer.
  We initially asked about the current status of the foot and mouth 
epidemic and were told the disease was still not under control. The 
British Government was undertaking a massive control program to try and 
isolate the virus. This included the slaughter of over 1 million head 
of livestock with another half million yet to be killed. In addition, 
the government was restricting movement in the countryside including 
the closure of such historic sites as Stonehenge.
  Tom Hamby, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, noted that the 
U.S. currently has sixty veterinarians in the country both to help as 
well as become educated on successful ways to combat the disease. He 
described the effort much like a military campaign so that if the virus 
gets to the U.S., we will have people trained and on the ground to 
fight it.
  We inquired into the political and economic effect of the disease and 
found that both had been affected. Prime Minister Blair postponed the 
national elections until June 27th due to the severity of the disease. 
Economically, the disease had yet to show its full weight. Although the 
UK has less than 2% of its Gross Domestic Product in agriculture, the 
closure of the English countryside had a clear economic affect in 
regards to tourism. At the time, there was no definitive number on the 
economic impact.
  Early the next morning, we traveled to Florence, Italy where our 
first meeting was with a trio of lawyers with the famed Ferragamo 
family businesses to discuss trademark protection. During the meeting, 
we were told that the majority of Ferragamo products which are 
illegally copied originate in Asia. We asked how counterfeiting was 
detected, and whether there were any trouble in distinguishing the 
quality between counterfeit and non-counterfeit goods. The answer was 
yes, there often is a difference in the quality of the leather and 
accessories. But that is not always the case. Now counterfeits can 
often be of a very good quality, and be very difficult to 
differentiate.
  We were surprised that the Italian government doesn't do more to stop 
this form of theft, especially since so many of the top designers are 
from Italy, and asked how much litigation they are involved in to 
protect the Ferragamo name. Most litigation, it turns out, is of a 
civil nature and is injunctive in nature. Even though most actions are 
civil, it is very difficult to get damages based upon the design of 
Italian law.
  As for criminal actions, it is recognized as a form of larceny, but 
the criminal courts consider it to be of nominal value and not as 
important as other crimes. We were told that in one case often cited by 
the courts, a customer went to buy a ``Ferragamo'' purse and paid a low 
price for it. The court reasoned that since the price was so low, the 
purchaser had to know it wasn't a real Ferragamo purse, and therefore 
no fraud occurred. I commented that by prosecuting a few white-collar 
crimes, a real deterrent effect could be achieved.
  Later that day, we discussed a wide range of US/Italian/European 
issues over lunch with Consul General Hilarion Martinez at his home 
above the American Consulate. During the course of our discussion, he 
stated that

[[Page 6398]]

although American students widely participate in education programs in 
Florence and all throughout Italy, it was difficult to get Italian 
students to come to the U.S. because Italian Universities often do not 
recognize the credit hours bestowed by American Universities, absent a 
one on one agreement between the institutions.
  Early the next day, we set out to visit the Georgetown campus in the 
hills above Florence. Upon arrival, we were greeted by Ms. Heidi 
Flores, the Director of the Georgetown program. The campus is located 
on a beautiful villa overlooking the whole of Florence, and was 
established in 1981 when the facility was donated to the university. It 
has 27 students currently enrolled and 6 faculty. Other similar 
programs in the area include New York University, Syracuse, Smith 
College, California State, Florida State, Stanford, and the 
Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin.
  We asked them who it was that we could talk to about producing a 
reciprocal agreement between the U.S. and Italy which would seek to 
recognize credits equally. The Minister of Universities was identified 
as the appropriate individual. He could give substantial background 
information regarding the problem.
  During my visit at the Georgetown campus, we met Cuffe Owens a 
student and a nephew of my colleague Senator Joe Biden.
  After returning to the city, we met with Mr. Patrick McCormick, the 
Director of Communications for the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre on 
Piazza SS. Annunziata. Mr. McCormick gave me a brief on the activities 
of his center which was founded in 1988 ``to strengthen the research 
capability of the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, and to 
support its advocacy for children worldwide.'' We touched on several 
areas including an ongoing study in West Africa on trafficking in 
children, religious persecution in the Sudan and child protection. His 
first-hand accounts of children as young as five being used as soldiers 
and camp slaves in Sierra Leone were quite troubling. His organization 
continues to push for the education of young children which they see 
``as central to poor countries economic well-being.''
  After leaving UNICEF's Research Center, we participated in a press 
conference at the Florence City Hall, Palazzo Vecchio, regarding a 
joint effort between Italian Police and Microsoft in Livorno, Italy, in 
which a large counterfeiting operation was uncovered. Attending were 
representatives of Microsoft, and local government officials.
  At the news conference, the Microsoft representatives stated that 
counterfeiting was most prevalent in Tuscany so they had started a law 
enforcement action in Florence. They said that the reproduction or 
cloning was so good that it took Microsoft experts some 15 minutes to 
tell the difference between a counterfeit product and a genuine 
product. They also stated that they had located in the past year in 
Europe some 25 million Microsoft counterfeit products on the market at 
a loss of 1.7 billion dollars.
  According to Microsoft, the national (Italy) rate for illegal/
counterfeit Microsoft sales was in the 31-37 percent category. In 
Brescia, the illegal reproduction was 65 percent before passage of the 
copyright law in 1999, and have since been reduced to 29 percent. The 
law provides for fines and a jail sentence and also has provisions for 
search and entry. There have been some efforts to apply the copyright 
infringements to internet apparently to online sales.
  We had an opportunity to discuss with the attorneys whether there had 
been any criminal prosecutions brought under the new law. They 
responded with a lengthy description of the process. Apparently, there 
had been no criminal prosecutions. We then asked if there had been a 
use of the search and entry law, and he said that they had one such 
case where counterfeit products had been transported from Singapore to 
Holland to Milan. The Microsoft experts aided the police in the search 
and entry, helping to identify counterfeit products.
  In Israel, we met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, former Prime 
Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Our first 
meeting was with Mr. Peres whom I first met in Tel Aviv in 1980 and 
have seen him on many occasions since, both in the United States and in 
Israel.
  Minister Peres was in good spirits, displayed his great sense of 
humor, proceeded to give a comprehensive discourse on the state of 
affairs in the Mideast, and to respond to our questions. Minister Peres 
started our conversation by saying that terrorism was as un-American as 
communism used to be. The topic of conversation on our minds was the 
escalating violence on the border with Gaza, and the northern border 
with Lebanon. Peres was firm in his conviction that when the time to 
negotiate comes, everything must be on the table, no impositions on the 
Israelis, and no impositions on the Palestinians.
  Peres then asked me to explain to Palestinian Authority Chairman 
Arafat whom I was scheduled to meet later in the trip, that some of 
Sharon's words are very tough, but that the Israelis have several 
guiding principles. They will respect signed agreements as long as both 
sides respect them. Israel, he said, is ready to make painful 
compromises for peace, including redeployment in the territories. He 
also added that the final proposal offered under former President 
Clinton is dead since he left office. He stated that he thought it was 
a big mistake on Arafat's part not to accept that deal.
  Peres stated that it is currently very hard to negotiate because of 
all the anger. Arafat's delivering of ``impossible'' speeches only 
makes it more difficult as well. His view is that the Palestinians 
think Israelis are militarily harsh in the territories, and that in 
order to move forward, a different climate must be created there. The 
best thing that could happen is to change the conditions there. The 
answer for the Palestinians is not the battlefield, but the bargaining 
table--as it has historically been.
  I asked Minister Peres whether Arafat could control terrorism. He 
replied he could do a lot by making a strong and unambiguous 
declaration against it, and prevent the police force participation in 
the violence. Minister Peres stated that the current situation was not 
one of absolutes, except that the Israelis seek absolute effort. The 
first expression of that effort is an unambiguous, unconditional and 
strong statement rejecting violence delivered in Arabic.
  Following our meeting with Foreign Minister Peres, we walked a block 
to a meeting with former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. I had first met the 
former Prime Minister when he was just out of the army, and starting to 
become active in labor politics, perhaps five or six years ago. I have 
met him on several occasions subsequently, including his visit to the 
White House in July 2000 where President and Mrs. Clinton hosted a 
large dinner in his office in his honor, in a big tent on the South 
Lawn.
  Mr. Barak was also in good spirits considering the strenuous 
campaign, his recent election defeat, and the difficult negotiations 
and tenure as Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister spoke at length 
about his extensive three-way discussions involving President Clinton, 
Arafat and himself. He spoke about, as he put it, his ``contemplation'' 
as to what might have been encompassed in a settlement, but emphasized 
that none of the discussions about Jerusalem or the concessions on land 
were final offers until the entire deal was complete.
  I told him that I had met in Washington several weeks ago with the 
Egyptian Foreign Minister who said he knew I had a trip planned to the 
Mid-east and urged me to meet with Arafat. I told him I would consider 
it. When President Mubarak was in Washington in early April, he also 
urged me to meet with Arafat and I agreed to do so providing the 
meeting took place in Cairo. In my discussions with President Mubarak, 
I had anticipated his being present during my meeting with Arafat. As 
it worked out, Mubarak was not in Cairo for my scheduled meeting with 
Arafat. His deputy Osama El-Baz joined me in the meeting.

[[Page 6399]]

  The former Prime Minister stated that he thought it would be very 
useful for me to meet with Arafat, so Arafat would understand the 
thinking of a member of the Senate. I asked Mr. Barak about the 
prospects for the peace process from this point forward and he said he 
thought it would be very difficult for the immediate future. He 
emphasized that he had great admiration, respect and friendship for 
Prime Minister Sharon whom he has known for decades, and emphasized he 
would do anything in his power to help the new Prime Minister.
  Mr. Barak asked me about Israel's standing in the United States. I 
replied that U.S. Congressional support for Israel was continuing, and 
I thought that the new Bush Administration would similarly be very 
favorably disposed. We talked about the evenly divided Senate, and he 
was very interested to know about our recent budget battle and the 
significant role played by Vice President Cheney. He asked about the 
economy which we then discussed at some length.
  Upon leaving my discussion with former Prime Minister Barak, I met 
with Ambassador Uri Lubrani, the Lebanon Coordinator for the government 
of Israel at the Ministry of Defense Headquarters. Joining us was the 
former Foreign Minister to Iran, Zidma Divon, Deputy Director General 
of the Foreign Ministry, and John Scott, Counselor for Political 
Affairs at the American Embassy. They expressed real concern with 
Iran's backing of the Hezbollah movement in South Lebanon. During the 
course of our discussion about Iran, Ambassador Lubrani showed me a 
quote from a report of a British Ambassador to Tehran in the sixties, 
at the end of his tour of duty: ``The Iranians are people who say the 
opposite of what they think and do the opposite of what they say. That 
does not necessarily mean that what they do does not confirm to what 
they think.''
  After our meeting with Ambassador Lubrani, we drove from Tel Aviv to 
Jerusalem where we met the next morning with Prime Minister Ariel 
Sharon. Also in attendance was Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, the Minister of 
Defense, and Daniel Ayalon, the Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime 
Minister.
  Our meeting was conducted with a backdrop of an escalating conflict. 
During the previous evening, Israeli planes had bombed a Syrian radar 
installation in Lebanon in retaliation for the actions of Hezbollah in 
south Lebanon. I started my conversation with the Prime Minister by 
noting that the Egyptian Foreign Minister had asked me to talk to 
Chairman Arafat. Prime Minister Sharon wasted no time in delivering his 
message. The policy of the Israeli government would be to draw a 
distinction between the civilian population and terrorists, supporters 
of terrorists and instigators. He stated that he plans to ease the 
conditions in the territories. And at the time, he stated he was ready 
to show flexibility except in one area, under no circumstances will he 
be flexible with the security of the Israeli citizens.
  Although Sharon did express some willingness to negotiate, it was 
clear that in his eyes the plan pushed by President Clinton in his 
waning days in office is dead. ``Peace is more painful than war,'' he 
said, ``because you have to make concessions for peace.'' ``I have a 
true desire to move the process forward, not the process that has 
already failed.'' No negotiations would occur, Sharon assured me, under 
the ``threats of terror.'' The violence must stop. The Prime Minister 
noted the violence occurring in Gaza, and stated that the violence 
could not continue. The Israelis wouldn't accept it. ``We are very much 
interested in stability in the Middle East, but we are not going to pay 
for it. We have the natural right to exist and defend ourselves.''
  I told Sharon that we were planning on driving from Damascus to 
Beirut as part of our trip. He said the current situation that exists 
in south Lebanon, is not what was contemplated by the withdrawal 
agreement. Hezbollah wasn't supposed to occupy the positions they 
currently hold.
  Sharon then stated that Iranian influence continued to grow in the 
area, with the approval of Syria. ``Iran is building an independent 
center of international terror, which could not have been done without 
the support of Syria. Syria could have stopped them.''
  Sharon then noted that the actions of the previous evening in bombing 
the Syrian facility was a warning to Syria. He wanted to send a signal 
that Israel would not accept the possibility of Israeli soldiers being 
killed in Israel. Negotiations do not currently exist with Syria. First 
must come the Palestinian question. ``Israel can't negotiate on two 
fronts when peace requires painful concessions.''
  Our talk concluded with Prime Minister Sharon noting that the 
immediate threat to stability in the region remained Tehran, and that 
only the United States could lead the anti-terror struggle in the free 
world.
  After our meeting with Sharon, we flew to Cairo, Egypt and at 
approximately 6 p.m., had a meeting with Dr. Osama el-Baz, advisor to 
President Mubarak. Dr. el-Baz and I talked at some length about the 
current situation in the Middle East, the U.S. role, and about my 
meeting with Chairman Arafat later that evening. During that meeting, 
some issues arose as to U.S. intelligence questions, so I called CIA 
Director George Tenant in Washington to get the current status report.
  Dr. el-Baz arranged a boat ride and dinner for us on the Nile river 
where we met with a variety of Cairo's leading citizens including 
journalists, professionals, businessmen and industrialists. I was 
questioned about why the U.S. continued to support Israel when Israel 
has responded with disproportionate force to the actions of the 
Palestinians. I responded that the U.S. was trying to carry out the 
Camp David Accords in which their great President Anwar Sadat had 
invested so much time and effort, and that Israel had agreed to discuss 
peace once the violence had stopped.
  Shortly before 10:30 p.m., we arrived at Chairman Arafat's guest 
house. After meeting quite a number of his colleagues Dr. el-Baz, 
Chairman Arafat and Arafat's chief deputy, Saeb Erakat and I went 
upstairs to a private room so we could have, as Osama el-Baz said, a 
tete-a-tete. Arafat and Erakat were visibly disturbed about the status 
of the violence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. They were 
especially distressed because, as they told us immediately upon our 
arrival, Israel was taking forceful military action against Gaza as we 
spoke.
  During the course of our discussion which lasted more than an hour, 
we were interrupted six or eight times by Arafat's men who came in and 
handed Arafat written messages. Arafat spoke in Arabic which was 
interpreted by Erakat on detailing the action being taken by Israeli 
military with helicopters and missiles.
  Arafat and Erakat described the situation as very serious recounting 
the number of Arabs who had been killed and wounded and then reciting 
the number of Israeli casualties which showed a much larger number of 
Arab casualties. Erakat was especially fervent in pleading for some 
help as to a way to break the impasse.
  After a considerable discussion, I said that I would venture a 
possible approach which was not a recommendation because I thought that 
would not be appropriate. I then said that one approach might be for 
Arafat to make a public statement that the cycle of violence was 
untenable, and that while he would much prefer to have a joint 
statement made by Sharon and himself with a schedule on a comprehensive 
approach, he would make a unilateral statement directing all 
Palestinians to stop any acts of violence. I said to Arafat that the 
instruction to stop any acts of violence would be in accordance with 
his famous letter of September 9, 1993 which was the inducement for 
Prime Minister Rabin and Peres to meet with Arafat at the White House 
on September 13, 1993. In that letter Arafat renounced the use of 
violence and said he would take disciplinary action against any of his 
people who violated his direction.
  Arafat then said that he had said all the things that I had 
mentioned. Erakat then said that not only had Arafat made these 
statements in a

[[Page 6400]]

speech at the Arab summit, but that Shimon Peres had asked Arafat to 
make these statements from his own lips, and that Arafat had done so.
  Dr. Osama el-Baz and I both stated that we had not heard any such 
statement. If any such statement was ever made, it was doubtless in a 
long speech and was followed or preceded by many conditions.
  I told Arafat that there was considerable anti-Palestinian Authority 
sentiment in the Congress with some 87 members of the Senate and over 
200 members of the House writing a letter urging action that the 
Palestinian Authority be ousted from its Washington office.
  At one point I asked Arafat why he had not accepted the very generous 
offer from Barak on territorial concessions on the West Bank and 
significant concessions on Jerusalem. Arafat replied that he had 
accepted that offer on a number of occasions including his meeting with 
President Clinton at the White House. Again, Arafat's statement did not 
comport with the facts since he had imposed so many conditions.
  I said that my staff and I had met with Prime Minister Sharon earlier 
that day and that Sharon had said, among other things, that peace was 
more painful than war because in peace you had to make concessions. I 
thought from that, it was apparent that Sharon was interested in peace 
talks.
  Erakat commented that he had expected a call from an Israeli contact. 
I told Erakat that I would call the contact which I did the next day. 
When I telephoned Erakat later in the day, he confirmed that the 
Israeli contact had called him.
  I further told Arafat that Sharon had told me earlier in the day that 
he was prepared to allow Palestinians to come into Israel for work 
providing there was no security risks. Sharon had specified that he was 
not doing this in exchange for anything from the Palestinian Authority 
because he did not want it viewed that Israel was making concession or 
buying peace in any way.
  I asked Arafat if there was any substance to the contention that the 
Palestinians had been firing out of Gaza into Israel. Arafat replied 
that he did have a report of three such mortar shots, but that as soon 
as Arafat found out about it, he had ordered it stopped with the people 
doing the shooting to be arrested. In the course of the next several 
days there was repeated mortar shelling into Israel by Palestinians. 
Contrary to Arafat's assertions, our intelligence sources advised he 
had authorized the shelling.
  From Cairo, we departed for Beirut by way of Damascus. Climbing up 
the mountains on the way to Beirut, we passed the location of the 
Syrian Radar site that Israeli forces destroyed in a raid just a few 
days earlier. The U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut is the most heavily 
fortified embassy in the world. Standing in the middle of the compound, 
as a stark reminder, are the remains of the prior Embassy that was 
destroyed by a bomb.
  While remaining in the compound overnight, we received an in-depth 
briefing on the current situation in Beirut and Lebanon, with insight 
provided by Ambassador David Satterfield, and his Deputy Chief of 
Mission David Hale. As Ambassador Satterfield pointed out, Lebanon was 
very badly divided because of its charter (its form of a constitution) 
which divided authority between three Lebanese factions. He commented 
about how Beirut had the potential to regain its status as ``Paris of 
the Mideast,'' but that there would have to be major economic reforms. 
He also commented that the Prime Minister Rafik Hariri had been 
discussing with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund about 
ways to get financing which could lead to a revitalization of Beirut. 
Satterfield also noted that Hezbollah was a very strong force in 
Southern Lebanon, with only a few hundred fighters.
  Beirut still shows the scars of its savage civil war with its once 
beautiful hotels reduced to shells. There is a rebuilding effort, 
however, and its central business district has been rebuilt to some 
extent.
  We drove back from Beirut to Damascus. Ambassador Ryan Crocker hosted 
a dinner for visiting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern 
Affairs Edward Walker and our party. We had a wide-ranging conversation 
about the current state of affairs in the Mid-East. I reported on our 
trip to Beirut, which Ambassador Ryan noted with some interest as he 
was the Ambassador to Beirut when our embassy was last bombed.
  The next morning we met with Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara 
and Deputy Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu'allim. At the start of our 
meeting we discussed my last visit to Syria, which was for President 
Assad's funeral. I told Foreign Minister Shara that my fellow Senators 
were very interested in Syria, and then mentioned that I had just been 
to see Chairman Arafat in Egypt. I discussed my recent travels in the 
area, and related that everyone would like the violence to stop. The 
Foreign Minister asked me what Israel was seeking, and I told him of my 
discussions with Prime Minister Sharon, who stated that he is 
determined to avoid Israeli loss of life and will act accordingly. I 
also told him that the Israelis intended to ease up on the borders as 
long as there were no threats to security; the Israeli government 
position was that all the violence must stop prior to any talks taking 
place. I then encouraged him to talk to the Israelis.
  Foreign Minister Shara said I had persuaded Syria, or perhaps, more 
accurately been a factor, to enter into negotiations with Israel in my 
numerous discussions with former President Hafez al-Assad during the 
1980's and 1990's. I had first visited Damascus in 1984 and had met 
with President Assad almost every year from 1988 to 1998. Minister 
Shara stated that only after beginning discussions with the Israelis 
did it become apparent that they didn't want peace. I reminded him that 
both sides came very close on the Golan and that a dialogue must 
continue.
  Our attention then turned to Iraq, China and recent American politics 
as well as efforts to exchange Parliamentarians with Iran.
  We left Damascus and flew into Souda Bay, Crete, which houses the 
U.S. Naval Support Activity Souda Bay, and Fleet Air Reconnaissance 
Squadron Two, VQ-2, a unit responsible for reconnaissance missions for 
the Mediterranean, and which is the counterpart to the unit that was 
involved in the recent mishap with a Chinese pilot in international 
waters off the coast of China.
  I was met by Captain Steve Hoefel, the Base Commanding Officer and 
was set up in quarters for the night. That night, Rear Admiral Steve 
Tomaszeski, the Commander of the Mediterranean Air Fleet, flew in for a 
brief to be held the next morning.
  On Friday, April 20, we received a classified brief on the mission of 
the base and its reconnaissance aircraft. The base's main 
responsibility is to support and resupply the forward-deployed Navy and 
Marine Corps forces. It has the largest fuel storage facility, largest 
ammo storage facility and the deepest port in the Mediterranean, and is 
strategically located near the Mid-east.
  We toured the base, and the port facility located nearby. A large 
amount of construction was occurring on the dock with the installation 
of new facilities designed to give sailors and Marines all the 
amenities of home when they dock. I was pleased to find two 
Pennsylvanians among the many Navy Construction Battalion sailors 
working on the structures.
  We also had the opportunity to tour an EP-3 aircraft similar to that 
which remains in China, and were briefed on the various station's 
responsibilities during flight operations, as well as talk to several 
of the crew members. We also had the opportunity to see an E3 AWACS on 
the runway.
  From Crete we flew to Rome where we received a brief by the Charge 
d'Affaires William Pope, and Margaret Dean, Minister-Counselor for 
Economic Affairs. We discussed the effect of the European Union on 
NATO, reviewed the current areas of work for the embassy, and the 
effect of the strong U.S. dollar on tourism. In addition, I briefed

[[Page 6401]]

them on parts of my visit to Florence including our meeting with the 
attorneys for Ferragamo, and our visit to the Georgetown campus.
  Margaret Dean was familiar with the case that the Ferragamo attorneys 
had told us about in which a person purchased counterfeit goods at such 
a low price that the judiciary reasoned the purchaser could not have 
believed the goods to be authentic, and therefore found no fraud in the 
sale. She stated that often, because of that case, sellers of 
counterfeit goods often go so far to label the goods as ``fake'' to 
avoid prosecution.
  The Embassy reported that it doesn't have anyone overriding area that 
it concentrates on. It has several areas of concentration which include 
tourism, trade disputes, military issues, and the Mideast situation. 
Charge d'Affaires Pope reported that Italy had changed a lot and had 
become a fairly different place in the last decade. He reported a 
recent high-tech emphasis that has helped propel the country's economy 
to the 6th largest in the world. The country has also benefitted from 
the increase in tourism generated by the strong American dollar.
  On April 21, we flew from Rome to Philadelphia.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a ``Commentary'' on the mideast peace process.
  There being no objection; the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Apr. 27, 2001]

                   Mideast Peace Process Must Resume

                      (By U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter)

       Escalating violence has deadened the Middle East peace 
     process. As usual, all sides look to the United States to 
     influence the parties to end the violence and resume the 
     quest for peace.
       In mid-April, at the request of Egyptian President Hosni 
     Mubarak, I met with Palestinian Chairman Yasir Arafat in 
     Cairo. When I arrived for our 10:30 p.m. meeting, Arafat said 
     that as we spoke, Israeli helicopters and missiles were 
     attacking Palestinians in Gaza. He did not mention that the 
     Israeli action was in retaliation for mortars fired into 
     Israel earlier that day.
       Our discussion, which lasted until nearly midnight, was 
     interrupted every few moments by aides bringing him the 
     latest dispatch on the fighting. I told Arafat I was 
     convinced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would not 
     resume the peace process until the violence ended.
       Since the sequence of events demonstrated that Israel was 
     responding to Palestinian provocation, it was up to Arafat to 
     demonstrate his best efforts to stop the violence. After all, 
     it was Arafat's famous letter of Sept. 9, 1993, that induced 
     then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon 
     Peres to shake Arafat's hand at their historic meeting with 
     President Clinton on the White House lawn four days later. In 
     that letter, Arafat renounced violence and promised to punish 
     any Palestinian who violated that commitment.
       Arafat responded that he had made an unequivocal 
     declaration at the recent Arab summit. When his statement was 
     examined, it was obvious it was so conditional as to be 
     meaningless. I then asked Arafat why he had rejected former 
     Prime Minister Ehud Barak's generous settlement offer on 
     major concessions on Jerusalem and additional territory on 
     the West Bank. Arafat said he had accepted the Barak 
     proposal. Again, on examination, there were so many ifs, ands 
     and buts that his response was meaningless. Our meeting ended 
     with no realistic hope that any significant action could be 
     expected from Arafat.
       The situation was equally bleak when I traveled on to 
     Beirut and Damascus. Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, had 
     continued to attack Israeli border settlements from Southern 
     Lebanon, leading Israel to bomb Syrian radar. Beirut once 
     touted as the Paris of the Middle East, has not recovered 
     from Lebanon's civil war because of factional quarrels and 
     Syria's continuing dominance of the country.
       In Damascus, Syria's foreign minister Farouk Shara agreed 
     with Sharon that Israeli-Syrian peace talks on the Golan 
     Heights would be pointless at this time. Before President 
     Hafez al-Assad's death, the parties had come very close to a 
     settlement but were now back to square one.
       Notwithstanding the bleak prospects, the Bush 
     administration, aided by Congress, must push the parties back 
     to the bargaining table. There is no doubt that the countries 
     involved listen to Uncle Sam. When Secretary of State Colin 
     Powell criticized Sharon's tough retaliation as ``excessive 
     and disproportionate,'' Israel modified its tactics.
       Congress has spoken emphatically: 87 senators and 209 House 
     members wrote on April 6 to the President calling for the 
     closing of the Palestinian office in Washington if the 
     Palestinians did not stop inciting violence. I have urged 
     President Bush to appoint a special envoy for the Middle East 
     just as President Richard Nixon used Henry Kissinger for 
     shuttle diplomacy and Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, 
     George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton assigned envoys such as 
     Dennis Ross to the peace process. President Bush may soon 
     find it necessary to become personally involved like his 
     predecessors.
       The escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence may 
     encourage other terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic 
     Jihad, to attack not only Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, but also 
     U.S. interests around the world. The peace process cannot be 
     abandoned; one way or another, a way must be found for 
     Israelis and Palestinians to live together on that tiny 
     parcel of hallowed and historic land. Our vital national 
     interests in the region make it imperative that the United 
     States actively pursue a resumption of the Middle East peace 
     process.

                          ____________________