Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends, good evening.

I would like to thank the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, for inviting me to deliver this address, and to commend Mrs. Mary Jane Deeb and her colleagues of the African and Middle Eastern Division for their excellent work in organizing tonight’s event. I am delighted to appear here in this great temple of knowledge and reason, The Library of Congress, to share with you my thoughts on conditions in Lebanon and how they relate to larger questions of peace in the Middle East.

I wish to talk about "Lebanon and the Regional Peace Process" not only because it is my beloved homeland, and not only because I proudly served as President of the Republic from 1982 to 1988, but also for two larger reasons. First, Lebanon has a long tradition of peace, democracy, and tolerance. If those values are to prevail in the Middle East, they must be restored in Lebanon so that Lebanon can again serve as a shining example of how these principles can flourish in our troubled region. Of course, Lebanese society has sometimes exploded in violent episodes of communal and religious conflict; however, most of these instances were the direct result of foreign meddling.

Second, Lebanon is the crucible of the Middle East in which the region’s diverse political dogmas, religious tenets, and cultural trends interact in a dynamic fashion. Therefore, any Middle East peace that aspires to be comprehensive and lasting must also guarantee a genuine peace for Lebanon, a peace that is just and restores the very sovereignty, territorial integrity, and uniqueness of the country. I must emphasize the point: we cannot envisage a just and lasting peace in the Middle East if Lebanon is excluded from meaningful participation in the process.

With recent changes in Israel, a real window of opportunity has opened for the achievement of peace between Lebanon and Israel and between Syria and Israel. A new round of negotiations must build upon the foundations established by the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David Accords of 1978, the 1993 Oslo Agreement between Israel and the PLO, the Israel-Jordan peace treaty signed in 1994, and the respective understandings that have been reached between Lebanon and Israel and Syria and Israel.

For the Lebanese people, this new opportunity for peace carries both great promise as well as grave peril. The promise of peace rests in the fact that it forms the essential basis of Lebanon’s very existence as a viable nation. This is true because as long as Israel and Syria remain in a state of war, they will view Lebanon’s people, resources, and territory as strategic assets to be exploited for their own purposes. Historically, Lebanon has served as the battleground of choice for contending neighbors, contending religions, and contending ideologies. But we must also remember that Lebanon has been a vital buffer zone, and has thus contributed to maintaining peace between these contentious forces.

For the Lebanese, the peril of peace resides in the fear that it will be achieved at the expense of their sovereignty, national will, and sacred traditions. If I appear here tonight in a state of anxiety, it is because I am manifesting the great national anxiety felt by the Lebanese people, who worry that their country may well be the victim of an unjust peace rather than the beneficiary of a true peace. The Lebanese people are not at liberty to articulate their fears, but I am determined to serve as the conscience and voice for those unable to speak out.

All Lebanese fear that their cause will be sacrificed on the altar of Realpolitik, and that their nation’s destiny will be confiscated as a prerequisite for peace between stronger regional powers. In this regard, despite enduring relations between the governments and peoples of Lebanon and the United State, the Lebanese are deeply apprehensive about the current U.S. policy towards Lebanon.

Our alarm springs from a central contradiction that exists in U.S. policy. On the one hand, both Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her predecessor, Warren Christopher, have spoken eloquently about the U.S. commitment to a free Lebanon. In December 1996 Secretary Christopher reaffirmed, and I quote, "U.S. support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, and for the ultimate withdrawal from Lebanon of all foreign forces." Similarly, during her September 1997 visit to Beirut, Secretary Albright emphasized the U.S. commitment to "a Lebanon that is fully independent, unified and sovereign, [and] free from all foreign forces…."

On the other hand, beyond such platitudes Washington has taken no direct steps to restore Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Instead, it is clear that the U.S. hopes that sovereign Lebanon will emerge again as a consequence of what Secretary Albright called in June 1998 "a just, lasting and comprehensive peace for all parties in the region." The formula of linking achievement of a sovereign Lebanon to a "comprehensive peace" is a theme that has appeared repeatedly in official U.S. statements about Lebanon for the last 25 years. Washington’s approach is, in effect, a gigantic gamble: namely, once a far-reaching Mideast peace has been achieved, and in particular a peace between Syria and Israel, Lebanon will then be permitted by these two regional powerhouses to assume its rightful destiny as an independent nation.

But I have a key question for Secretary Albright: what proof or evidence is there that Lebanon’s neighbors will comply with the U.S. approach? When this comprehensive peace has been achieved, what possible incentive will Lebanon’s neighbors have to restore Lebanese independence?

If my interpretation of U.S. policy is correct, then the goal of an independent Lebanon freed from foreign domination must be made an explicit, not just an implicit, article of the peace settlement. To neglect this point would be to sanction the death of Lebanon by international agreement.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not alone in questioning the policy of relying on a larger regional peace to restore an independent Lebanon. The danger of such an approach was cited by no less an authority than the Congress of the United States. In an April 1997 Concurrent Resolution, the Senate and House of Representatives proclaimed, and I quote, "the [U.S.] President should consider resolving the presence of non-Lebanese forces in Lebanon without relying exclusively upon a comprehensive peace in the region to resolve the issue."

Despite such Congressional sentiments, it is clear that successive U.S. Administrations have adhered to the dictates of Realpolitik by appeasing Syrian and Israeli domination of Lebanon in order to coax these key states into participating in a larger peace process. But such a policy has real costs, and these costs are being paid with the currency of Lebanese nationhood and the coin of Lebanese blood. While we recognize that a complex peace process takes time to negotiate and to implement, like a dying patient desperate for a cure, Lebanon cannot afford to wait any longer for a solution. While peace is important to all peoples of the region, we must not forget that Lebanon is the last active front in the long cycle of Arab-Israeli wars. And this front continues to destabilize Lebanon and the whole region.

In the south of Lebanon, Israel has declared, enforced, and maintained a self-styled "security zone" as a buffer area for northern Israel. In effect, Israeli occupation has turned the people of Lebanon’s border region into "human shields." And those Lebanese who have not cooperated with the Israelis have been obliged to flee the region and sometimes the country. However, Israel’s aggression was a colossal blunder because, inevitably, its Lebanese buffer became a fuse igniting an ongoing and bloody conflict. If recent Israeli statements are accurate, they now have accepted the need to withdraw from Lebanese soil.

Why, we must ask, did Israel’s Lebanese buffer turn into a deadly fuse? The answer is that only the Lebanese can create order and stability on their territory. Only a strong and sovereign Lebanese government can maintain the country as a strategic buffer zone for the benefit of the Lebanese people, their neighbors, and the region. The pattern of history is clear and unmistakable: the Israelis entered Lebanon to create security and met with disaster; earlier, the Palestinians went into Lebanon thinking it was a safe haven, but as they now recognize they paid a dire price. These are lessons that all regional powers should heed: become entangled in Lebanon’s internal affairs and face ruin; leave Lebanon to the Lebanese and stability and peace prevails.

Today, Syria exerts pressure and influence on virtually all aspects of Lebanese life, including politics, economics, military and security policy, and even media and culture. But such an approach is not consistent with true Syrian interests. Syria will not prosper if Lebanon exists in a continual state of dependency. I believe it is in Syria’s interest to have a strong, prosperous, and sovereign Lebanon. And I accept as genuine repeated Syrian statements that it is committed to such an outcome. Damascus stands to benefit from a recovered Lebanon because such a Lebanon will be willing and eager to fully support Syria in the regional and international arenas.

However, the prevailing conditions in Lebanon have obliged the Department of State to acknowledge that the Lebanese are a captive people. In the words of the State Department’s Human Rights Report published in February 1999: "The relationship with Syria does not reflect the will of most Lebanese citizens…The right of citizens to change their Government remains restricted by lack of government control over parts of the country, shortcomings in the electoral system, and Syrian influence." And I would add my own observation that what Israel is doing in south Lebanon harms not only that immediate region, but it also weakens the central Lebanese government and contributes to its inability to exert authority over the whole country.

Unhelpful statements that are hegemonic in tone only serve to undermine the brotherly relations that should prevail between Syria and Lebanon. For example, on May 22nd of this year, a Syrian radio broadcast urged the new Israeli Prime Minister to negotiate with Lebanon and Syria simultaneously because, and I quote from the Syrian text, "the two are unified." Personally, I do not want to believe that this broadcast represents the official policy of Syria. A strong Lebanon is as much in the interest of Syria as a self-assured Syria is in the interest of Lebanon. Such irresponsible statements damage relations between the two peoples, even though the Lebanese are not at liberty to openly express such sentiments.

Having briefly addressed some strategic threats to Lebanon’s independence, I would like to turn your attention to other developments that severely undermine Lebanon, namely adverse demographic trends.

On May 15th, 1995, the respected Lebanese newspaper An Nahar published official statistics provided by the Surete Generale, Lebanon’s equivalent of the FBI, demonstrating that as of 1995 over one million Lebanese had left their homeland and resettled abroad. In contrast, during the period from 1992 to 1995, again according to the same report, about 1,175,000 Syrian workers settled in Lebanon. Considering that Lebanon has a total population of about three and a half million, these are truly astounding figures. In an obvious desire to conceal such embarrassing facts, since 1996 the Surete Generale has refused to release updated data.

Worse than the outflow of Lebanese emigrants, in 1994 the government of Lebanon published an official decree that is almost 1,300 pages long. The text of this massive document consists entirely of the names of families that have been granted, with the stroke of a pen, full Lebanese citizenship. The decree includes absolutely no explanatory or background material describing who these people are, what their place of origin is, or why they are entitled to Lebanese citizenship. In fact, the decree does not even list individual names; it includes only family names, so there is no way of knowing for sure how many people it benefits. And because of this ambiguity, at any time additional persons may be added to the list simply by claiming relation to any of the families named in the decree.

Some have estimated the total number of persons covered by the decree to be at least 500,000 or more. If so, that means that a minimum of 500,000 so called "citizens" have been injected artificially into a Lebanese population of about three and a half million. To convert these figures into 1999 U.S. population statistics, it would be as if 45 million persons were suddenly naturalized and made into American citizens with full voting rights without any information or justification provided by the government. I would like all people to reflect on the political, social, and economic disruptions that such a massive, sudden immigration imposes on the host country.

Furthermore, this edict on citizenship was implemented completely by surprise and without the approval of the Lebanese Parliament, without any public discussion, and without the slightest consensus among the Lebanese people. This cynical maneuver, in fact, has absolutely no precedent in either Lebanese law or democratic tradition.

Obviously, the implications of this demographic attack on Lebanon and its future are profound. To take just one example, these so-called "Lebanese" were permitted to vote in the country’s local and national elections of 1996 and 1997. This influx of new voters contributed to the fraudulent results of the elections. According to local and international observers, these elections were not free and fair, and the presence of hundreds of thousands of non-Lebanese "voters" only contributed to the dubious results. According to published reports, some of these "voters" arrived at their balloting stations in buses and trucks from outside of the polling district, and perhaps from outside of the country.

The citizenship decree was immediately challenged in the courts, but to date the competent tribunal has failed to respond to the complaint in a meaningful fashion. It is obvious that the courts, while recognizing that the citizenship decree is illegal and unconstitutional, were under heavy pressure to remain silent. The inaction of the courts when faced with this dangerous assault on the Lebanese nationality should come as no surprise. In the words of the most recent State Department human rights report: "The judiciary is independent in principle, but is subject to political pressure."

The granting of citizenship to a massive reserve of non-Lebanese is a fait accompli that may be irreversible. This is one reason why the U.S. policy of expediency towards Lebanon is so dangerous. While Washington issues unfulfilled statements, takes limited steps, and plays for the long term, the very basis of Lebanese nationality and democracy is being eradicated.

What is happening in Lebanon is reminiscent of similar processes that have taken place in Tibet and East Timor. Tibet in 1950 and East Timor in 1975 were invaded and conquered by powerful, expansionist neighbors. In order to consolidate their control and undermine the demographic basis of independence, the new rulers of Tibet and East Timor encouraged outside settlers to establish residency within the said countries. In neither case, however, have the respective demographic attacks waged against the peoples of Tibet or East Timor been successful in erasing their yearning for sovereignty.

Let’s return to Lebanon and another development that harms the country’s demography. Just last week the Israeli backed militia, called the "South Lebanon Army" or SLA, withdrew from the mountain town of Jezzine. While we applaud the liberation of Lebanese soil, this action provoked a new wave of displaced persons, numbering in the thousands, many of whom have chosen to leave the country. In fact, several embassies in Beirut have been instructed by their home governments to furnish visas on an expedited basis to residents of the Jezzine region who fear retaliation.

The plight of the people of Jezzine captures the dilemma faced by the entire population of south Lebanon and adjacent regions. For decades these unfortunate Lebanese have been victimized by an ongoing war which first began as a clash between Palestinians and Israelis. Now, despite the wise decision of Hezbollah fighters not to replace the SLA in Jezzine, the failure to deploy regular Army units in the region inflicts great insecurity on the people, and they must therefore consider internal flight or emigration.

With the experience of the Yugoslavia crisis still in the headlines, it is appropriate to reflect on some disturbing parallels that exist between Kosovo and Lebanon. I am not the first to suggest such parallels. For example, one hundred and forty years ago, when reporting to Paris on Lebanon’s spasm of inter-communal strife that raged in 1861, the French diplomat Prosper Bourrée compared Lebanon to the Balkans. Today, both Lebanon and Kosovo are territorially small, multi-confessional societies surrounded by more powerful and ambitious neighbors. Furthermore, in the 1990s political control exercised by outside forces has prevented both Kosovars and Lebanese from expressing their independent political will.

Serbian domination of Kosovo was most dramatically demonstrated in April 1999, when the moderate Kosovar leader Ibrahim Rugova appeared on Serbian television in the midst of the NATO bombing campaign and agreed to seek a peaceful settlement with Yugoslav President Milosevic. At that time it was patently obvious that Rugova did this under coercion, and that his actions were therefore inconsistent with the true will of his constituents. And yet, just as the international community quickly rejected Rugova’s action for what it was, an act of desperation, it is worth remembering that the physical threat politicians face in Lebanon is no less dangerous than that experienced by Rugova in Belgrade.

I would like to share with you a curious anecdote that symbolizes the peculiar circumstances that prevail in Lebanon today. In late 1998, having been encouraged by some positive developments on the Lebanese scene, I was preparing to return to my homeland after ten years of exile. Through official channels Lebanese authorities informed me that all arrangements for my return had been completed in Beirut. However, sometime around midnight on the 13th of December I received a telephone call from the Lebanese Ambassador in Paris. Acting in his official capacity, the Ambassador advised me that I should not return to Lebanon because the highest judicial authorities of the land possessed incriminating information that I had been in contact with Israeli agents in contravention of Lebanese law.

Recognizing this as a direct threat couched in suitable diplomatic language, I postponed my return to Lebanon. Of course, I was astounded and outraged that I, a former Head of State and patriot, was officially under suspicion of treason. Therefore, the next day I instructed my son, who is a lawyer and resident of Beirut, to obtain an appointment with the chief criminal prosecutor of Lebanon. After hearing my son’s information, this official expressed complete and utter amazement at what had happened to me. The prosecutor assured my son that he had never heard of any such accusations against me, officially or unofficially. The next day, on the 16th of December, the chief prosecutor of Lebanon told the press, quote, "my office is not investigating former President Gemayel, and has no plans to do so."

Two days later, in his own press conference, Prime Minister al-Hoss — who is simultaneously Foreign Minister and therefore the direct superior of the Lebanese Ambassador in Paris who told me not to return — stated that he was unaware of any decision to bar my trip to Lebanon. I leave it to you to reflect on who was behind this mysterious happening.

To return to U.S. policy, in the April 1997 Resolution that I cited earlier, the U.S. Congress reaffirmed the following three points, among others: first, "the commitment of the United States to preserve the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty, and full independence of Lebanon"; second, "the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon so that Lebanon will no longer serve as the preferred battleground for its neighbors"; and third, that "Lebanon must be secure from interference from its neighbors".

What Lebanon needs is for the United States to help us achieve, with concrete steps, the policies articulated by Congress in 1997. The U.S. must help Lebanon regain its freedom so that it can make unique, genuine, and lasting contributions to the peace process. Today, Lebanon is not an independent interlocutor and so does not have the ability to define and defend its genuine national interests. The Administration in Washington should not be fooled by the relative security and artificial peace that prevail in Lebanon, for history demonstrates that such security is not durable over the long term.

The United States, with the cooperation of its major allies, should help Lebanon achieve the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 425, 426, and 520. UN Security Council Resolution 425, passed in 1978 in the aftermath of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon, stipulates that Israeli forces must withdraw from Lebanese territory. I strongly believe that, despite Lebanon’s inability to negotiate under UN auspices for the implementation of Resolution 425, the U.S. should play a major role in achieving a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. An Israeli withdrawal will serve the interests of Lebanon and could be an important first step in achieving an overall Mideast peace.

In conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen, I urge all friends of Lebanon to reject the path of expediency and accommodation. All interested parties must actively assist the Lebanese to regain their freedom and independence. The United States, after having demonstrated a policy of resolve in Yugoslavia, should now devote some measure of attention to Lebanon. Make no mistake; I am not calling for a NATO bombing campaign. Such a policy, even if it were not politically absurd, is the last thing Lebanon needs; my homeland has experienced far too much war, destruction, and misery already. What Washington can do is to champion at every possible opportunity the sovereignty, freedom, and self-determination of the Lebanese people. The international community needs to be made aware of Lebanon’s dire plight, and no other power can do this as effectively as the United States.

More than grand statements are needed. The U.S. must adopt a diplomacy of strength to ensure that all concerned powers understand that the destiny of Lebanon within the peace process can and should be determined only by the freely expressed will of the Lebanese people. While an Arab consensus is the only possible foundation of peace in the Middle East and by extension peace in Lebanon, such peace should not be achieved at the expense of a sovereign and independent Lebanon.

Should we abandon Lebanon in its hour of need, we would be accepting the destruction of a small democratic nation, and we would thus be deterring the progress of democracy in the whole of the Middle East. A peace built upon the elimination of democracy will not be lasting, but will lead to a wider and more destructive conflict in the future.

If I have been critical of U.S. policy, it is only because the United States is the world’s leading democracy and is made greater and more powerful by constructive criticism of the kind I have offered. I am here tonight as a friend of America and its great traditions of debate and openness, and I am deeply grateful that I have been given this forum in which to share my views. This is, I might add, the kind of venue for democratic debate that is not currently available in my beloved Lebanon.

For now, Lebanon as a sovereign and independent country exists only in the hearts and minds of its patriotic citizens. But we make this solemn pledge: the loyal sons and daughters of Lebanon will never give up our dream of freedom and self-determination for our homeland.

God bless you, God bless America, and God bless Lebanon.

Thank you.

¹ Amine Gemayel was President of the Republic of Lebanon from 1982 to 1988.

Would you like to comment on this testimony?

USCFL Home     Golden Circle     Membership     Mission Statement   Current Views
US Testimonies     Intelligence  Special Reports    Activities    Action Alerts    Selected Links
Selected Readings      Guestbook     FAQs     How to Contact Us     Search