press releases 2008

On-The-Record Briefing: Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs C. David Welch On Lebanon and Other Middle East Issues

May 21, 2008

Washington, D.C.

(9:50 a.m. EDT)

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, it’s nice to see some of our regular – all of our regular gaggle participants as well as some of those of you who don’t show up on a regular basis.  But anyway, I can understand the attraction why.

The way I wanted to handle this was have David handle your questions about the obvious issues that are out there today, and then I’ll stay behind to answer any other non-David Welch, Middle East-related questions.  So I’ll turn it over to David.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Thanks, Sean.  Let me just preface my remarks by saying we expect, I hope not too long from now, that Sean will give you a statement in the name of the Secretary about the agreement in Doha on Lebanon.  I can address any questions that you have about that.

Let me make a couple remarks at the outset.  As you all know, Lebanon has been going through a significant political crisis which, very, very unfortunately, spilled over into the streets of Beirut beginning on the 5th of May.  That this agreement has been reached in Doha is really a welcome development.  It’s a necessary and positive step toward accomplishing what the Arab League’s initiative on Lebanon was designed to do, which was: first, to elect a president of Lebanon – as you know, there hasn’t been someone in that office, the highest Christian office in Lebanon, since November; second, the Arab League initiative called for forming a new government and that – the basis for that has also now been agreed in Doha; and third, the Arab initiative also asked that Lebanon’s electoral law be addressed.  And the Lebanese politicians gathered in Doha also agreed on that.

As you know, throughout this crisis, before, during it, and today and afterwards, the United States supports the legitimate authorities in Lebanon, including the government and its security establishment.  And we believe that the Government of Lebanon and the legitimate security forces of Lebanon should extend their authority over all the country.

We commend the efforts of the Arab League.  In particular, I would like to single out the diplomatic effort led by Qatar under the leadership of the Amir, and in particular of the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim.  They, together with the foreign ministers, six of them who comprised the Arab committee and the Secretary General of the Arab League, did a very good job under extremely difficult circumstances to forge this agreement.

Now, the next step is for it to be implemented.  We would like to see that done in its entirety.  As you know, this agreement has some – several provisions, including an important one related to security in addition to the political ones that I mentioned at the outset.  We believe this should be done in accordance with what the Arab League set out at the outset and in conformity with the Security Council resolutions for Lebanon.

Okay.  Those are the introductory comments I have to make, and I’m happy to address any of your questions about this.  We’re on the record, just to repeat.

QUESTION:  So then we shouldn’t expect much in the way of answers?  (Laughter.) 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Well, it depends.  You know, maybe you’ll get something.  If you look at it carefully, it might even surprise you. 

QUESTION:  David, is this the – sort of the best face you can put on it?  I mean, you’ve got an agreement that Iran and Syria immediately praised.  It nearly doubles the number of seats in parliament that the opposition will have and gives them effective veto power.  How can that be a necessary –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Doubles the number of seats in parliament?

QUESTION:  From --

QUESTION:  In the cabinet.

QUESTION:  In the cabinet, I mean. 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  In the government.  Mm-hmm. 

QUESTION:  From six to eleven.  I mean, how can this be necessary and positive from – for U.S. goals in the Mideast?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Well, look, let’s step back from this for a second.  First of all, there are a number of governments who’ve acclaimed this, and that Lebanon should move forward to resolve some of these political issues I think is really important.  And if Syria and Iran have supported that, then perhaps they will continue to exercise a more constructive role in Lebanon.  We would like to see that.  It would come as a bit of a surprise to us, but the results are what counts.

As you know, Lebanon had a cabinet that included members of the opposition until November of ’06.  They left because of political disagreements, and that escalated the difficulties that have arisen.  You know, we support the majority in this.  The majority agreed with this decision, and they comprise a majority of the seats in the new cabinet that will be formed.

You know, it’s not for us to decide how Lebanon does this, how Lebanon’s political leadership addresses it.  And the people of Lebanon will – when they do have a new parliamentary election in ’09, will have a chance to record their own views about this and other aspects of what their political leadership has done.

When there were members of the opposition in the cabinet, if they were members of Hezbollah, the United States did not have a relationship with them.  If there’s a new cabinet formed and it includes members of the opposition who are Hezbollahis, that’ll be the case in the future, too.  You know our views on Hezbollah.

QUESTION:  Can I follow up on that?  I mean, doesn't this set up a scenario where we’re bound to be at the same place in a few months if the Lebanese Government – if the opposition continues to veto some of the policies of the Lebanese Government, you’re just going to lead to a similar place again? 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Well, I don’t think so.  But of course, I can’t predict everything in the future.  Again, let’s look at what happened here.  I mean, there hasn’t been a president.  Now there will be one.  Second, the cabinet had been divided, as I said, since the walkout of members of the opposition.  Now there’s to be a new cabinet, which will comprise members of the opposition as well. 

I don’t know whether – I mean, most of you probably don’t know this, but the political tradition in Lebanon, when it comes to government decisions, is for consensus.  Most Lebanese politics are formed around that principle.  And it’s very difficult for Lebanese to get to consensus, but they generally hold to it once they can.  I think there were over 4,000 cabinet decisions for this cabinet when the opposition was in it, that were arrived at by consensus.  When – if you look at what would have likely been the result under some of the earlier proposals, this still gives to the majority in the cabinet, under this or any of the previous configurations, the right to take simple decisions by majority vote.  Traditionally, those have been accomplished by consensus.  But, yes, because there is a blocking minority, the minority is able to block major decisions if they seek to do so.

QUESTION:  Do you think this leaves Hezbollah in a stronger position now than it was previously?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Well, it’s – you know, some have argued that they are accomplishing political objectives by intimidation and violence.  I have to say that what happened on the 5th of May and thereafter is deeply disturbing in that respect.  I think most Lebanese people – I mean, average people reacted very badly to that.  As you can see, their public protests are not limited to political parties in Lebanon.  Many people in Lebanon are upset over the situation that has evolved, press and editorial commentary throughout the Arab world has been very critical of Hezbollah’s actions.

The veil of resistance was ripped off this organization on the 5th of May when it took up guns against innocent people, against press establishments, against other political parties.  You know, I – we have to see that for what it is, and I think the reaction to it has been extremely negative from most Lebanese and certainly throughout the region.  That’s why you saw this energized Arab diplomacy to address this.

Again, this is not the end of this crisis and Lebanon still has to go through implementing this agreement.  These are very delicate and political subjects for them and – however, I think we can go – we can see now that there could be a respite that would be very useful to heal some of these problems.  And at the end of the day, it’ll be up to Lebanese to judge whether they prefer politics as they saw it on the streets of Beirut on the days following the 5th of May, or whether they prefer a more consensual and traditional approach to it.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  Israel and Syria have launched indirect talks with the mediation of Turkey.  A couple of questions on that.  Was the U.S. involved in facilitating those talks?  Did you encourage Turkey to play the mediating role?  And what is the U.S. role in this?  And is this part of the Annapolis process and how do you see this going forward?  Are you looking at changing how you view Syria because of the this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  It’s our understanding that they’ve agreed to conduct some indirect talks under the auspices of Turkey.  There’s been a statement from the Prime Minister’s office in Israel.  And I gather, but I haven’t seen it, that there’s a similar, almost identical statement from the Syrian foreign ministry.  In those statements, the parties declared their intention to proceed in good faith in these conversations with an open mind, trying to achieve an agreement. 

Israel and Turkey have apprised us in the past of these discussions and kept us informed since their inception.  I think Turkey played a good and useful role in this regard.  You know, we have – we think the expansion of the circle of peace would be a good thing.  And, of course, it would be very, very helpful if that included an agreement with Syria.  That said, President Bush, during his – as recently as his trip to the region, declared that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians offer special promise, and we’re working to conclude an agreement by the end of the year on this.  Those parties are in direct negotiation.  So that’s what I have to say about that at this point.

QUESTION:  How was the U.S. involved at all?  Are you helping to facilitate these talks?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  No, Turkey played that role.  We’re, as you know, not – we haven’t done that directly between the two.  Turkey played a good role.  We were kept informed.  That’s where it is.

QUESTION:  But Syria did not inform you.  You said only Israel –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Israel and Turkey.

QUESTION:  – and Turkey.  You were not in consultations with Syria on that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Well, the Syrians made some statements to the press that were suggestive, but not very specific as this last one was.

QUESTION:  In the past –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Yes, please.

QUESTION:  On the issue of Hezbollah arms, how would you like to see it going from here?  And if a national unity government emerges, how would you like this issue to be handled by them?  And there is real fear that with the blocking third, maybe some decisions on the tribunal might be reversed or, you know, the tribunal for Hariri will not take progress as it was supposed to be.  I mean, how do you address these two issues?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH:  Well, those are very good questions and thank you for asking them.  First of all, let me be clear that there are – there’s an international standard in Security Council resolutions about what should happen with respect to weapons in the hands of militias or nongovernmental parties in Lebanon, and those are really explicit.  There should be only one legal authority for security in Lebanon and that is the Government of Lebanon and its security establishment.  Militias should be disarmed.  That’s in 1559 and it’s reflected in 1701 as well.

In the Doha agreement there are provisions that relate to the authority of the state and to the use of – or enjoining against the use of weapons to achieve political gains.  I don’t know if you all have seen the Doha agreement.  It’s actually got quite a bit of language on this issue.  And it says that the Lebanese have to address this.  That’s – that was the case with – in the past as well.  I think this is a really serious problem for Lebanon because it’s clear from the events of early May that the possession in the hands of one party of considerable military authority and power is deeply corrosive to open, transparent and fair politics.

And I think that the agreement that’s been reached is, in a way, a reaction to that and a setback for the Hezbollahis because now it has been inscribed again on the national agenda with some prominence that something has got to be done about this.  That doesn't mean it’s going to be resolved immediately.  I understand how difficult that is.  But let’s – the moral plane here has shifted back again.  And I think the people are pretty disgusted with what happened in early May, too. 

With respect to the tribunal, once the Security Council acted to establish the tribunal, it was game over with respect to any further decisions required.  The international investigation is proceeding.  The tribunal is available for action when the investigation is ripe to proceed to prosecution, and that is what I expect will happen.  I don’t see any further decisions that the Government of Lebanon would have to take in that respect.